harald-buijtendijk elementen binnenwerk corr

Propositions

1. Innovationisnotaboutcreatinganovelfuture,butaboutmaintainingthestatusquo.

(thisthesis)

2 Realinnovatorsshouldavoidthewordinnovation.

(thisthesis)

3 Thereisnotruthbeyondstories,yetstoriesareoftenfalse.

4 Keepingscientistsoutofpoliticsandpoliticiansoutofscienceultimatelybenefits both.

5 Changewithoutpainisanideathatpoliticianscansellquiteeasily,butthatisdifficulttoaccomplish.

6 Dissonantchordsmakegoodmusic.

Propositionsbelongingtothethesis,entitled

Bewareofchameleons–chameleonsbeware.Theproprietyofinnovationasaconceptfor

thecoordinationofnoveltyandchange.InsighsfromtheDutchoutboundtravelindustry

HaraldBuijtendijk

Wageningen,10June2021

Bewareofchameleons-chameleonsbewareTheproprietyofinnovationasaconceptforthecoordinationofnoveltyandchange

InsightsfromtheDutchoutboundtravelindustry

HaraldBuijtendijk

Thesiscommittee

Promotor

Prof.DrV.R.vanderDuim

PersonalProfessorattheCulturalGeographyGroup

WageningenUniversity&Research

Co-promotor

DrM.Duineveld

AssociateProfessorattheCulturalGeographyGroup

WageningenUniversity&Research

Othermembers

Prof.DrC.Leeuwis,WageningenUniversity&Research

Prof. Dr B. Hillebrand, Radboud University Nijmegen/Nyenrode Business Universiteit

Breukelen

DrF.R.Avelino,ErasmusUniversityRotterdam

DrR.Wesselink,WageningenUniversity&Research

ThisresearchwasconductedundertheauspicesoftheWageningenGraduateSchoolofSo-

cialSciences

Bewareofchameleons-chameleonsbewareTheproprietyofinnovationasaconceptforthecoordinationofnoveltyandchange

InsightsfromtheDutchoutboundtravelindustry

HaraldBuijtendijk

Thesis

submittedinfulfilmentoftherequirementsofthedegreeofdoctor

atWageningenUniversity

bytheauthorityoftheRectorMagnificus

Prof.DrA.P.J.Mol

inthepresenceofthe

ThesisCommitteeappointedbytheAcademicBoard

tobedefendedinpublic

onThursday10June2021

at11a.m.intheAula.

HaraldBuijtendijk

Bewareofchameleons–chameleonsbeware.Theproprietyof innovationasaconceptfor

thecoordinationofnoveltyandchange. Insights fromtheDutchoutboundtravel industry,

167pages

PhDthesis,WageningenUniversity,Wageningen,theNetherlands(2021)

Withreferences,withsummaryinEnglish

ISBN:978-94-6395-783-0

DOI:https://doi.org/10.18174/545568

ToRenskeandDoris,yourlovemadethispossible.

Chameleon

“A small slow-movingOldWorld lizardwithaprehensile tail, longextensible tongue,pro-

truding eyes that rotate independently, and a highly developed ability to change colour.”

(OxfordDictionary,n.d.)

“Thebullshittermaynotdeceiveus,orevenintendtodoso,eitheraboutthefactsorwhat

hetakesthefactstobe.Whathedoesnecessarilyattempttodeceiveusaboutishisenter-

prise.Hisonlyindispensablecharacteristicisthatinacertainwayhemisrepresentswhathe

isupto.”(Frankfurt,1929,p.54)

“Writersarealwayssellingsomebodyout.”(Didion,1969,p.xiv)

ix

Tableofcontents

1. Introduction 11

1.1. ChangesandinnovationintheDutchoutboundtravelindustry 14

1.2. Literaturereview 17

1.3. Problemstatement 22

1.4. Analyticalframework 24

1.5. Methods 27

2. TheMachine 31

2.1. Introduction 33

2.2. Actor-networktheoryandeco-innovation 34

2.3. Methods 40

2.4. Casestudy–CARMACALandtheDutchoutboundtravelindustry 44

2.5. Conclusionanddiscussion 54

3. TheExpert 59


3.2. Discoursetheoryandascience-policygapinsustainabletourismresearch 62

3.3. Casestudy:sustainabletourismresearchinDutchaviationpolicymaking 66

3.4. Discussion 79

3.5. Conclusion 82

4. TheFirm 85


4.2. Theoreticalframework 90

4.3. Methods 91

4.4. Case:innovationinTUIBenelux 95

4.5. Analysis:InnovationasaconceptinTUIBenelux 102

4.6. Conclusionanddiscussion 107

5. Conclusion,discussion,andimplications 113


5.2. Conclusion 116

5.3. Discussion 119

5.4. Implications:bewareofchameleons–chameleonsbeware 126

References 135

x

Summary 155

Samenvatting 159

Acknowledgements 163

Acknowledgementsoffinancialsupport 167

Listoftablesandfigures

Table1-1Casestudyoverview 29Table2-1Interviewsandrespondents 43Table3-1Commissionedresults(selection2018-2019). 76Table4-1Observedinnovationunitevents 93Table4-2Interviewsandrespondents 94

Figure2-1Frameworkforanalysingeco-innovations 38Figure2-2Casestudydesign 41Figure2-3Examplecarbonlabel 48Figure2-4Eco-efficiencyscatterplotofdestination. 50Figure2-5CarbonmanagementapproachesinCARMACAL 56Figure3-1Objectformationdynamics 71Figure3-2MinistervanNieuwenhuizen-Wijbengasupportingpromisingnewtechnology 82Figure4-1The'innovationengine' 99

13

Change.Itisorganicandconstant.Often,changeoperatesinsubtleandmysteriousways:it

simplyescapeshumanawareness.Whenchangedoesgetnoticed, itbecomespartofdis-

courses:autonomousandnecessarilyincompleteprocessesofmeaningproductionthatare

producedandreproducedthroughidentifiablepractices(Hajer,2005;Howarth,2000).Once

changeispartofdiscourses,itbeginsitssocialexistenceaspartofareality.Ingoodtimes,

changeseemstolimititselftodiscoursesofhistorians,whotracechangeinretrospect.But

duringspellsofdisorder (suchas crises,naturaldisasters,pandemics), changeand related

discourses become more pronounced (Duineveld, Van Assche, & Beunen, 2017). Shock

events,afterall, tendtoexposetheweaknessesor limitsofestablishedstructures,andas

communications relating to these increase, people can become more aware of certain

changes.Newdiscourses can emerge thatmake establisheddiscourses less prominent. In

theirwake, dramausually unfolds as interpretationsof changediffer betweendiscourses.

Conditionedattempts tomaintain thestatusquocomehead-to-headwitheagerclaimsof

newdawns.Regardlessof theoutcomeof thesediscursive clashes, changealways finds a

way. It is the inevitableevolutionofall that seemspermanent:an interminglingofnature

andfatethatlacksarulebook.

ThisPhDthesis isaboutaparticularhumanpreoccupationwithchangethat iscurrently in

fashionandhasbeenforthelastsixtyyearsorso:innovation.Unlikechange,innovationisa

deliberate, human-made attempt to create novelty (andmanipulate change). Innovation,

Godin (2015) argues, is presented as the solution to every problem and it has become a

symbolofmodernsociety.Thetermfunctionsasa“criterionofjudgement”(Godin2015.p.

3):innovationisinherentlygoodandactorsinbusiness,policy,andscienceactinthename

ofinnovationwithoutmuchreflection.Someportrayinnovationasauniversalcuretoheal

theworld;othersarguethatinnovationhasbecomeanendinitself(Bontems,2014).Inthis

thesis I intendtoexaminethecurrentlyunquestionedbelief in innovation.Movingbeyond

mainstreamdiscussionsaboutthemeansandends,measurement,andmanagementof in-

novationanditsimplementationinorganisations,Iseektoexplorewhathappenswhenor-

ganisations use discourses on innovation. To accommodate this alternative perspective, I

defineinnovationinbroadterms:itisaconceptthatpeopleusetodescribeandcoordinate

(their)attemptstocreatehuman-madenovelty,usuallyinresponsetoaperceivedchangeof

somekind(Godin,2015).

14

Toinvestigatediscoursesoninnovationfromup-close,Itakeacloserlookathowinnovation

isusedinaparticularsetting:theDutchoutboundtravelindustry.Thisindustry,aswehave

seeninthepastyearsandparticularlyatpresent,isveryreceptivetoexternalshocks(NRIT

Media,CBS,NBTCHollandMarketing,&CELTH,2020;2019;2018;2017).Atthesametime,

its recenthistory shows an increasing interest, engagement, andeven fascinationwith its

own (lack of) innovation (see e.g. Beulink, Dijkmans, Erdkamp, Lier, & Mensink, 2012;

Capgemini,2015;Reiswerk,2015a;Schreurs,2020).This raisesquestionsabout theuseof

innovationintheDutchoutboundtravelindustry.

1.1. ChangesandinnovationintheDutchoutboundtravelindustry

AlsopriortotheCovid-19pandemic1, changehasbeenacentralelementofDutchoutbound

travelindustrydiscourse.Twomanifestationsofchangehavebeenparticularlyprominent.

Thefirstonedealswiththebusinessof(re)sellingholidayproducts. InEurope,touropera-

torsandtheirnetworkoftravelagentshavehistoricallycontrolledproductsupply,directing

touristflowstodestinations(seee.g.Aguiló,Alegre,&Sard,2003;Medina-Muñoz,Medina-

Muñoz, & Garćia-Falcón, 2003). Recent advancements in information and communication

technologies(ICTs)haveincreasedmarkettransparencyandprogressivelyempoweredholi-

daymakers (see Law, Buhalis, & Cobanoglu, 2014). ICT companies like Airbnb and book-

ing.comoffernewproductsandonlinedistributionchannels(Buhalisetal.,2019).Thedom-

inantmiddlemanpositionoftravelindustryincumbentsisnolongerself-evident.

Thesecondconcernstheincreasedawarenessoftheglobalcontributionofthisindustryto

climate change given tourism’s growingdependenceon air transport (Gössling, Broderick,

Uphametal.,2007;UNWTO,UNEP,&WMO,2008).Withinthegeneraldebateontourism

andsustainability(seeBuckley,2012;Sharpley,2020),discussionsabouttourism’scontribu-

tiontoglobalwarminghavegainedprominence(seeGössling,Hall,&Peetersetal.,2010;

Gössling,2002;Peeters,2017).Thesustainabilityeffortsof(European)outboundtouropera-

torshavehistoricallyfocusedonthecreationofpositiveimpactsin(long-haul)destinations

in developing countries (see e.g. VanWijk, 2009), a strategy that is at oddswith climate

changemitigation(Peeters&Eijgelaar,2014).

1SeeGössling,Scott,andHall,2020foracriticalassessmentofCOVID-19andrelatedglobaltravelbans.

15

Despite all this, the outbound travel of the Dutch (population 17million) has been good

businessfordecadesandoptimismaboutthefutureprevailed inthe industry. In2018,for

instance,theDutchconsumed22.1millionholidaysthatamountedto15billionEuros;the

industrydirectlyemployed27,000people;and itsgrowthhadbeensteady for threeyears

(NRITMedia,CBS,NBTCHollandMarketing,&CELTH,2019).Whentimesaregood,people

canaffordtolookbackattheirearlierwork.Inearly2020,theDutchAssociationofTravel

AgentsandTourOperators(ANVR),thetradeassociationofapproximately400touropera-

torsand1000travelagents(ANVR,2020),co-publishedabookletaboutthesector’shistory.

Amongthelistedmilestones:ANVR’sownestablishment(1966)aswellastheestablishment

ofReiswerk(1998),anexpertisecentrecloselyaffiliatedwithANVR(Schreurs,2020).Good

times,however frail theyare in the faceofever-uncertain futures,seemto invitecelebra-

tionsofpastaccomplishments.Afewyearsearlier,themoodwasdifferent.

1.1.1. Theoutboundtravelindustryreflectingonitsownfuture

In2015,whenIbeganmyexplorationsintheDutchoutboundtravelindustry,businesshad

justbeguntorecover fromthe2007-2008global financialcrisis.Thishad impactedthe in-

dustrylikeashockevent(seeDuineveldetal.,2017):bookingvolumesdeclined(customers

bookedtheirholidayslaterornotatall),cashflowproblemsemerged,andtheprocurement

ofproductstockhampered(cf.ANVR,2012;2011;2010;2009a;2009b).Severaltouropera-

torsandtravelagencies,suchasthetouroperatorOAD,wentbankrupt(ANVR,2013;ANVR,

2009b).Attheheightofthecrisis(2013-2014)theindustrydirectlyemployed21,000people

compared to 27,000 people in 2018 (NRITMedia et al., 2019). In 2015, growth returned

(ANVR&Capgemini,2015)buttheANVRalsorealisedthatsomeofthechangeinitiallyat-

tributedtothecrisiswaspermanentandrequiredaction.

Duringthosecrisisyears,ANVRandReiswerktookanactiveinterestintheindustry’sfuture.

Differentexpertsenteredthescene.Avisiondocumentwascommissioned–Beulinketal.,

2012 – followed by a research agenda for the Dutch outbound travel industry: Reiswerk,

2015a.Thisreportpresentedfiveprioritisedthemesofchange, includingsustainabilityand

competition& technology. In2014,ANVR joined researchprogrammeandplatformShop-

ping2020(INretail&NRW,2014)andlaunchedasimilarresearchprogrammeandplatform

inpartnershipwithCapgemini,namedTravelTomorrow(ANVR,2015;2014).Morecommis-

sioned reports followed (see e.g. Capgemini, 2015; Cherrylab, 2016). ANVR and Reiswerk

16

hostedeventswherebusinessconsultants,managementgurus,andfuturologistspresented

future outlooks (see e.g. ANVR& Capgemini, 2015; Reiswerk, 2015b). In 2017, ANVR ap-

pointedaspecialprofessorof‘innovationintourism’(ANVR,2017)whodeliveredhisinau-

guralspeech–Hillebrand(2018)–oneyear later.Changingthefutureof the industryhad

becomeanaspiration;thefuturesomethingthatcanbeknown,andthat–accordingtothe-

seexperts–canbecreated.

1.1.2. Ajumpintotherabbithole

Tofamiliarisemyselfwithinterpretationsofchangeintheindustry,Ireadthesereportsand

attendedsomeoftheevents.HereIcameacrossdominantdiscoursesthatpromotedinno-

vation.ItslanguagewaslacedwithjargonandEnglishlanguagebusinessadministrationidi-

om (even though the readership was decidedly Dutch). Capgemini’s consultants, for in-

stance,talkedof“digitaltransformation”;“flexibleresponsiveculture”,and“massivetrans-

formative purpose”. Truisms and buzzwords were common too, like “never fail to fail”

(ANVR&Capgemini,2015;Reiswerk,2015b).AndtherewerestatementsthatIinterpreted

asmasculine and tough: “digital production disruption is bigger, stronger, faster”, “weak-

nessesmustbeexposedandtakenadvantageof”,“oldwaysofdoingthingsaretornapart”

(ANVR&Capgemini,2015).“Strikeforceguidingprinciples”wererequiredtocopewiththe

“tsunamiofnewdevelopments”(Reiswerk,2015b).Innovationseemedaquasi-military,de-

structiveaffairofAnglo-Saxonorigintome.

Thediscourses on innovation perplexedme. They promoted innovation in absolute terms

but justificationsfortheproposedcourseofactionwererarelyoffered.Theword ‘innova-

tion’dominatedinallaforementioneddocuments(Beulinketal.2012-7times;Capgemini,

2015 - 31 times;Hillebrand, 2018 - 65 times). Itwasdepicted as a self-explanatorynoun,

verb,and/oradjective.Noneof these textsofferedanexplicitdefinitionof innovationbut

instead theyexplained the term indirectly (seee.g. Beulink et al., 2012;Capgemini, 2015;

Cherrylab,2016;Hillebrand,2018).Innovationwassaidtobeabouttheintroductionofnew

products, services, distribution channels and technologies to create functioning value-

propositions(Hillebrand,2018),andaboutfundamentallychangingthewaysofdoingbusi-

ness(Capgemini,2015). Itrequired,accordingtoCapgemini (2015,p.161), thecreationof

innovation labs that investigate promising businessmodels andmarket opportunities; the

purchasingofsmallermarketplayersfortheirexpertise;thebuildingofacompanyculture

17

withan“entrepreneurialmindset”; thestimulationof“creative ideaswithcommercialpo-

tential”; and the installationof “dedicatedproject teams”. Rarelyhad I comeacross texts

thatpromotedinnovationinsuchabsoluteterms:themoreinnovation,themerrier,radical

innovationbeingtheultimateform(Capgemini,2015;Hillebrand,2018).

Theindustryandindustry-affiliatedacademicattentionfullyfocusedonthepracticalaspects

of innovation in organisations. In its research agenda, Reiswerk (2015a) asked for studies

examining the implementation of innovation in tourism supply chains. Hillebrand (2018)

highlightedthe importanceof researchingthe interrelationsbetween innovating firmsand

theirenvironment.Hecalledforguidelinesthathelpfirmsinaddressingtheobstaclesthey

encounterwheninnovatingincollaborationwith(thefirm’s)stakeholders.Buthowcanthe

proponentsof innovationbe so sure about its inherentbenefits?What about the risksof

innovation?ThepictureCapgemini(2015)paintedsuggeststhatinnovationrequiresconsid-

erableinvestments.Hillebrand(2018)pointedoutthatinnovationchangestheenvironment

ofthefirm.Isitasensiblechoiceforfirms–presumablyestablishedorganisations–tomake

investmentsthatchangetheirenvironmentandfinanciallycommitthemselvestomoreun-

certaintyinthefaceofchange?Isthatintheinterestoftheirshareholdersorowners?

These discourses took the idea of innovation for granted. Innovation seemed to be the

buzzword of the day, revolving around technology and ecommerce enterprise. The afore-

mentioned industry reports and presentations are lacedwith examples and claims about

innovation,butrarelyoffersubstantiatingevidenceorarationaleofsomekind.Atindustry

events,duringpresentations,Irememberscanningthefacesofthepeopleintheaudience,

lookingforareaction.Didtheyallknowwhatinnovationis,whyitisimportant,andhowitis

used?WasItheonlyonewhofeltlost,theonlyonewholookedforexplanationsinaplace

thatofferednone?

1.2. Literaturereview

Tobetterunderstandthisinterpretationofinnovationandtofindouthowitrelatestoaca-

demicliteratureoninnovation,Iturntotechnologicalinnovationliteratureandresearchon

innovation in tourism studies literature (hereafter referred to as tourism innovation re-

search).The literatureontechnological innovation isrelevantherebecausethe innovation

discoursesIencounteredearlierfrequentlyrefertothisliterature(seee.g.Capgemini,2015;

Hillebrand,2018).Tourisminnovationresearchisrelevantbecauseitshapestheunderstand-

18

ingofinnovationinthedomainoftourism–thesubjectofthisthesis.Next,Iwillreviewtwo

maineconomictraditionsthathavestudiedtechnologicalinnovation,beforeturningtotour-

isminnovationresearch.Iconcludetheparagraphwithaclarificationofmytheoreticalposi-

tion.

1.2.1. Thefirsttraditioninthetechnologicalinnovationliterature

Thefirsttraditionwithintechnologicalinnovationliterature(>1930s),Godin(2012)explains,

understandstechnologicalinnovationastechnologicalchange.Interestfocusesontheintro-

ductionofnewtechnologiesin(large)firmsandindustries(manufacturing).Primeconcerns

are unemployment and productivity. The conceptual framework comprises neo-classical

economics(price,equilibrium)andeconometrics.Thereislimitedattentionforpolicy.

JosephSchumpeter’sworkispartofthisfirsttradition.Schumpetersawinnovationasnew

combinationsofexistingknowledgeand resources thatdrivecontinuous social, economic,

and institutional transformations (Fagerberg, Fosaas, & Sappraser, 2012). Innovation, to

Schumpeter,wasasourceofenergyintheeconomicsystemthatwoulddisruptanyequilib-

rium(Fagerberg&Verspagen,2009).His initial focuswasonthe interactionbetween indi-

viduals(‘entrepreneurs’)andtheirsurroundings.Theroleoftheentrepreneurwastointro-

duce novelty in firms and industries, for instance by overcoming resistance to change

(Fagerbergetal.,2012):entrepreneurscombine,adopt,and imitate, i.e.bycopyingnovel-

tiesfromelsewhere.TheSchumpeterianentrepreneurdidnotonlyfocuson(new)technol-

ogies:methods,formsoforganisation,sourcesofsupply,andmarketsthatarenewtoapar-

ticularfirmorindustrywereofinteresttoo(Godin,2015).

Duringhisdays,Schumpeterwasabitofanoutsiderandinthe1950s–thedecadeafterhis

death–Schumpeter’s ideasabout innovationwereconsidereda lost cause (Godin,2012).

Econometricsandequilibriumstudiesdominatedtheliterature;quantificationsthatSchum-

peter had always considered of limited use in advancing knowledge about economic and

social change (Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009). Schumpeter would only gain fame posthu-

mously(Godin,2010;2008).Muchlater,inthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury,hewasselec-

tively rebranded as the frontrunner ofwhatGodin (2012) depicts as the second tradition

(seee.g.Fagerberg,2003).

19

1.2.2. Thesecondtraditioninthetechnologicalinnovationliterature

Thesecondtradition(>1960s)developedlargelyseparatedfromthefirsttradition.Itshifted

focusfromproductivitytothemarketandmainlystudiestechnological innovationascom-

mercialisedinvention.Keyinterestsareproductandprocessinnovation.Unlikethefirsttra-

dition,itaddressespolicyaspectsbycontendingthatgovernmentsshouldplayaroleinim-

provingfirmperformance(Godin,2012).Thisliteratureisdescriptiveratherthaneconomet-

rical as econometrics and equilibrium approaches had fallen out of fashion in the 1960s;

theirexplanatorypowerwasconsideredlimited(Fagerberg&Verspagen,2009).Thesecond

traditiondevelopedintowhatreviewarticlesgenerallypresentasthefieldof(technological)

innovation studies: TIS (Godin, 2012). As Fagerberg and Verspagen (2009) explain, TIS

emergedfromtheColdWardoctrineintheUnitedStates:USglobal(economic)dominance

requiredtechnologicalsupremacy.Initialresearchthereforefocusedontechnology,thefac-

torsaffectingsuccessandfailure inResearch&Development (withaprime interest inthe

roleofscience),andthedisseminationofinnovations(centralwasRoger’s1962book,enti-

tledDiffusionofInnovations).Fromthe1970sonwards,thesecondtraditionhasdeveloped

mainlyinEurope(Fagerberg&Verspagen,2009).

Important to thisexpansionwas theworkofChristopherFreeman,but therewereothers

too(seeMartin,2012).AsGodin(2012)explains,toFreeman,innovationwasnotaboutthe

useoftechnologicalinventionsin(industrial)production,butaboutthecommercialisationof

technological inventions for consumers and firms (so products and processes). Freeman’s

book, entitledThe Economics of Industrial Innovation, and thework of the Science Policy

ResearchUnit (SPRU)– ledby Freeman–havebeen influential in shaping the fieldof TIS

(Fagerbergetal.,2012;Martin,2012).Freeman’sbookofferedanoverviewofknowledgeon

innovationaspects(Fagerbergetal.,2012).SPRUdevelopedmaster’sandPhDprogrammes

andhas functionedas rolemodel:manysimilarorganisationshavesincebeenestablished

across Europe (Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009). An extensive literature has since emerged

that studies how innovation takes place, its prime explanatory factors, and implications

(Fagerberg et al., 2012). Three characteristics, explained next, illustrate this field (Godin,

2012):theprominentpositionofSchumpeterandhiswork;firm-centeredness;anda(relat-

ed)preoccupationwithpolicy.

20

TIS claimed Schumpeter as a sort of ancestral scholarly father. The field did not need

Schumpetertodiscussmanyoftheissuesthatoccupiedthefield:particularlythecommer-

cialisationof technological invention (Godin, 2012).Unlike the first tradition (neo-classical

economics), the second tradition lacked a conceptual framework of its own. Schumpeter

servedtofill thisvoid(Godin,2012).TISreviewarticlesgenerallypresentSchumpeterasa

keyfigureintheacademicfield(seee.g.Fagerbergetal.,2012;Martin,2012).Inthislitera-

ture, there are few references to publications on innovation prior to 1960, apart from

Schumpeter’swork(Fagerberg&Verspagen,2009).Schumpeter’sideas,suchasthedefini-

tion of innovation as new combinations of existing knowledge and resources; the inven-

tion/innovationdistinction;andclassificationsof innovationaccording to typeand radical-

ness of impact, were selectively rehabilitated (see e.g. Fagerberg et al., 2012; Fagerberg,

2003).Theywereplacedwithinamarketframe.AsGodin(2012)argues,Schumpeterdidnot

analyse innovation in terms of commercialisation. TIS, thus, has iconised Schumpeter.

Viewed in this way, Schumpeter’s prolonged existence in innovation research is arguably

self-perpetuating.

Firm-centeredness–thesecondcharacteristic–isevident,forinstance,intheevolutionary

(orneo-Schumpeterian)economics framework thathasemergedsince the1980s (seee.g.

Fagerberg, 2003). Evolutionary economics argues that innovation is central to economic

growthbecauseitgeneratesnewproductsandthereforeprovidesthefoundationforfirms

tocompete.Marketsofferaselectionmechanism;routineswithinfirmsinfluencetheirabil-

itytodevelopnewproducts(Martin,2012).Afirm’sknowledgeandabsorptivecapacityare

deemed critical to the exploitation of external resources of knowledge and innovation

(Fagerbergetal.,2012).Inevolutionaryeconomics,thefirmhasreplacedSchumpeter’sen-

trepreneurasthesourceofinnovation.Thescopeofinnovationhasnarrowedtocommer-

cialisation(Godin,2012),i.e.totheinterplaybetweentechnologyandmarketdemand(see

e.g.DiStefano,Gambardella,&Verona,2012).Evolutionaryeconomicshasledtoafurther

revivalofSchumpeter’sideasinthe1990s(Fagerberg&Verspagen,2009;Fagerberg,2003;

Martin2012),particularlyinrelationtothethirdcharacteristic:thepolicydomain.

TIS always had an attractive proposition for policymakers that supported governments in

maximisingthebenefitsoftechnologicalinnovation(Godin,2012).Newproductswereem-

phasised as source of employment (rather than new technologies improving industrial

21

productivity:asourceofunemployment).Technologywaspresentedasasourceofeconom-

icgrowth:policymakersshouldthereforesupporttheinnovators(firms);sciencewasthere

tosupportgovernments inmaximisingthebenefitsoftechnological innovation.This isevi-

dent,forinstance,intheliteratureaboutFreeman’sframeworkofNationalInnovationSys-

temsthatexaminesthefactorsinfluencingacountry’sinnovationandgrowthperformance

(Fagerbergetal.,2012).TIShasbecomehegemonicwithinthesciencesbecauseofthispoli-

cyfocus(Godin,2012).AffiliationsbetweenthefieldandpolicyorganisationssuchasOECD

have always been close: governments have come to understand innovation as new, com-

mercialisedtechnology.

1.2.3. Tourisminnovationresearch

Tourisminnovationresearchhasstartedinearnestattheturnofthecentury,whenHjalager

(2002)outlinedcommoninnovationconceptsandtheirpotentialfortourismstudies.Asiza-

bleliteratureoninnovationintourismhassincedeveloped.AsIwillshownext,tourismin-

novationresearchinitiallydrewheavily–butsomewhatimplicitly(Hjalager,2010)–onTIS.

In terms of focus, competitiveness and growth are also central to tourism innovation re-

search(seee.g.Hall&Williams,2019;Hjalager,2010;Marascoetal.,2018;Ormerzel,2016;

Pikkemaatetal.,2019;Teixeira&Ferreira,2018).Tourisminnovationresearch–againlike

TIS – is predominantly firm-centred, focusing on tourism/hospitality firms and their envi-

ronment (see e.g.Marasco et al., 2018; Ormerzel, 2016). To include tourist destinations,

tourism innovationresearchalsorelates innovationtoeconomicactivity inspecific territo-

ries(seee.g.Hall&Williams,2019;Teixeira&Ferreira,2018),reminiscentofFreeman’sNa-

tionalInnovationSystemsframework(Fagerbergetal.,2012).

Tourisminnovationresearchalsodrawsontheoriesandanalyticalframeworksdevelopedin

TIS, includingtheworkofFreemanandRogers,butthereareotherexamplestoo(seee.g.

Hjalager,2010;2002;Pikkemaatetal.,2019).SimilartoTIS,Schumpeter’sworkiscentralto

tourism innovationresearch. It tracestheconcepttotheearly theoreticalcontributionsof

Schumpeter(seee.g.Hjalager,2010;2002;Ormerzel,2016;Pikkemaatetal.,2019). Italso

reproduces different, usually neo-Schumpeterian interpretations of Schumpeter’s ideas,

including (neo-) Schumpeterian innovation definitions such as the one provided by OECD

and Eurostat (2018) (see e.g. Pikkemaat et al., 2019); the innovation/inventiondistinction

(Hjalager 2010, 2002); (loose) interpretations of Schumpeter’s innovation classifications

22

(Hjalager,2002;Ormerzel,2016;Pikkemaatetal.,2019);andtheroleofSchumpeter’sen-

trepreneur as an innovator and creator of new markets and products (Pikkemaat et al.,

2019;Hjalager,2010). Thus, tourism innovation researchhas largely ignored the first eco-

nomictraditionofstudyingtechnologicalinnovationandhasmirroredTISinitsadoptionof

innovationascommercialised invention.But ithasalsostruggledwith this imported inter-

pretation.

The argument, as observed byMontresor (2018), is as follows. The tourism industry – in

comparison tomanufacturingandother services–has specific characteristics thatcompli-

cate innovation. These include the prevalence of small enterprises; high staff turnover; a

poorlytrainedworkforce; lowwagesandproductivity; lackofcollaborationbecauseofthe

associatedrisksoffreeriding,andsoon(seee.g.Hjalager2010;Ormerzel,2016).Thecentral

theoriesandanalyticalframeworksadoptedfrominnovationstudies–afieldviewedasbe-

ing primarily concernedwithmanufacturing and high-tech industries – are therefore only

partiallysuitabletoaccountforthepeculiaritiesoftourismvis-à-vismanufacturingandoth-

erservices(Hall&Williams,2019;Hjalager,2010;Ormerzel,2016;Pikkemaatetal.,2019).

Equippedwith thisargument, tourism innovation researchhasembarkedonaquest fora

tailored approach to innovation in tourism (Hjalager, 2002; Hjalager, 2010). In doing so,

Montresor(2018)argues,ithasdepartedsignificantlyfromkeyaspectsoftheimportedin-

novationtheories,butwithoutconsideringthedeeperimplicationsofthesetheories.Inoth-

erwords, rather than investigatingthesetheoriesandtheirorigins, tourism innovationre-

searchhasfocusedonfindingcustomisedwaysofunderstandingandmeasuringinnovation

ascommercialisedinventionintourism.

1.3. Problemstatement

The rise of the second tradition in the technological innovation literature – commonly

knownastechnologicalinnovationstudies(TIS)–hasalteredandnarrowedtheinterpreta-

tionof technological innovation: innovationas technological changehasbeen confined to

innovation as commercialised invention (Godin, 2012).As it drawsheavily onTIS, tourism

innovationresearchhaslargelymirroredthisnarrowedinterpretationofinnovation,andhas

arguablystruggledwithitsince.

TISandtourisminnovationresearchalsoshareanunquestionedbeliefinthemeritsofinno-

vation.Theformerhasalwaysgoneeasyonplatitudesaboutthebenefitsofinnovationfor

23

growth,employment,andcompetitiveness(seee.g.Godin,2012).Thelattertoohaswidely

acceptedinnovationaspivotal,amongothers, inachievinggrowth, inhelpingmanagersto

identifyopportunitiesandavoidcompetitivethreats,andinthepursuitoflong-termsuccess

andimprovedbusinessperformance(seee.g.Ormerzel,2016;Pikkemaatetal.,2019).Both

literaturesfocusonthemeansandends,measurement,andmanagementofinnovationand

its implementation in organisations: the current dominant interpretation of innovation as

commercialisedtechnologyhastraditionallybeenseenasagiven.

Recently,concernshavebeenraisedbutthesepertaintothepurposeofinnovation.InTIS,

Martin(2016)critiquesthefield’sbiastowardscertaintypesofinnovation(high-tech)andits

dominanteconomicrationale(dated).Spin-off literatureshaveemergedthatscrutinisethe

currenteconomicand/ortechnologicalfixationofinnovation.Thesespin-offspromotevari-

ousalternativeacronymsandlabelsofinnovation–i.e.eco-innovation;responsibleinnova-

tion; and social innovation – asmeans to address contemporary sustainability challenges

(seee.g.Hellstrom,2003;Soete,2013;Lechevalier,2019).Tourisminnovationresearchhas

pickedupsomeoftheselabels.Pikkemaatetal.(2019),forinstance,seeeco-innovationas

an emerging field that should identify the drivers enabling sustainable innovations. These

spin-off literaturesdiffer frommainstream innovation researchon thepurposeof innova-

tion,i.e.thesubjectoftheproblemsthatinnovationshouldaddress.Theydohowevershare

theunquestionedfaithin innovationasaproblemsolverthat iscentraltothemainstream

innovationliterature:innovation–theconceptitself–israrelydisputed.

Noneofthereviewedliteratureshaveaddressed,fullon,theuseandusefulnessofthecon-

ceptofinnovationitself,i.e.theproprietyofinnovationasastrategyfor(tourism)organisa-

tionstocoordinateattemptstocreatenoveltyinresponsetoperceivedchanges.Empirical

inquiriesthatexaminetheuseandeffectsof innovationandthatrefrain fromtheupfront

positioningof itsaspiredpurposearescarce(seee.g.Kooij,VanAssche,&Lagendijk,2012

foranotableexception). Inquiriesthatde-frameinnovation, i.e.movebeyondtheunques-

tionedfaithinitsrightness,andthatlookatwhathappenswhenorganisationsusediscours-

esoninnovation,areinmyviewrelevant.Intourismandbeyond,theycanhelpinidentify-

ing and considering alternatives (Barba Lata, 2017), other conditions of possibility (ideas

aboutnovelty,thevalueofitsuses,andrelatedinterpretationsofchange),tothepathsad-

vocatedbythosegatheringundertheinnovationbanner.

24

Inanswertocallsfromphilosophersofscienceandtechnologyforanopeningupofthecon-

ceptofinnovationandreflectonaconceptthatisbetterequippedtoaddresscontemporary

sustainabilitychallenges(seee.g.Blok,2018b;Long&Blok,2017),thisthesisthereforeaims

tostudytheuseandeffectsofthediscourseoninnovationintourism.Tothisend,Ipropose

ananalyticalframeworkthataccommodatesthede-framingofinnovationandthatsetsup

theresearchquestionofthisthesis.Iintroducethisframeworknext.

1.4. Analyticalframework

Theanalyticalframeworkoutlinednextmakesitpossibletodetachinnovation–theterm–

fromcurrent(dominant) interpretations.Itdoessobyrefrainingfromaprioriassumptions

about innovation’s allegedpurposeand characteristics (Law,1992). Instead, theproposed

framework considers innovation in broad terms, as a collective, coordinated response to

particular, perceivedmanifestations of change. It views innovation – and its central tenet

‘inventiveness’ – as an inherent feature of all organisational practices (Barba Lata, 2017),

regardlessof their scale, thatacquiresmeaningand shapeover timeasactorsattempt to

understand,act,andreactinthefaceofperceivedchange.

TheproposedanalyticalframeworkispremisedoninsightsgainedfromActor-NetworkThe-

ory(Latour,2005),DiscourseTheory(Howarth,2000),andEvolutionaryGovernanceTheory

(VanAssche,Beunen,&Duineveld,2014),asalsoelaboratedinchapters2,3,and4.Acen-

tral characteristic of these theories adopted in the framework is the tendency to explain

interactionsbetweenmaterialandsocialworldswiththehelpofanintegratedontologyand

epistemology,asdiscussednext.

An integrated ontology and epistemology assumes that what is real cannot be separated

fromwhat is known (Law, 2007).Materiality – physical elements, matter, and substance

extendingbeyondthesocialandconstitutingitsenvironment–exists(isreal),butcannotbe

objectivelyverified(known).Theproductionofmeaningisalwaysselectiveandnecessarily

incomplete (Howarth,2000).Withasingle,absolute realitypermanentlyoutof reach,dis-

tinctionsbetweensocialandmaterialworldsaredifficult todissect,and– in theperspec-

tivesof aforementioned theories – analytically irrelevant.What remains, instead, areper-

formedrealities,distinctandcontinuously(re)producedinterpretationsandrepresentations

ofmaterialityand(other)socialelements.

25

Interactionsbetweenmaterialityandsocialworldsaremanifoldandresultfromthewaysin

whichdifferentpeopleandorganisationsobserveandevaluatetheirenvironments(Duine-

veldetal.,2017).Somematerialitiesremainundetectedordonotmakeadifference.Oth-

ers,Duineveldetal.(2017)explain,changetheperceivedenvironmentofpeopleandorgan-

isations and evoke responses. In these situations, innovation comes into play. Discourses

emerge about moves forward, desirable futures, and coordination (Van Assche, Beunen,

Duineveld,&Gruezmacher,2020).Theyincludeideasabouttheidentitiesofactorsandtheir

goalsandactions.Thesediscourses,accordingtoVanAsscheetal.(2020),offernovelunder-

standingsthatareinherentlypersuasive,enticingpeopletoactinrelationtoparticularsocial

ormaterialelementsembeddedinthediscourse.Theseactionscaninturnaffectmateriali-

ties and other, rivalling discourses, creating ongoing evolution (Van Assche et al., 2014).

Viewedinthisway,innovationisacollectiveandcontinuousresponsetochangethatcom-

prisesandentwinesmaterialanddiscursivedimensions.

To examine the functioning of innovation as response to change in the Dutch outbound

travel industry, IadopttwonotionsfromEvolutionaryGovernanceTheory:materialevents

(Duineveldetal.,2017)andrealityeffects(VanAsscheetal.,2020;2014).

Material events (hereafter referred to as events) are the relations between (a particular)

changingmaterialityandtheconstructionofinterpretationsandresponsesthroughdistinct

organisationalpracticesembeddedindifferentdiscourses(Duineveldetal.,2017).Onlyun-

observed or unrecognisedmaterial change lacks a social existence: it is, Duineveld et al.

(2017)explain,imaginedatbest.Oncenoticed,materialchangeentersrealityasthesubject

ofdifferent interpretations. Identifiedtemperaturechanges,for instance,canbecomepart

of climate change discourses that expose the aviation-dependency of tourism, triggering

resistance and inspiring people to look for alternatives. Likewise, business discourses pre-

senting novel technologies as disruptions can provoke incumbents to adjust or reinforce

theiroperational routines.Someevents,Duineveldetal. (2017)explain, linger in theback

anddonot lead to action,whileothersbecomemore vigorousover timeandhavewide-

spread implications.Thenotionofevents isusefulherebecause ithighlights that ‘change’

evolvesthroughinterplaybetweenmaterialandsocialworlds.Thismakesitpossibletofree

innovation from its acquired commercial and technological connotations. Innovation can

26

nowbeinvestigatedasaconstructthatcanemergeandgathermeaninginsituationswhen

differentactorscoordinateresponsestoaperceivedchangeofsomekind.

Realityeffectsareredefinitionsofrealitiesthatcanbelinkedtothecoordinatedresponses

of actors (Van Assche et al., 2020). Reality effects accentuate the performativity of these

responses.Narrativesaboutchangeandinnovation–inotherwords,communications–can

have self-fulfillingeffects (seeMackenzie,Muniesa,& Siu, 2007). Performativityhighlights

thatideas–regardlessoftheirquality–haveasocialpresence(Godin,2015).Onceuttered,

theycansparkrealityeffectsforaprolongedperiodoftime.Realityeffectscanbeintended

andunintended,canresultfromprior intentionandhindsightascription,andarestrength-

enedthroughobservation(VanAsscheetal.,2020).Thenotionofrealityeffects ishelpful

herebecauseitforegroundsthatinnovationiscontingent.Itisneveranisolatedaffair,but

resultsfromcontinuouslyevolving,collectiveinterpretationsandrepresentationsof(chang-

ing)materialandsocialenvironments.

Inthisprocess,twotypesofrealityeffectsaremanifested(VanAsscheetal.,2020):material

realityeffectsanddiscursiverealityeffects.Materialrealityeffects,VanAsscheetal.explain,

are observed changes in the physical environment that have entered different social sys-

tems,likethevariousinterpretationsofclimatechange(seee.g.Hall,Amelung,&Cohenet

al.,2014;2015;Shani&Arad,2014;2015foradiscussionintourismstudies).Discursivereal-

ity effects are changingwaysof understanding (VanAsscheet al., 2020). The formulation

andcirculationofnewideascanevokedebatesthatchangetheperceivedvalueofmaterial

elementsandcancreatenewrepresentationsofmaterialitythat(struggleto)replaceexist-

ingones(Blok,2018a).Mediaattentionfor‘bingeflying’and‘flightshame’,forinstance,has

influenced public perceptions and representations of the relations between aviation and

climate change (see e.g. Cohen, Higham, & Cavaliere, 2011; Gössling, Humpe, & Bausch,

2020;Cohen).Insuchheateddebates,whenactorsattempttocometotermswithvarious

controversies, distinctions between material and discursive reality effects are difficult to

determine:materialanddiscursiverealityeffectsreinforceeachotherwithintheirowncat-

egoryorbetweencategories(VanAsscheetal.,2020).

27

1.4.1. Objectiveandresearchquestion

In this thesis Iaimtostudy theuseandeffectsof thediscourseon innovation in tourism.

Withthehelpofaforementionedanalyticalframework,Iwilladdressthefollowingresearch

question:

WhatarerealityeffectsofinnovationintheDutchoutboundtravelindustry?

Toaddressthisaimandresearchquestion,IconductedthreestudiesintheDutchoutbound

travelindustry.ThesestudiesillustratethetwomanifestationsofchangeIintroducedin1.1

atdifferentorganisational levels: thecontributionof the travel industry toclimatechange

and the erosionof thedominantmiddlemanpositionof travel industry incumbents. Iwill

present a number ofmethodological considerations that led to these studies and that in-

formedhowIaddressedtheresearchquestioninthenextsection.

1.5. Methods

BeforeIpresentmymethodologicalconsiderations,itisusefultobrieflyclarifytheinterpre-

tationofmethodinthisthesis.Idonotviewmethodasatooluncoupledfromrealitythat

can be applied to a predefined problemof some kind (formore on this see Czarniawska,

1998). Rather, as Beard, Scarles, and Tribe (2016) explain, I consider method as the se-

quenceofpractices that a researcherundertakes toassemble the field, follow theactors,

andconstructthenarrativeofthestudy;aprocessthatstartswiththequestionsofasituat-

edresearcher.

1.5.1. Unfoldingthefield:2015-2016

Inmysituation, thesequestionsdawnedas I familiarisedmyselfwith theDutchoutbound

travelindustryin2015and2016.IofferedanimpressionoftheobservationsImadeduring

thoseyearsin1.1.AsIillustrated,the‘Dutchtravelindustry’constitutedtheempiricalstart-

ingpointofthisthesis.Moreprecisely,ratherthanapredefinedspatialortemporalsetting,

it resembledmy perceptions of an initial context, connecting a collection of events that I

attendedandcommissioned reports that I read.Asmyexaminationsprogressed, the field

correspondinglyopenedupand ithasevolvedever since (Ren,2011).Each time I learned

somethingnewthefieldsubtlychanged.The‘field’,inotherwords,isaconstructofthere-

searcher,acollectionofrelationstracedthroughtimeandspace.Whereastheresearcher’s

initialassumptionsandknowledgearecentraltothefield’semergence,fosteringitsevolu-

28

tion requires flexibility: the possibility to change directions and include new events or in-

formantsastheresearcherlearnsmoreaboutasubject(Beardetal.,2016).

Inthisthesis,Ithereforeadoptedaprocess-orientedcase-studyapproach.AsLaw(2007,p.

630) argues, “theory is done in the form of case studies” as “abstraction is only possible

throughtheconcrete”.Casestudiesarealsodeemedsuitableforexploring lessaccessible,

uniqueorganisationalpracticesas theycancapture theirdynamicandcontext-specificna-

ture(Tasci,Wei,&Milman,2020;Yin,2018). Ioptedforaprocess-orientedcase-studyap-

proachbecauseitsintegratedprocessofdatagenerationandanalysisprovidestherequired

flexibility in the field (seee.g.Czarniawska,2004;1998).Central tothisapproach is that it

refrainsfromstatic,predefinedcasestudydefinitions(cf.Yin,2018).Noanalyticalorempiri-

calimportanceisattributedtophenomenapriortotheirexamination(Ren,Jóhannesson,&

VanderDuim,2012).Thecaseisnotapredefinedcontext,place,orcollectionof“assump-

tionsaboutthe‘group’tobestudied,aboutwhere itbeginsandends,andaboutwhothe

participantswillbe”(Beardetal.,2016,p.102):thecaseisamobileandfluidconstructthat

emergesfrominteractionsbetweentheresearcher,participants,andthe(resulting)gener-

ateddata.Throughthisprocessorientation,thecasegraduallytransformsintoarepresenta-

tionofthefield.

1.5.2. Followingactors:2016-2019

Inthisperiod,Ihadtheopportunitytotracethreedistinctinnovation-relatedorganisational

practicesfromupcloseandwithusefulaccesstokeyinformants.Aspresentedintable1-1,

thisresultedinthreedifferentcasestudies:themachine(chapter2);theexpert(chapter3);

and the firm (chapter 4). Details on the specificmethods I used for these individual case

studiescanbefoundinthesechapters.

Themachineisaboutacollaborativeindustry-levelinnovationprojectoftouroperatorsand

universities.Itmadeasuitablecasestudybecausethisprojectwasconsideredauniquepro-

jectat the time (seechapter2).Theexpert initially startedasa follow-upstudy;after the

machinewaspublished,Iwasinvitedtoexaminetheimpactofthisinnovationproject.Idis-

covered that it was not this project, but a PhD thesis from Peeters (2017) that played a

prominent role in a changing national policy debate and a related emerging discourse on

technologicalinnovation.HencetheexperttracestheimpactofthePhDthesisonthispolicy

domain.

29

Themachine Theexpert Thefirm

Purpose Understandtheroleofan

eco-innovationinsustaina-

bilitytransitions.

Understandresearchimpact

manifestationsintheenvi-

ronmentalpolicydomain.

Understandtheproductive

roleofinnovationinalarge

tourismorganisation.

Theoreticalframework ANT Discoursetheory Post-structuralistorganisa-

tionandgovernancetheory

Case Thedevelopmentofacar-

bonmanagementcalculator

(CARMACAL)fortouropera-

torsintheDutchoutbound

travelindustry.

TheimpactofaPhDthesis

aboutaviation-induced

climatechangeonDutch

aviationpolicy.

Thedevelopmentofan

innovationunitinalarge

touroperator(TUI).

Leveloforganisation Sector/industry Nationalpolicydomain Singleorganisation

Relevancecase CARMACALwasconsidered

auniqueeco-innovationat

thetime.

ThePhDthesishelped

triggeranenvironmental

policystruggleinwhich

discourseontechnological

innovationplaysapromi-

nentrole.

Littleresearchuntildatehas

examinedinnovationin

large,corporatetouropera-

tors.

Centralentity(token) CARMACAL Thediscursiveobjectof

aviation-inducedclimate

change

Theconceptofinnovation

(itsuseintheorganisation)

Datagenerationperiod 2016-2018 2019 2016-2019

Datagenerationtechniques Differentinterviewtech-

niques,carbonfootprint

calculations,document

analysis.

Differentinterviewtech-

niques,quantitativecontent

analysis,documentanalysis.

Differentinterviewtech-

niques,observation,docu-

mentanalysis.

Studyparticipants Generalmanagersand

productmanagersof(large)

touroperators;scientists.

Seniornewspaperedi-

tors/journalists;senior

governmentofficials;Mem-

bersofParliament;NGO&

actiongroupdirectors;

senioraviationindustry

executives;senioradvi-

sors/aviationexperts.

Innovationteammembers;

TUIBeneluxexecutive

boardmembers.

Chapterinthesis 2 3 4

Table1-1Casestudyoverview

Inparalleltothesestudies,thefirmtracesaninnovationinitiativeinalargetouroperator.

Largetouroperatorshavereceivedlimitedattention intourismliteraturedespitetheir im-

portantroleinshapingcontemporarymasstourism(seechapter4).Insum,atdifferentlev-

elsoforganisation,eachof thesecase studiespresentsmultipleandevolvingcoordinated

30

responsestoaperceivedchangeintheenvironmentofactors.Themachineandtheexpert

addressthetravelindustry’scontributiontoclimatechange;thefirmillustratestheeroding

middlemanpositionofatravelindustryincumbent.

Thetechniqueof ‘followingactors’guidedtheconstructionof thecasestudies.Thesepro-

gressive combinations of purposive and snowball sampling (Latour, 2005) enabledme to

integratedatagenerationandanalysis(Beardetal.,2016).ThedatagenerationtechniquesI

deployed(table1-1)notonlyservedtoaccumulatematerialsforanalysisatalatermoment;

I alsoused these interactionsand the relatedemerging insights to identify furtherpartici-

pantsandadjustthefocusofmyinquirieswhenneeded.

1.5.3. Constructingthenarrativeofthisstudy:2020

Intheoverlappinganalysisofthedifferentcasestudies,ItracedCARMACAL(chapter2),the

discursiveobjectofaviation-inducedclimatechange(chapter3),andtheconceptofinnova-

tion(chapter4)astokens(seetable1-1).Tokensarecirculatingquasi-objectsthattransform

throughthediscussionstheyevokeandthatpassthroughandshapedifferentmaterialities

(Latour,1996a).Byfollowingtheidentifiedtokensthroughspaceandtime, I identifieddif-

ferentandattimesseeminglyunrelatedsequencesofevents.Thishelpedmetoshiftfocus

fromtheviewsandbeliefsofdifferent(groupsof)actorstotherealityeffectsthatrevolved

aroundthetechnology,discursiveobject,orconceptpresentintheirmidstandthatshaped

theirinterrelations.Thisanalyticalmovetookmebeyondtheideaofthesolidandpre-given

actor (Jóhannesson, 2012), and the related commercial andmanagerial connotations, to-

wardsmorefluidactoridentitiesthatformandfluctuatethroughinterpretationsandrepre-

sentationsofoftenimportedinnovation-relatednarrativesandterminologies.Inthisway,I

exploredsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthecasestudiesandaddressedmyresearch

question.

Thisthesisproceedsasfollows.Chapters2,3,and4presentthecasestudies.Chapter5aims

toanswertheresearchquestionanddiscusseskeyfindingsandrelatedimplicationsforre-

searchersandpractitioners.

32

Abstract

Eco-innovationsthatreducecarbonemissionshelpadvancesustainabilitytransitionsintour-

ism.Thischapterexaminestheanalyticalpotentialofactor-networktheory(ANT)tostudy

eco-innovation. ANT assumes that reality consists of actor-networksmade of human and

non-humanelementsthatperformactorsasnetworkeffects.Wearguethat,inatimewhen

climatechangeisthesimultaneousproductandproducerofhumanactions,eco-innovation

isbetterunderstoodwhenresearchgivesthehumanandnon-humanelementsthatperform

eco-innovations equal analytical treatment.We thereforedevelop anANT-inspired frame-

work, which we apply in a case study to investigate the development of a specific eco-

innovation: CARMACAL, aweb-based carbonmanagement application in the Dutch travel

industry. We find that technological novelty alone is insufficient to instigate transition.

CARMACAL affords multiple new practices with opposite implications for socio-economic

and environmental sustainability. The practices triggeringmost industry support are least

effective inaddressing tourism’sclimate impactsandviceversa.Examiningeco-innovation

throughANThelpsusputeco-innovationinadifferentlight.Seeminglycontradictoryprac-

ticesmaybemutuallysupportive:their individualstrengthsandweaknessesmayhelppre-

ventthefailureofeco-innovations.Thisnewpossibilityopensthewayforconcertedpolicies

strengtheningthecontributionofeco-innovationstosustainabilitytransitions.

Keywords:actor-networktheory,carbonmanagement,climatechange,eco-innovation,cor-

poratesocialresponsibility,sustainabilitytransitions

Thischapterispublishedas:

Buijtendijk, H., Blom, J., Vermeer, J.,&Van derDuim, V.R. Eco-innovation for sustainable

tourismtransitionsasaprocessofcollaborativeco-production: thecaseofacarbonman-

agement calculator for the Dutch travel industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(7),

1222-1240.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1433184

33

2.1. Introduction

Carbon emission reductions are crucial for sustainability transitions in tourism (Peeters,

2017).Political inertia complicates the formationofpoliciesaddressing this challenge (Co-

hen,Higham,Gössling,Peeters,&Eigelaar,2016).Eco-innovation,whichisthedevelopment

ofnewproducts,services,andprocessesthatmitigateenvironmentalimpacts(OECD,2011)

mayofferanavenuetowardssector-ledemissionreductions.Earlierworkadoptedmultiple

theoretical perspectives to study eco-innovation, such as innovation theories, institutional

theory,stakeholdertheoryandtheresource-basedview(seeHojnik&Ruzzier,2016).Yet,all

ofthesetheoriesarehuman-centredapproaches.Theypresenteco-innovationasanexclu-

sivechallengeforbusinessesandexplain itwithsocialvariablesonly.Accordingly, they lo-

cateeco-innovation insociety;astabledomaincreatedbyscience,separated fromnature

and in timesof constant climatic conditions (Latour,2014).However, tourism researchon

the Anthropocene suggests that eco-innovation cannot be understood through human-

centredtheoriesalone(Gren&Huijbens,2016).Inthisnewepoch,societyhaslostthissta-

bility,andhasbecomebothproductandproducerofclimaticchanges(Latour,2014).There-

fore,researchcannolongertreatnon-humanelementslike“CO2”and“technology”asvari-

ablesthateitherexplainorareexplainedbyhumanactions,andanalternativeapproachis

needed.

Actor-networktheory(ANT)offerssuchanalternativeapproach. InANT,thereisnostable

society“outthere”,waitingtobeexplainedthroughdifferenttheories(Gad&Jensen,2010).

Instead, ANT assumes reality is a collection of actor-networks of human and non-human

elements,where actors exist as network effects (Latour, 2005). Consequently, there is no

separationbetweenrealityanditsexplanations.Ratherthanaddinganothertheoreticalper-

spective on “reality”, ANT thus shows how (different) realities are simultaneously per-

formed. Inthisway,ANTallowsustoseeeco-innovationsunfoldasuncertainattemptsto

reorderhumanandnon-humanelementsinatimewhennoneoftheindividualcategories

arestable.

Tourism research has discussed ANT’s conceptual premises and contributions to different

tourism contexts (see Van der Duim, Ren, & Jóhannesson, 2017). However, ANT has not

beenusedtostudyeco-innovationsaimedatemissionreductions,althoughtheuncertain-

tiesemergingwhenhumans, technologyandnaturecollideareparticularly suitable foran

34

ANT approach. This chapter therefore aims to explore ANT’s analytical potential to study

eco-innovationbymeansof a particular case: thedevelopmentof a CarbonManagement

Calculator (CARMACAL) for theDutchtravel industry.Developed in thesubsidised“carbon

managementfortouroperators”(CARMATOP)project,CARMACAL isaweb-basedapplica-

tionthatenablestouroperatorstocalculateandmanagethecarbonemissionsoftourpack-

agesintheirbusiness(seeCSTT,2017a;2017b).Inthischapterwefirstexplainhowresearch

canaccountforthecomplexitiesofeco-innovations.Thenwepresentthecasestudydesign

and results. This case illustrates our argument. We see how three distinct versions of

CARMACALaresimultaneouslyperformed,whileCARMACAL’sdifferent(human)represent-

atives are disputed. We conclude that, when examined through ANT, technology-

sustainability interrelations in eco-innovations like CARMACAL are indeed ambiguous

(Gössling,2016),butnotnecessarily contradictory.Finally,we identify researchandpolicy

implicationsinthesustainabilitytransitionsfield.

2.2. Actor-networktheoryandeco-innovation

According toGadand Jensen (2010,p.71),ANT isa researchapproach thatassumes that

“reality exists in multiple related versions” as dynamic, performed effects of constantly

evolving actor-networks, and therefore cannot be separated from its theoretical explana-

tions. Thus, neither climate change nor eco-innovations occur as “mutematerial”, sitting

“passivelybehindtheperspectives”inasingleworld,waiting“tobegazedatfromdifferent

angles”(p.71).Instead,ANTproposesthatbotharefoundindifferent,overlappingversions,

as products of their own (competing) clarifications. Rather than adding more theoretical

explanationsbyabstractingissuesfromtheircontext,ANThelpsustounderstandtheworld

asmultiple,byexaminingnewrealitiesastheyemergeand,simultaneously,createtheset-

tings for their own analysis (Ren, 2011). In our situation, this means reframing eco-

innovationas(theperformedeffectof)anunfoldingactor-network,sothatitcanbelooked

atdifferentlyandnewquestionscanbeaskedaboutit(Bramwell,2015).Inthisexploration

wemakeuseof threeoverlappingANT traits (VanderDuim, Ren,& Jóhannesson, 2013):

ordering,multiplicityandmateriality.Theseconceptsareexplainedbelow.

Ordering istheformationofactor-networks,aconstantprocessofrealityconstructionthat

brings(new)actorsandrelationsintoexistence(VanderDuim,2007).Itcreatescategories

anddifferences,suchasdivisionsbetween“internal”and“external”,and“object”and“sub-

35

ject”(Muniesa,2015).Orderingthusopensupthepossibilityofalternativesanddelineation

ofdifferentrealities,generatingitsownresistanceandcontroversy(Law,1992).ANTexam-

inesorderingthroughtheconceptof“translation”(Callon,1986).Translationcomprisesat-

temptstonegotiatecontroversyandestablishequivalence,i.e.thepossibilitythatanactor

becomesthe(temporary)representativeofanetwork(Law,1992).Asaresultoftranslation

processes, different entities in actor-networks no longer simply speak for themselves, but

arereworkedintoactorsthatrepresentthesenetworksand(claimto)speakontheirbehalf.

Orderingthuselucidateshoweco-innovationsareconstructedandemphasisesthecontinui-

tyofnetworkformation(Callon,1986).

Multiplicity entails that actor-networks simultaneously perform different versions of each

phenomenon(Gad&Jensen,2010).InANT,realityisontologicallyflat;thereisnoanalytical

distinctionbetweennetworksandtheactorsthesenetworksperform(Muniesa,2015).Con-

sequently,thereisnostable(empirical)groundonwhichallnetworksrest(VanderDuimet

al.,2013).Incontrasttopeopleinterpreting“things”differently,multiplicitypointstodiffer-

entversionsof“things”,withsomeversionsbeingmorevisiblethanothers,andallversions

influencingeachother.ANTamplifiesmultiplicitythroughtheconceptof“modesoforder-

ing”.Modesoforderingare implicitdiscursivearrangementsthatshapeandconstituteac-

tor-networks(Law,2001).Eachperforms“amoreor lessexplicit frameworkwithwhichto

readtherelevantempiricalreality”(VanderDuim,2007,p.970).Multiplicitythussuggests

thatthereisnosinglestructureprescribingacorrectprocessforeco-innovation.Eacheco-

innovation effort may appear in different, co-existing variants, performed in overlapping

actor-networks.

Materiality is about the substance actor-networks aremade of. In ANT, there is no such

thingasa“pure”humansociety; thereareonlyactor-networksofhumanandnon-human

elements(Law,1992).Accordingly,ANTstretchesagencyfarbeyondhumanproperties(Van

derDuim,2007).ANTarticulatesmaterialitythroughtheconceptofsymmetry;analytically,

all network elements are ontologically equal (Haug, 2012). Non-human elements should

therefore be treated the sameway as human elements. ANT’s notion ofmateriality thus

makeseco-innovationsappearasamore-than-humanendeavour:anuncertainundertaking

torearrangeelementsofhumanenterprise(e.g.businesses,markets),materialentities(e.g.

36

technologies, emission measurements), and elements of the Earth’s climate (e.g. carbon

dioxide,surfacetemperatures),whileallthesecategoriesareinflux.

Reviewing literature that examines the responsibilities of businesses for addressing their

climate impacts for each of the three traits discussed above, we frequently find human-

centredrepresentationsthattakehumanagencyforgranted,whileoverlookingtherolesof

non-humansinclimaticchanges.

Takingorderingfirst,weencounterone-sidednesswhenresearchershaveupfrontassump-

tionsofcausalityandreciprocitywhenstudyingattemptsofbusinessestotakeresponsibility

forclimateimpacts(Latour,2014).Wefindthisinstudiestestinghypothesesofcausalrela-

tions in different industry domains (see for instance Razumova, Ibáñez, & Palmer, 2015;

Smerecnik&Andersen,2011)andinthepresumptioninclimatechangeresearchthatstruc-

turalreductionofhumangreenhousegasemissionswillreciprocallystabiliseglobalwarming

(Scott,Gössling,Hall,&Peeters, 2016a; Scott,Hall,&Gössling, 2016b). Inboth cases it is

assumedthathumandeterminantswillbringaboutthedesiredresult;naturehasbeenleft

out of the equation. Yet, evidence in Earth system research suggests that it is uncertain

whetherornoteffectiveglobalgovernancetowardslong-termsustainabilitywouldhaltcli-

matic movement; climate shifts may carry sufficient momentum for an irreversible drift

awayfromclimatestability(Barnoskyetal.,2012;Steffenetal.,2011).Itisthereforeplausi-

blethatindustrieswillincreasinglyandcontinuouslychange.Consequently,thereisvaluein

an approach that reaches beyond presupposed object-subject divisions to examine eco-

innovations(Gren&Huijbens,2012).

Moving tomultiplicity, we notice that businesses, and their eco-innovation activities, are

oftenput in amanageableworldof fixedentities (Law&Urry, 2005).We findbusinesses

representedassingular,self-explanatoryactors;thevariouselementsinvolvedinperforming

thebusinessorganisationgenerallyremainfaceless(Law,1992).Coles,Fenclova,andDinan

(2013)arguethishidescertain(human)agencies fromview.Similarly,elementsthatmake

businessesmoresustainablearepresentedasbusinessresultsratherthansnapshotsofon-

going translations. Sustainability reporting, for instance, tends to focus on the outputs of

businesses rather than the different practices producing and performing those outputs

(Font, Guix & Bonilla-Priego, 2016; Coles, Fenclova, & Dinan, 2014).While evidence of a

globalclimatecrisistakesthesustainabilityresponsibilitiesofbusinessestoaplanetarylevel

37

(Latour,2014),theeconomicconceptualisationofthebusinessorganisationistoonarrowto

addressglobalchallenges (Scherer&Palazzo,2011).Accordingly,withclimaticchanges in-

creasinglydelineatingbusinessperformance,representationsofbusinessesassocialentities

firmly rooted in their own taken-for-granted space ignore that actors like businesses and

corporatesocialresponsibility(CSR)reportsareperformedinvariousways,andmayco-exist

inalternativeconfigurations.

Relatedtomateriality,weobserveasymmetries indepictionsofhumansandnon-humans,

withthelatterappearingascontextorpassivesubjectsinhumanprojects.Bramwell(2015)

notesthatnaturetendstoserveas thebackground inresearch;naturalentitiesappearas

business resources andmanagement subjects (see Coles,Warren, Borden,&Dinan, 2017

andRazumovaetal.,2015respectively),illustratingthat“theenvironment”lacksclearcon-

ceptualisation(Colesetal.,2013).Likewise,materialentitieslikeinformationandcommuni-

cations technologies (ICTs) generally feature as “tools”, serving human needs (see for in-

stanceWhittlesea&Owen,2012).However,thecontradictoryimplicationsthesetechnolo-

giesgenerateforeconomicandenvironmentalsustainability(Gössling,2016),suggestthey

mayinfactbemediatorsthatrenegotiatehumanity’srelationswithnatureratherthanpas-

sivedevices (Latour,2005).Consequently, thesocialbias runningacross theserepresenta-

tionsgeneratesasymmetriesbetweenhumansandnon-humansthatobscuretheworkings

ofeco-innovation.

2.2.1. Puttinghumansandnon-humansonanequalanalyticalfooting

Thischaptercontributestotheliteratureoneco-innovationdealingwithclimatechangeby

proposinganANT-inspiredframeworkthatcombinesthreeoverlappinglinesofenquirythat

operationalisethethreeANTtraitsintroducedabove(Figure2-1).Theiroverlapis inherent

to ANT, being a collection of “tools formaking and knowing new realities” (Law & Urry,

2005,p.98).Thefirst lineofenquiryencouragesresearchersnottomakea-prioriassump-

tions about future actions or results; it does this by avoiding object-subject divisions and

thereforerelatestoordering.Itsuggeststhatfollowingtranslationprocessesovertimeelu-

cidateshow(new)ordersareestablished(Law,1992).Thesecond lineof inquiryproposes

thatnothingshouldbetakenforgranted;itdoesso,byconsideringrealitiesas“performed”

ratherthan“thingsoutthere”. Itconnectstomultiplicityas ithelps intheidentificationof

different,co-existingmodesofordering(VanderDuimetal.,2013).Thethirdlineofenquiry

38

entailsthathumansandnon-humansshouldbeputonanequalanalyticalfooting.Itlinksto

materiality andhelps in theexaminationofwhat reality consistsof,bymeansof a single,

symmetrical,analyticalgrid(Latour,2005).

Figure2-1Frameworkforanalysingeco-innovations

Elaboratingoneachofthem,first,refrainingfroma-prioriassumptionsaboutwhoorwhat

willactinthefuture,andunderwhichcircumstances,requiresustoexamineeco-innovation

byfollowingitstranslationovertime(Law,1992).Thecentralquestionhereis:Howdoeco-

innovations unfold? Rather than explaining or predicting eco-innovations as the results of

causal antecedents, the enquirymust acknowledge head-on the difficulties of addressing

environmental challenges while all entities keep changing (Latour, 2014). Kasim, Gursoy,

Okumus, &Wong (2014) for instance describe an eco-innovation inwhich hotelierswork

withdifferentplantsinawetlandareatorecyclethewastewateroftheirresort.Asthebe-

haviouroftheseplantsisunpredictable,thehoteliersaskscientiststoregularlymonitorthe

process to ensure that the water quality is up to standard. By tracing the chronology of

translation,wecanlearnhowdifferentactors(forexampleplants,scientists)overtime(fail

39

to)emergeasrepresentativesofanetworkinwhichallelementsarethesimultaneousob-

jectsandsubjectsofchange.

Callon (1986) suggests translationhappens in fouroverlappingmoments (M1-M4).During

M1 a common goal emerges, which makes an actor-network detectable. It is completed

whentheidentitiesofactorsaredefinedinrelationtotheachievementofthatgoal.During

M2theseactors(aremadeto)temporallyassumespecificrolesandtasks,whichstabilises

the network. ThroughoutM3 these roles and tasks become (more) permanent,which in-

volvesthenegotiationofacceptance.Finally,duringM4,(different)spokespersonsbecome

undisputed.AstheexampleofKasimetal.(2014)illustrates,translationissuccessfulwhen

representativenesshasbeenestablishedandactorsmayspeak foranetwork (Law,1992).

However,whenthereisdissidence,anetworkfacesdisintegration(Callon,1986).

Thesecondproposal,thatnothingshouldbetakenforgranted,encouragesustoquestion

theentitiesthatseemtorepresentaneco-innovation;ananalysisthathelpsusidentifythe

co-existenceofalternative,rivalorderings.Ratherthanaskingwhateco-innovationisorwhy

it is relevant, thecentralquestionhere is: inwhatways isaparticulareco-innovationper-

formed?Anyentityisenactedthroughitsnetworkandthereforecannotsimplybeassumed

to be an actor. Instead, the enquirymust identify “what is included and authorised, and

whatisrejectedandmadeabsent,aswellashowthisisdone”(Ren,Jóhannesson,&Vander

Duim, 2012, p. 19). Research on the environmentalmanagement of small businesses, for

example,showedhowanon-humanentity(anenvironmentalcertificationscheme)issimul-

taneouslyperformed indifferentways throughvariations inmanagementapproachesand

rationales (Sampaio,Thomas,&Font,2012).Uncoveringhow thesemultiplemodesofor-

deringemergeandframetheirownconditionsforsuccessandfailurecanhelpustoseean

object,whichmayat firsthaveappearedtobesingular,asenacted inmultipleversions in

different,overlappingnetworks.

Thethirdproposal,puttinghumansandnon-humansonanequalanalyticalfooting,requires

symmetrical analytical treatment of all elements that enact eco-innovation. The central

question to this is:What differences exist between representations of humans and non-

humans in eco-innovation? Neither categorisations nor variations in analytical importance

canbeestablishedpriortoempiricalexaminations.Instead,allelementsacrossthenature-

societydivide,whichinfluenceandareinfluencedbyeco-innovation,shouldbeincludedin

40

theenquiry,andapproachedinthesameway.InMajorca,forinstance,hotelsfacefreshwa-

tershortagesduringthepeaksummerseason,whennaturalfreshwatersupplyis low.Nei-

therhumanactions,suchashotelwater-savingmeasuresduringsummer(Razumovaetal.,

2015),nornature’sseasonalrainfallpatterns,whichmakeabundantwateravailableduring

winter(Tortella&Tirado,2011),aremoreorlessimportantthantheotherinaddressingthis

challenge.Bygivingeachcategoryequalanalyticalstatus,weareabletoquestionthepoli-

ticsofwater-savingstrategiesandthecontinuationofunsustainablebeachtourismpatterns.

Inthisway,wecanexpandouranalyticalcapacitiesandimaginenewordersornoticetheir

emergence(Gad&Jensen,2010).

2.3. Methods

ToinvestigatetheANT-inspiredframework,thecasestudymethodwasselectedbecauseof

itsability:i)toillustratecomplexitiesbyrecognisingmultipleactionsandmeanings(Xiao&

Smith,2006);ii)togeneratein-depthunderstandingbytracingaspecificprocessovertime

andreconstructingit;andiii)toshowindirectly(throughdescription)whyinnovationswork

or fail (Beeton,2005).Case studiesareempiricalenquiries that relyondiverse sources to

examineacomplexphenomenoninasituationinwhich“boundariesbetweenphenomenon

andcontext”areunclearandthenumberofvariablesofinterestisunknown(Yin,2009,p.

18).SinceANTemphasises“detailedexaminationanddescriptionofrelationshipsbetween

actorsinpractice”(Beard,Scarles,&Tribe,2016,p.98),casestudiesareusedinmostANT

studiesintourism.Ascomprehensivecasestudiescoverresearchdesign,datacollectionand

dataanalysis(Xiao&Smith,2006),thesecomponentswillbeintroducedbelow.

Startingwithresearchdesign,thedevelopmentofCARMACALfortheDutchtravelindustry

was selected as a caseof a specific eco-innovationprocessbecauseof two reasons. First,

carbondioxide(CO2)emissionsfromhumanactivitiesaretheprimarycauseofglobalwarm-

ing(IPCC,2013)and,with6.8millionholidaysinvolvingairtravelin2016(NRITMedia,CBS,

NBTCHollandMarketing,&CELTH,2017),Dutchholidaymakerscontributeconsiderably to

thisproblem.Second,CARMACALexemplifiesauniquesector-ledeco-innovationintourism

(Tjolle,2016).

Figure 2-2 shows the case study design. A single longitudinal case study designwith two

unitsofanalysis(AandB)wasadoptedbecausemultipleunitsofanalysisenhanceinsightsin

studieswithasinglecaseandstudyingeco-innovationasaprocessrequiresfollowingitover

41

time(Yin,2009).AsANTattributesnoanalyticalorempiricalimportancetophenomenapri-

ortotheirexamination(Renetal.,2012),both“units”wereselectedthroughconvenience

samplingandmerelyfunctionedasentrypointsintothenetworkfromwherewetracedthe

translationsofactors in threeseparatestudies.Study I investigatedCARMACAL’sdevelop-

mentintheCARMATOPprojectanditsadoptionbysmalltomid-sizedtouroperators(unit

A).StudyIIinvestigatedthepossibleimplementationofCARMACALbyalargetouroperator

(unitB)andcalculatedeco-efficiencyratiosforaselectedproductsample.StudyIIIdiscussed

theseeco-efficiencyratioswithrespondentsofStudiesI-IIandexaminedCARMACAL’sevo-

lutionandprospects.TofollowCARMACALasaninnovationprocessovertime,westudied

thisnetworkduringtwoperiods.StudiesIandIIwereconductedsimultaneouslyfromMarch

toMay2016;StudyIIItookplacefromOctober2016toJanuary2017.

Figure2-2Casestudydesign

RespondentsinStudiesIandIIwereselectedthroughpurposivesampling,aseachenquiry

dealtwitha specific, small-sizedpopulation (the initiatorsofCARMACALand theproduct-

levelmanagersofalargetouroperator,respectively).Bothstudieshadadiversesampleof

respondents.ForStudyI,weapproachedrespondentsbyemail,resultingin18participants

representing 16 organisations; for Study II, we contacted product-level managers via the

touroperator’s internalcommunicationchannels,generatingfiveparticipantsrepresenting

differentproducttypes.Additionally,theninemost-bookeddestinationsandonelong-haul

42

destination were selected to secure a diverse product sample for the calculation of eco-

efficiency ratios. Per destination, the most-booked products and durations were picked,

generating 90 itineraries. Six participants (equally representative of Study I and II) were

handpicked forStudy IIIbasedon thediversityof their inputs in the first interviewround;

thus ensuring that our data “conveynot one, butmany versionsof object realities” (Ren,

2011, p. 866). One additional respondent, the general director of a tour operator not in-

volvedinCARMACALandbusinesspartnerofoneoftherespondents,offeredanoutsider’s

perspective.Table2-1presentstheinterviewsandrespondents.

Moving to data collection, to ensure complete coverage, semi-structured interviewswere

conductedinStudiesIandII,becauseofthepossibilitytofollowupontopicsintroducedby

respondents. Theunstructured interview techniquewasapplied in Study III because it ac-

commodates in-depthdiscussionon specific topics, giving respondents the liberty to illus-

trate relevance, importance, and interrelations (Yin, 2009). For the semi-structured inter-

views, we composed two lists covering topics related to CARMACAL’s development in

CARMATOPandadoptionbysmalltomedium-sizedenterprise(SME)touroperators(Study

I) andCARMACAL’s implementationbya large touroperator (Study II).Both lists included

open-endedandgeneric,guidingquestionsthatservedtoproberespondentstoelaborate.

In the unstructured interviews (Study III), respondents were asked to chronologically de-

scribe their involvement in CARMACAL,with emphasis on its (operational) challenges and

opportunities.Tostimulatedebate,weusedCARMACALtocalculatetheeco-efficiencyrati-

osofall90itineraries(CO2footprint/profitmarginbeforeprovision),whichwereaggregated

inscatterplotsandpresentedtorespondentsduringtheinterviews.Forthesamereason,we

usedjointinterviewinginthreeofthefourinterviews.

In all the interviews, questionswere tailored to the respondent’s context.We gave them

room to pick topics formore detailed discussion. By probing, using “how questions”, re-

spondentswereencouragedtodescriberatherthanexplainevents,enablingthereconstruc-

tionofprocessesovertime.Questionordervariedperinterview.Weaddedquestionsbased

on insights from previous interviews, updating the guidelines accordingly. Combined, this

enabled respondents to construct the settings in which we could trace their translations

(Renetal.,2012).

43

Respondent Position Organisation Dateofinterview

Study1

R1 GeneralDirector Touroperator(SME) 02-03-2016


R3 SustainabilityCoordinator Touroperator 10-03-2016

R4 TravelExpert Touroperator(SME) 15-03-2016


R6 Sales&MarketingManager Touroperator(SME) 16-03-2016

R7 SustainabilityCoordinator Touroperator(SME) 21-03-2016

R8 ProductManager Touroperator(SME) 22-03-2016

R9 TourOperationsManager Touroperator(SME) 23-03-2016


R11 Sustainabilitycoordinator Touroperator 30-04-2016

R12 JuniorCarbonAdvisor Consultancyagency 25-03-2016

R13 Manager Certificationprogramme 01-04-2016

R14 Researcher Researchinstitute 24-02-2016

R15 Researcher Researchinstitute 25-02-2016

R16 Manager Industryassociation 18-03-2016

Study2

R17 ProductManager Touroperator 09-05-2016

R18 SustainabilityManager Touroperator 10-05-2016




Study3

R22&R23 GeneralDirectors TouroperatorA+B(SMEs) 07-10-2016


R25&R26 Product Manager & Sus-

tainabilityManager

Touroperator 21-12-2016

R27&R28 Researchers Researchinstitute 12-01-2017

Table2-1Interviewsandrespondents

44

Fordataanalysis,allinterviewswereaudio-recordedwithvoicetracersandtranscribedver-

batim(inDutch).Weanalysedthedatamanually toavoidmissingemergingthemes. Inall

thestudies,weusedopencodingtogroupdatawithoutpredefinedstructures;andwede-

ployedfocusedcodingtogroupidentifiedcodesintocategories.Weapplieddatatriangula-

tionbycombiningcategoriseddataofStudiesI-IIIwithinformationfromwebsitesandpub-

lished reports. Resulting text was then chronologically ordered using Callon’s (1986) mo-

mentsoftranslationandfurthervalidatedthroughconversationswithkeyinformants,ena-

blingtheidentificationofdifferentevolvingmodesofordering.Inthisway,wewereableto

construct a detailed case study account, with data identifiable as paraphrases and direct

quotesofrespondents(translatedintoEnglishandreferredtoasR1-29inthetext),aspre-

sentedinthenextsection.

2.4. Casestudy–CARMACALandtheDutchoutboundtravelindustry

In this case study,wepresentCARMACALas anunfolding actor-network.As an actor,we

saw CARMACAL appear as a technology for tour operators. Part of the subsidised

CARMATOPproject, itdevelopedintoaweb-basedapplicationcombiningdatafromdiffer-

entdatabasestocalculatethecarbonfootprintoftourpackages.Asanetwork,CARMACAL

unfoldedasasector-ledeco-innovationprocessinwhichindustryandscientificcommunity

representativesattemptedtogivetheclimate (reductionofCO2emissions)aplace in tour

operatingpractices.Belowwetracetheevolutionofthisactor-networkinaccordancewith

the framework presented in Figure 2-1.We follow how CARMACAL evolved as an actor-

network;howdifferentcarbonmanagementapproachesemerged,andhownature,despite

beinggrantedagencyintouroperatingpractices,remainedsubjectedtohumaninterests.

2.4.1. M1:Emergingcollaborationonuniformcarbonmeasurement(2010-2013)

Startingin2010,anumberofeventsledtothegradualassemblyofanetwork.Thatyeara

touroperatorrequestedtheCentreforSustainableTourismandTransport(CSTT)tocalcu-

late the carbon footprints of its long-haul group tours so that it could start offsetting its

travel-relatedemissions(R2).CSTTisaresearchorganisationwithinNHTVBredaUniversity

of Applied Sciences that specialises in methods to measure and reduce tourism-related

emissions(CSTT,2017c).Overthefollowingtwoyears,CSTTresearchersexecutedtwopro-

jectswiththistouroperator.Apartfromcalculatingcarbonfootprints,theyexaminedhow

toreduceemissionswithoutaffectingcustomersatisfaction.

45

Then, in January 2012, the tour operator shared its experiencewith other tour operators

and theDutchAssociationofTravelAgents (ANVR) in their regular sustainability frontrun-

nersmeetingduringtheVakantiebeurs(DutchTravelTradeShow).Atthesemeetings,ANVR

(representingapproximately226travelagents(ANVR,2013))andasmallgroupoftourop-

erators convened to promote sustainability. The topic picked up collective interest. Some

presentatthismeetinghadjustattendedapresentationaboutcarbonlabellingbyprofessor

Gössling,aninternationalexpertontourismandclimatechange.

“Hisstoryabout labellingwas really inspiring;how important labelling is toget the

sustainabilitymovementgoing.”(R1)

Gössling’spresentationmobilisedattendantstocollaborate:

“If everybody starts his own label,we risk ending upwith 36 different labels.Why

not make it an industry-wide initiative? We started a project group and involved

others.”(R1)

They agreed to develop a single application that could consistently calculate the carbon

footprintoftourpackages.Concurrently,byestablishingaprojectgroupwithasharedgoal,

anetworkemerged.

Upuntil thatpoint,distinctcarbonmanagement ideashad lefttraces inthisnetwork.Car-

bonoffsetting, therationaleofatouroperator’s initialresearchrequesttoCSTT,concerns

compensation payments to non-tourism parties to achieve carbon savings equivalent to

tourismemissions(seeEijgelaar,2011).Carbonreduction,instrumentalinmuchCSTTwork,

constitutesthedecarbonisationofglobaltourism(seeScottetal.,2016a).Carbonlabelling,

triggering tour operator participation, is about communication that stimulates climate-

friendlyconsumption (seeGössling&Buckley,2016).Viewedcollectively, these ideas thus

illustratethenetwork’smultiplicity.

Intheirsearchforfunding,theprojectgroupdecidedtowriteaprojectproposalfortheRe-

gionalAttentionforKnowledgeCirculation(RAAK)SMEinnovationprogrammeoftheDutch

Government,whichtheysubmittedinthefallof2012.RAAKfundingrulesrequiredtwo-year

projects led by a university of applied sciences that include knowledge development and

(ICT) applications relevant for SMEs (SIA, 2017). Accordingly, the CSTT researchers had to

writetheproposalandleadtheproject,whichgrantedthemauthority.CO2hadtobetrans-

46

latedintoamanageablemetric,makingitfitforuseintouroperating.AndSMEtouropera-

torshad (to)becomethe legitimateendusersofanewtechnology.Hence,bydelineating

projectobjectives,RAAKdefinedtheidentitiesofactors(Callon,1986).

2.4.2. M2:CARMATOPstabilisesthenetwork(2013-2015)

The resultantCARMATOPproject started thebeginningof 2013.CSTT led theproject and

studied emissionmeasurement andmitigation; software developers built the ICT applica-

tion;ClimateNeutralGroup(CNG),theBeneluxmarketleaderincarbonreductionandemis-

sionoffsetting(CNG,2017),providedexpertiseonsustainableentrepreneurshipandcarbon

mitigation;ANVRand11SMEtouroperators(mostlymembersofaforementionedsustaina-

bility frontrunnersgroup) formedtherequiredSMEconsortium;anda large touroperator

joinedasnetworkpartner(CSTT,2017b).Subsequentworkpackagescoveredresearchinto

carboncalculatorsandcarbonfootprintcommunication(I),developmentandtestingofthe

ICTapplication(II),andresearchintocarbonmanagementstrategiesandapossiblelabelfor

tourpackages(III)(CSTT,2017b).InthiswayCARMATOPattributedspecificrolesandtasks

toactors,whichorderedthenetwork.

The following two years the network expanded.More tour operators joined CARMATOP.

Theydid so for various reasons, such as altruisticmotives (R2, R11), securing their future

business(R11),transparency(R2,R16),anticipatinggrowingconsumerawarenessandstrict-

erregulation(R11),andstimulatingemployeeloyalty(R14).CARMATOPalsogenerated(in-

ternational) attention from various industry organisations, including the United Nations

World Tourism Organisation and the World Travel & Tourism Council (CSTT, 2017a).

CARMATOPconcludedinJune2015,whentheCarbonManagementCalculator(CARMACAL)

was presented to the industry. ANVR,NHTV and a representative of the SME consortium

establishedtheCarbonManagementTravelandTourismfoundation(hereafterCARMACAL

foundation)andaservicedeskoperatedbyCNGwheretouroperatorscouldpurchasean-

nualuserlicences(CSTT,2017a).CARMATOPwasconsideredacollaborativesuccess:

“CARMATOPwas a very successful project, it resulted in a great tool,which really

works.Andthatissomethingweachievedtogether.”(R1)

Indeed,bydefiningtheidentitiesandrolesofactors,enlistingnewparticipants,andassem-

blingaweb-basedapplicationthatprovidedtheclimatewithavoiceintouroperatingprac-

tices, CARMATOP had temporarily stabilised the network (Callon, 1986). However, with

47

CARMATOPcompleted,itwasnolongertheprojectbutthisapplicationthathadtoholdthe

networktogether.

2.4.3. M3:CARMACALandnegotiatingacceptance(2015-2017)

Tothisend,CARMACALhadtobeintegratedintouroperatingpractices.Butthisiswhereit

ranupagainstdifferentoperational routines.CARMACAL’s calculationswouldenable tour

operatorstoidentifyproductmodificationsthatwouldreducethecarbonemissionsoftheir

tour packages. Nevertheless, product modifications were only made occasionally, or re-

quiredcompromisingonproductappeal:

“Ninetypercentofthetimeitisacontinuationofthepreviousyear.Wearenotgoing

tostartallovereveryyearandreinventthewheel,wehaveanexistingproductsupply

andwebuilduponthatintheyearsthereafter.”(R17)

“WhenyouhaveabeautifulhikefromAtoBtoCtoDinMajorcaandyoufindahotel

atexactly18kilometresinafantasticvillage,youwilltakethatone,whetheritissus-

tainableornot.”(R1)

Touroperatorsdefendedoperationalroutineswithvariousarguments,illustratingtheirpri-

orities:

“Guidelines,contractsalwayshavepriority.Afterthatcomesustainabilityand in-

formationrelatedtothat.”(R5)

Theyalsoraisedpracticalobjections,insistingthatCARMACAL’smanualdataentrywasinef-

ficient (R23, R24, 25, R26). Correspondingly, the tour operators found it hard to see the

tool’susefulness.

However,CARMACALalsosparkednewpractices,eachcreating itsowncontroversies(Cal-

lon, 1986). In the years after CARMATOP, the different ideas about carbonmanagement

reappeared in the network, in the shape of three (overlapping) carbonmanagement ap-

proaches:

I. Attemptstopresentnature:carbonlabelling

CARMACAL’scalculationswouldenabletouroperatorstoinformconsumersaboutthecar-

bonfootprintoftheirholidays;ANVRandtouroperatorsparticipatedinCARMATOPmainly

becauseoftheprospectofacarbonlabelforconsumers(R1,R15).Tothem,labellingwasa

waytoincreaseconsumerawarenessandtransparency(R23).Yet,CARMATOPonly looked

48

intopossibilitiesfordevelopingalabel,anddidnotcreateone.Soin2015,ANVR,CSTTanda

delegationofsustainabilityfrontrunnersestablishedaworkinggrouptodevelopthecarbon

label,startingafrustrating,prolongedprocessthatnearlyfailed(R24).

Theworkinggroupdisagreedonwhether the labelshouldbenormative, for instancewith

differentcolours fordifferentemission levels (R24).Discussionsreachedanall-time low in

2016whenitwassuggestedtousethelabelasanindicationthatacompanyhadcalculated

itscarbonfootprint,withoutdisplayingtheactualCO2figure (R24),which,somereasoned,

customerswouldfindhardtounderstandanyway(R25).Inthespringof2016theydecided

onalabelwithoutanormativedesign.Thiswasahugedisappointmentfortheresearchers,

whoquestionedtheagendaofsomeoftheopponents:

“Itwasadecisionbasedonapoorlysubstantiatedopinion,andtheyusedtheseopin-

ionstoblockthewholething,timeaftertime,inanunpleasantway.Ididnotgetthe

feelingallofthemgenuinelywantedthistosucceed.”(R28)

Nonetheless,abreakthroughcameinthefallof2016whenatouroperatornotinvolvedin

thelabeldiscussionusedCARMACALtocalculatethecarbonfootprintofafewsampletours,

andusedadescriptiveicontopresenttheresultsonitswebsite(Figure2-3).

Figure2-3Examplecarbonlabel(BetterPlaces,2017)

49

“Whenwesawthatforthefirsttimeweallwentlike: ‘Shit,whydidn’twecomeup

withthis?”(R24)

Thecompanyagreedtosharethedesign.ANVRthenpromisedtodevelopatoolkithelping

touroperatorswithconsistentwebcommunicationandtheyplannedtolaunchthelabelin

thesummerof2017(R24).

II. Attemptstorelievenature:carbonreduction&eco-efficiency

Whilecarbonlabellingmobilisedmosttouroperators,theCSTTresearchershadfoundthata

carbonlabelhadlittleeffectonthebookingbehaviourofconsumers(seeEijgelaar,Nawijn,

Barten,Okuhn&Dijkstra,2016).ThereforetheyhaddevelopedCARMACALwithcarbonre-

ductionstrategies inmind,assumingtouroperatorswoulduseCARMACALtosetemission

reduction targets for themselves (R14). Carbon reductionwas controversial, however, be-

cause it gave some touroperators the idea that theywere todiscourageconsumers from

travelling:

“Ineverhadtheimpressionthatweastouroperatorswouldstartchangingandman-

agingourofferwithcarbonfootprintreductionasanincentive,Ihaveneverbelieved

inthat”[...]“travellingless,that’sadecisioncustomerscanmakeindividually,butwe

arenotgoingtofacilitatethat;weareatouroperator.”(R24)

Manyof themdidnotbelieve incarbonreductiongoals,becausesoonerrather than later

they would reach the limits of what they could improve (R24). In contrast, the CSTT re-

searchersarguedthatvariationsincustomerresponseandbookingratesofdifferentprod-

uctcompositionshadnotyetbeenstudied,andclaimedthatcarbonreductiontargetsare

feasiblewhenlong-termgoalsaremeasuredagainstannualprogress(R28).

However, in 2016, one tour operator commissioned a study on how it could use eco-

efficiency,whichareratiosexpressingtheenvironmentalcostsofbusiness(seeCaiado,Dias,

Mattos,Quelhas,&Filho,2017),inportfoliomanagement.UsingtheCO2/profitmarginratio,

the studypresented theeco-efficiencyofdifferentproduct samplesandvisualised the re-

sults inscatterplots(seeFigure2-4foranexample).Thesevisualsmademanagerswonder

what product categories shouldbe compared, towhat extent productswithhighmargins

andbelow-averageenvironmentalperformancescoremorefavourableEEratiosthanprod-

uctswithmediumperformanceonbothindicators,andwhethermarginaloneissufficientas

50

indicator of economic performance (R25, R26). They planned to address these questions

throughfurtherresearch.

Figure 2-4 Eco-efficiency scatterplot of destination. Average profit margins before provision (Y) and CO2 emissions in

kilos(X).Linesat1-pointshoweco-efficiencyaverage.

III. Attemptstocompensatenature:carbonoffsetting

Carbonoffsettingwasalsocontroversial.CARMACALwouldenableaccuratecalculationsof

offset fees.While seen as themost practical strategy by some tour operators heavily de-

pendingonaviation(whichlacksmeaningfuleco-innovation)(R22,R24),theCSTTresearch-

erssuggestedtouroperatorsshouldtelltheircustomersoffsettingdoeslittletoaddresscli-

matechange,aspreviousresearchhadshown(seeEijgelaar,2011).Touroperatorsontheir

partwerereluctanttocommunicatenegativemessages (R23). Ingeneral, theydidnotbe-

lieveinoffsetting,asitlackedcredibility:

“I find it difficult to believe that I can compensatemy flight toMajorca by contrib

utingtwoeurostoawindenergyprojectinNorthernIndia.”(R25)

51

CARMACALopenedupanewpossibility:itsuniformcarboncalculationmadetouroperators

considertakingfullresponsibilityforthecarbonfootprintoftheirentireportfoliobyoffset-

tingallbookingsonbehalfoftheircustomersaspartoftheirserviceinamovetowardssec-

tor-wideoffsetting(R22,R23).Offsetfeescouldthen,forinstance,beusedtofundbiofuel

researchinaviation(R24).AsthisstrategyhadnotbeenofficiallytabledduringCARMATOP,

itsurprisedtheresearchers:

“Iftheyhadtoldusinadvancetheonlythingtheywantedissomeoffsetsystem,we

wouldhavebuiltanentirelydifferentcalculator.”(R28)

Thus,whileCARMATOPhadsucceeded instabilisingthe identitiesandrolesofCARMACAL

and its end users, thesemultiplied again in the years after the project. The simultaneous

performance of multiple carbon management approaches, each connoting distinct ideas

abouttherelationbetweennatureandsociety,illustratesthenetwork’smultiplicity(Gad&

Jensen, 2010). Concurrently, as we will show next, the positions of CARMACAL’s various

(human)representativeshadcomeunderincreasingscrutiny.

2.4.4. M4:DisputingCARMACAL’s(human)representatives(2016-2018)

Despite international attention, only a few CARMACAL licences had been sold (R14), not

enough to keep CARMACAL operational (R24). The CARMACAL foundation, which owned

CARMACAL,hadbeenmakingcontinuouseffortstosecureindustryinvestmentsandfurther

subsidies (R24). Amidst this uncertainty, the positions of CARMACAL’s different (human)

spokespersons,whichhadbeenestablishedduringCARMATOP,weakenedbecause, in the

years after CARMATOP, they had come to question each other’s work. Next, we analyse

theirdisputessymmetrically, taking inallelementsacrossthenature-societydivide,asking

threepertinentquestions.

First,onemayaskiftheCARMATOPprojectprovidedCARMACALwiththerightrepresenta-

tives,asthe(in)actionofitsrespectivespokespersonsis,retrospectively,beingquestioned.

Didtheresearchersanalysethesustainabilitypreferencesoftouroperatorsandconsumers,

and assess all available technologies before building CARMACAL (R22)? Is CNG genuinely

interestedin,andcapableof,sellingCARMACALlicenses(R23,R24)?Andwhy,despitethe

enormousamountof (international)publicity,hasANVRsofar failedtoconvince itsmem-

berstoadoptCARMACAL(R27)?

52

Reversely, the CSTT researcherswonder, in hindsight,whether the group of sustainability

frontrunners had been suitable industry representatives all along. They questionwhether

these“frontrunners”“arereallytherightpeopletomakeCARMACALwork”(R28).TheCSTT

researchersthinkthesetouroperatorsarepreoccupiedwithcommunicatinggreenmessages

fromadefensiveposition,whichmakesthemsensitivetopossiblerisksanddifferentopin-

ions and, consequently, ill-suited to persuade mainstream tour operators to participate

(R28).TheyalsowonderhowmanylicencesCARMACALwouldhavesoldiftheyhadincluded

business travel operators in CARMATOP and feel RAAK’s SME focus limited CARMACAL’s

impact,theorisingaboutwhatwouldhavehappenediftheyhaddevelopedCARMACALwith

alargetouroperator(R28).

The second question pertains to CARMACAL’s legitimacy as a translation device, inwhich

“CO2”representsnatureand“thetourpackage”representssociety.StartingwithCO2,some

industryrepresentativeswhoarefamiliarwiththetoolquestionwhetherthisgasisnature’s

rightfulrepresentative,arguingthatclimatechangeisaboutmorethancarbonemissions;if

CARMACAListoaddressclimatechange,itshouldforexamplemeasurewaterconsumption

levelsaswell (R26).Thoseadvocating triplebottom lineapproachesaccuseCARMACALof

single-mindedness, claiming that sustainability is about more than “climate” or “nature”.

Theycallforintegratedmeasurementthatalsoaccountsforthesocio-economicimpactsof

tourpackagesondestinations (R16,R23,R25). Feelingpowerlesswhen it comes toglobal

warming,sometrytobalancethingsoutbygeneratingsocialbenefitsinthe(long-haul)des-

tinationstheyoffer:

“Ifwekeepfillingairplaneswithpeopleandletthemtravelaroundcountries,that’s

badfortheEarth,youknow.Wecan’tchangethat.Wefeelweshouldcompensate

forthatbyofferingtripswithsocialimpact.Sothat,intheend,thenetresultisapos-

itiveone.”(R22)

OthersseeCARMACALasadistractiondevice, focusingattentiononthesector’scontribu-

tiontoglobalwarming,whiletheimpactsofclimatechangeontourismremainunaddressed:

“Climatechangealsoaffectsourbusiness.Butthisisneverthesubjectofdiscussion.”

(R23)

53

The position of the tour package as the travel industry’s most suitable representative is

equallychallenged.WouldCARMACALbemoreeffective(i.e.sellmorelicenses)if itrepre-

sented (estimated) average carbon footprints of products, product categories or the total

portfolio(R22,R23)?Shoulditfocusonairlinesandaccommodationsinstead(R26)?

Finally,athirdquestionprobeswhetherornotresearchersandtouroperatorsshouldspeak

inthenameofconsumers?InCARMACALconsumerslackphysicalpresenceandaclearrole.

They only appeared as actors when they participated in research on labelling during the

CARMATOPproject.Beyondthat,theyhavebeen(made)absentinthenetwork(Renetal.,

2012). Respondents justify this absence with arguments illustrating their position on the

distributionofresponsibilitiesforcarbonemissionsbetweenthebuyersandsellersofpack-

agetours.Inthesearguments,consumersemergearesaidtobeegoists,tolackmeaningful

agencytodrivechangeorareattributedtouroperators’personalpreferences:

“Most people donot careat all; theyarenot interested in the environment. Those

peopleplantogoonaholidayandtheywilldoso,nomatterwhat.”(R14)

“Customersshouldbeleftoutofthepicture.Afterall,whatcantheydotochangeit;

stayathome?”(R14)

“Towhatextentshouldyouburdenpeoplegoingonaholiday?Ialwaysfinditaggra

vatingwhenotherpeopletrytopointoutsuchthingstome.”(R10)

Otherswanttosharecostsorresponsibilitieswithconsumers:

“Ifyouhavetopaymoreforit,itshouldcomefromthecustomeraswell.(R4)

“Thecustomerwants togoonaholiday,and Iunderstand that,but then theyalso

havetotakeresponsibilityforit.”(R4)

Accordingly, inthesearguments, respondentsattributedifferentpossiblerolestoconsum-

ers.

Aslongasthedifferentspokespersonsofnatureandsocietystruggletoachieverepresenta-

tiveness,networkelementssuchasmoneyappear tobemissing,andconsumers lacknet-

workpresenceandclearroles,CARMACAL’sfutureremainsuncertain.

54

2.5. Conclusionanddiscussion

Inthischapter,weexploredANT’sanalyticalpotentialtostudyeco-innovation.Whileinno-

vation theories, institutional theory, stakeholder theory and the resource-based view are

commonlyusedforthispurpose(seeHojnik&Ruzzier,2016),theaddedvalueofstudying

eco-innovationwiththehelpofANTisthatthefocusisnolongersolelyonpeopleandthatit

allowsusto lookbeyond(predetermined)object-subjectdivides.Bygivingthehumanand

non-humanelementsofeco-innovationequalanalyticaltreatment,ANTinvitesustoexplain

eco-innovationindirectly,notthroughmeasurementbutbydescription(Ren,2011).Forthis

study,wedescribedaspecificeco-innovationasperformed,multipleandhybridratherthan

stable,singularandsocial.Thisapproachputseco-innovationinadifferentlight,whichmay

helpdiscoverneworders (Gad& Jensen, 2010).We thereforeargue thatANT’s analytical

toolsarerelevanttounderstandingeco-innovationsinthebroadersustainabilitytransitions

field. The threeoverlapping linesof enquiry this chapterproposes, demonstrate the chal-

lenges of technology-based eco-innovations such as CARMACAL, developed in the tempo-

rarilyprotectedenvironmentornicheofasubsidisedproject(seeLachman,2013),tosubse-

quentlybeenrolledinbroadersocio-technicalnetworkssuchasthetravel industry(Smith,

Voβ,&Grin,2010).

The first lineofenquiryexplainedeco-innovationasastateof flux,which isnoteasilyex-

plained with presupposed object-subject divisions (Gren & Huijbens, 2012). By tracing

CARMACAL’s translations over time (Law, 1992),we found that different carbonmanage-

ment ideas hadbecome coincidentally entangled through an industry event and a shared

interest inuniformcarbonmeasurement(M1).DuringCARMATOP,theRAAKsubsidyrules

madetheresearchersstabilisethisnetworkbydefiningtheidentitiesandrolesoftheother

actors(M2).Afterwards,thetoolhadtoholdthenetworktogetherbybeingimplementedin

touroperatingpractices.However,asshown,theidentitiesandrolesofCARMACALandits

end-usershadsincechanged.Thedifferentcarbonmanagementideas(re)appearedasdis-

tinctcarbonmanagementapproaches(M3).Synchronisingtheseinintegratedcarbonpolicy

required leadership (Scott et al., 2016a), or, in ANT terms, strong spokespersons (Callon,

1986). Yet,with all representativesbeingdisputed, customersbeingunrepresentedall to-

gether,andalackoffinancialresourcestoimproveitsefficiency,CARMACALsofardidnot

managetomobiliseconcertedindustryaction(M4).Thequalitiesofthisnewtechnologyin

55

itselfwerenotenoughtoinstigatetransitions.Suchtransitionsrequirebroadernegotiations

thataddressdifferentandchangingissuesovertime(Jørgensen,2012).

The second line of enquiry provided evidence of how one specific eco-innovation is per-

formedinavarietyofways.ByregardingCARMACALasachangingactor-network,wewere

able to overcome distinctions between actors and their outputs, enabling an integrated

analysisof,forinstance,globalchallengesandthebusinessorganisation(Scherer&Palazzo,

2011),orbusinessesandtheirsustainabilityreports(Fontetal.,2016;Colesetal.,2014).In

our study,we saw that CARMACALmakes three distinct carbonmanagement approaches

possible(Figure2-5),witheachprescribingitsownconditionsforsuccessandfailure.First,

carbon labelling, implemented via a consumer label, presents nature (to consumers). Se-

cond, carbon reduction, staged through eco-efficiency ratios, relieves nature (and Earth).

Third,carbonoffsetting,depictedasscalableapproach,compensatesnature.Alongsidethe-

se,wefindthatabsentelements,suchasbusinesstraveloperators,consumers,money,wa-

terandenergymeasurements,andsocio-economicsustainabilityaspectsall leavetracesin

thenetwork.ThesedifferentversionsofCARMACALillustratehowasinglepieceoftechnol-

ogyaffordsmultiplerealitiesexpressed indifferent,seeminglycontradictorypractices,and

demonstratetheambiguousroleoftechnologyinsustainabilitytransitions(Hansson,2010).

Thisshowedfromthetouroperatingroutinesthatprotectedexistingproductstockandap-

pealingproducts. It also showed from“it threatensourbusiness” statements,whichwere

justifiedwithargumentssuchas“wecan’tchangethat”,“customerswon’tunderstand”or

“wearenotgoingtoaskourcustomerstotravel less”.Likewise,thisbiaswasevident in i)

statementsthatsustainabilityisaboutmorethanclimateornature;ii)attemptstocompen-

sate for climate damage by offering (long-haul) trips with positive social impacts; and iii)

statementsportrayingCARMACALasanexcuse fornotaddressingclimatechange impacts

onthetravel industry.Takentogether,theseasymmetriesdemonstratethatatechnology-

basedeco-innovationsuchasCARMACALiscomplicatedbyitsownoppositeimplicationsfor

socio-economicandenvironmentalsustainability(Gössling,2016).

56

Figure2-5CarbonmanagementapproachesinCARMACAL

Thischaptercontributestothesustainabilitytransitionsfieldbyofferinganalternativeview

ontheICT-sustainabilityinterrelationsofeco-innovationsdevelopedinniches.Thedifferent

carbonmanagementapproacheswetracedillustrate“strong”and“weak”formsofsustain-

ability(Hansson,2010).Strongsustainabilitytakes“human-madeandnaturalcapitalasdif-

ferent categories” that cannot be exchanged;weak sustainability allows compensation of

current lossesofnaturalresourceswith increasedfuturehumancapital(Hansson,2010,p.

275). Strong sustainability, exemplified in emission reduction strategies and low-carbon

tourism(Becken,2017),buildsonEarthsystemsnotionsandimaginesasocio-technicalfu-

ture in which substantive socio-ecological values are reasserted through socio-economic

dematerialisation(Strand,Saltelli,Giampietro,Rommetveit,&Funtowicz,2016).Weaksus-

tainability,inherentincarbonoffsettingandthetriplebottomlineparadigm(Isil&Hernke,

2017), builds on technological determinism and imagines a socio-technological future in

which,despiteecologicalchallenges,humanconditionsprogressivelyimprovethrough(infi-

nite) technological innovation (Strandetal., 2016).Whileambiguous (Hansson,2010)and

technicallyantipodal (Gössling (2016),ourstudyshowshowtheseseeminglycontradictory

57

sustainability formsmay bemutually supportive: the formermost effectively address cli-

matechange, the latter trigger industry involvement.Botharethereforeessential require-

mentsforsustainabilitytransitions.

Thefindingsofthisstudyhelpidentifypolicymeasuresthatstrengthenthecontributionof

nicheinnovationstosustainabilitytransitionsandmobilisebusinessestotakeresponsibility

for sustainability.Asour studyobserved,businesses suchas touroperators,whichexploit

mainly generic assets and operate under uncertain climate policies, tend tomaintain and

protectestablishedpracticesratherthanenhance(consumer)acceptanceofnewtechnolo-

gies(Pinkse&Kolk,2010).Insuchsettings,nicheinnovationsmaybemoreeffectivewhen

included in abroaderpolicymix that favours (integrated)production and consumptionof

greentechnologies(Lachman,2013;Pinkse&Kolk,2010).

Therefore, first, seeing niche innovations as multiplication and mainstreaming processes

ratherthanblueprintsmayhelpincreasethenumberofexperiments,normalisingtheprac-

ticeofexperimentation(Brown,Farrelly,&Loorbach,2013).Performancecouldbeassessed

accordingly: alongside technological specifications, criteriamay cover the value of lessons

learned,articulationofsupportiveinstitutionalrequirements,andenrolmentofnewactors

(Smithetal.,2010).

Second,nichesmayperformbetterwhen they combine technological and commercial ex-

pertisefromthestart.Alongside(scientific)invention,nichesneedtostrengthentheability

ofbusinessestocommercialisenewtechnologybydevelopingnewproductsandincreasing

consumeracceptanceof the technology (Pinkse&Kolk,2010).Policymechanisms suchas

RAAKmaythereforeprovemoreeffectivewhentheireligibilityrequirementsarebasedon

thisrationalethanbusinesssizeperse(RAAKfocusesonSMEs).

Last,givenpresentconsumerdisinterestinclimateimpactsoftourpackages(Eijgelaaretal.,

2016),stimulatingconsumerparticipationasend-usersinnichesmayworkbetterthansimp-

lytestingnewinnovationsagainstexistingconsumerattitudesandneeds(Verbong,Schot,&

Kanger,2016).Thelatterapproachviewsconsumersasrationalactorschoosingfromprede-

finedoptionsinstableconditions;end-userparticipationchallenges“theunderlyingassump-

tions of everyday practices” and simultaneously initiates new consumption routines (Ver-

bongetal.,2016,p.3).

58

Insum,eco-innovationssuchasCARMACALshouldnotbeenvisagedasinventionsthat,by

themselves,willsoonerorlatermobilisesustainabilitytransitions(Smithetal.,2010).There-

fore,mechanismssuchasRAAKrequiresupportthroughconcertedpolicyeffortstobeeffec-

tive(Brownetal.,2013;Lachman,2013).

Finally,thischapter introducesANTtoafieldwhere ithas leftfewtracesbuthasmuchto

offer to those looking forways tomobilise sustainability transitions. Yet, like any theory,

ANT is not without its weaknesses. ANT jargon occasionally comes across as inaccessible

(Van der Duim et al., 2017) and its “radical reorientation of perspectives” complicates its

applicationinmoreconventionalresearchapproaches(Cohen&Cohen,2012,p.2185).The

framework inthischaptermayaddresstheseshortcomings.WhileANT itselfsuggeststhat

(any)theoryisthelanguage(andthenetwork)throughwhichitisperformed,onedoesnot

haveto“speak”ANTorfullyembrace itsalternativeontologytomakeuseof itsanalytical

merits. By offering three overlapping lines of enquiry, phrased as generic, fit-for-purpose

questions,ourframeworkhelpstomakeANTmoreaccessibleforempiricalresearchapplica-

tionsinafield,where,inourview,ithasmuchtooffer.

60

Abstract

Thischapterusesdiscoursetheorytoobtainabroaderunderstandingofhowresearch im-

pactofsustainabletourismresearchdevelopsintheenvironmentalpolicydomain.Discourse

theoryshiftsemphasisfromthesubstanceofscienceversuspolicytotheuseofsciencein

policy processes and explains the political dimensions of policymaking.We first review a

well-documented science-policy gap in sustainable tourism research on climate change to

develop an alternative conceptualisation of research impact. Then, using a case study ap-

proach,weinvestigatethisframeworkbyevaluatingtheimpactofaPhDthesisaboutavia-

tion’sglobalCO2emissionsontheDutchaviationpolicyprocess.Thecasestudyshowsre-

searchimpactisentwinedwithvariousotherelements,andembeddedinaspecificgovern-

ancecontext.Researchinfluencedcontrastingscience-policyinteractionsandcontributedto

conflictingpolicyactionsandreactions.Theimpactofresearchinthiscasewasmanifested

through the formation and interplay of multiple knowledge objects that were both em-

bracedandmarginalised.Insettingslikethis,researchisusedtolegitimisepre-existingpoli-

cypositionsratherthantodevelopnewpolicies.Wediscusstheimplicationsofnarrowcon-

ceptionsofresearchimpact.Thechapterhighlightstheneedforadvancedpolicyanalysisin

sustainabletourismresearch.

Keywords:researchimpact;science-policygap;sustainabletourismresearch;discoursethe-

ory;policyanalysis;aviationpolicy

Thischapterispublishedas:

Buijtendijk,H.,&Eijgelaar,E. (2020).Understandingresearch impactmanifestations inthe

environmentalpolicydomain.SustainabletourismresearchandthecaseofDutchaviation.

JournalofSustainableTourism.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1760872

61

3.1. Introduction

This chapter addresses the conceptionof research impactof sustainable tourism research

(STR)intheenvironmentalpolicydomain.Improveddisseminationofresearchandcollabo-

rationwithpolicyactorsarepresentedasvital toclosescience-policygapsandcreate im-

pactfulSTRthatcontributestopro-environmentalpolicychange(Bramwell,Higham,Lane,&

Miller, 2016; Font, Higham, Miller, & Pourfakhimi, 2019). Collaboratively produced and

properly communicated scientific evidence would then end up in science-based policies

(Dredge, 2019). Science-policy gaps become science communication gaps, i.e. barriers to

convertingacademicknowledgeintouseful‘resources’forpolicyactors(Dredge,2015).Yet,

thenotionthatsciencedeterminesenvironmentalpolicy ismisleading (Rayner,2006),and

suggestsalinearideaofknowledgetransferthathasbeenthesubjectofsustainedcritique

in environmental policy studies (see e.g. Owens, Petts, & Bulkeley, 2006). It presupposes

that science and policy share universally accepted definitions of environmental problems

andthatthecontentofpoliciesisalwaysthefocus(Hajer,2005).Thisanalyticalasymmetry

disregardsthattheproductionofpolicyandthatofscienceareentwined.Bothdomainsare

embedded in – established – social structures, such as institutions and conventions

(Jasanoff,2015).Theproductsofsciencebecometoolsfordifferentpolicyactors(Buckley,

2012).‘Researchimpact’,thus,issomewhatnarrowlyconceived.Afocusonthesubstanceof

policyobscuresthepoliticaldimensionsofscience-policyinteractions,i.e.theuseofscience

in policymaking (Jasanoff, 2015). An alternative conceptualisation of research impact is

thereforerelevant.

Post-structuralistdiscourse theory (hereafter referred toasdiscourse theory)helpsusde-

velop such a conceptualisation. In discourse theory – not to be confusedwith semiotics-

oriented discourse analysis – reality is a discursive construct (Duineveld & Van Assche,

2011). Discourses are autonomous and necessarily incomplete processes ofmeaning pro-

ductionthatconstructdifferentversionsof reality,andthatareproducedandreproduced

through identifiable practices (Hajer, 2005; Howarth, 2000). As discourses evolve through

self-referral,theycannevergrasprealityinitsentiretyandalwaysrelatetootherdiscourses

(VanAssche,Beunen,&Duineveld,2014).Power–neverastablecondition–permeatesthis

process (Duineveld&VanAssche,2011).Asdiscursivedifferencescannotbecrossed,pro-

cessesofdominanceandsubjugationarisewhendiscoursescollide(VanAsscheetal.,2014).

62

Consequently,indiscoursetheory,theuseofscienceinenvironmentalpolicymakingconsti-

tutesadiscursiveclash inwhichno formof (scientific)knowledgehasdirectaccess to the

truth(Jasanoff,2015).Ratherthanbelievingthatuniversallyacceptedscientificdefinitionsof

environmentalproblemswillbridgescience-policygaps,discoursetheoryallowsustotrace

how policy actors assimilate (the same) scientific evidence in different discourses (Hajer,

2005).

Discoursetheorythusexposesthepower-knowledgeinteractionsintegraltoenvironmental

policystruggles (Duineveld&VanAssche,2011).Thisenablesus to illustrate the“political

pressuresuponthepolicyspace”(Dredge,2019),andtheselectiveappropriationof(scien-

tific)knowledge(Hall,2019).Deployingitsanalyticalpotential,thischapterthereforeaimsto

evaluatethewaySTRfunctionsinaparticularenvironmentalpolicystruggle.Bymeansofa

casestudy,wetracethe‘researchimpact’ofaPhDthesisaboutaviation’sglobalCO2emis-

sions(Peeters,2017)ontheDutchaviationpolicyprocess.Thechapterproceedsasfollows.

FirstwedrawfromSTRonaviation-inducedclimatechangeandthe‘science-policygap’de-

scribedinthisliterature(e.g.Cohen,Higham,Gössling,Peeters,&Eijgelaar,2016)torecon-

ceptualiseresearchimpactasaprocessofobjectformation(Duineveld&VanAssche,2011).

Then,basedonthisframework,wepresentourcaseandtracehowamarginaliseddiscourse

aboutaviation-inducedclimatechangegraduallyenteredtheDutchaviationpolicyprocess.

Weconcludethatresearchimpactisalong-term,emergenteffectthatmanifestsitselfsub-

tlyinthepolicyprocess.

3.2. Discoursetheoryandascience-policygapinsustainabletourismresearch

Discourse theory assumes that reality is constructed through the interplay of power and

knowledge (Howarth,2000).Power, inFoucault’sview, isanamoraland relational “multi-

plicityofforcerelations”operativeeverywhere(Foucault,1998,inDuineveld&VanAssche,

2011,p.81).Knowledge,incontrast,isneverneutral.Knowledgeenhancespowerrelations.

No form of knowledge is fully disconnected from the organisations, communities, topics,

methods,andquestionsstructuring itsproduction;norhasdirectaccess to the truth (Van

Asscheetal.,2014).Inthisviewpowerandknowledgeareintegraltobothscienceandpoli-

cy.Bothdomainsareshapedbydifferent,collidingdiscourses.Indiscoursetheory,the‘sci-

ence-policygap’,presentedinaforementionedresearchonaviation-inducedclimatechange,

isnotagapbetweenscienceandpolicy,butadiscursiveconstructthatsignalsdifferences

63

betweenprioritisedandsubjugated truthclaimsaspowerandknowledge interact (Duine-

veld&VanAssche,2011).Thus,discoursetheoryhelpsusmovebeyondthescience-policy

dichotomyandconceptualiseenvironmentalpolicystrugglesason-goingprocessesofpow-

er-knowledgeinteractionsacrossdifferentdiscourses.

Reviewingthis‘science-policygap’throughthelensofdiscoursetheory,weidentifiedthree

analyticalasymmetries.The firstonerelates to theparticularscientificscope inwhichthis

literature presents the desirable (decarbonised) transport futures it advocates. These fu-

tures,itsuggests,requiretechnocraticpoliciesfirmlyembeddedinIPCCclimateriskframes

(Peeters,Higham,Cohen,Eijgelaar,&Gössling,2019), inwhichpolicyrequiresglobalman-

agement (Oels,2013).They involve“structural transitions” (Cohenetal.,2016,p.327), “a

tourismsectoremissionmanagementandreportingsystem”,and“astrategicpolicyframe-

work” (Scott,Gössling,Hall,&Peeters, 2016a,p. 68).And theyare identified through sci-

ence-basedsimulationsandscenarios(Cohenetal.,2016;Peetersetal.,2019).Currentpoli-

ciesareevaluatedbasedonhoweffectivetheyareinachievingthesedesirablefutures(see

for instanceScott,Hall,&Gössling,2016c).This literature, thus,exhibitsa strongbelief in

science-basedpolicymaking(Fontetal.,2019),basedonaparticularscience-policyconstel-

lation,inwhichsciencedeterminesacceptable(climate)risklevelsforpolicymakersandso-

ciety.Thisdisregardsalternative risk framesandscience-policy constellations in thepolicy

process(seeOels,2013),andhighlightstheneedtoincludetheirtrajectoriesintoouranaly-

sis.

Thesecondanalyticalasymmetryconcernsthetendencytojuxtaposethepolicystatusquo

withtheadvocatedpolicyreality.Thepresentsituationisframedasa‘decarbonisationim-

passe’(Gössling&Scott,2018).Policymakersarecriticisedfortheirinaction.Theyarerepre-

sentedas inert,and lackingthepoliticalwill to implement“meaningfulchange” (Cohenet

al.,2016,p.327).Leadersareencouragedtoshowleadership(Scottetal.,2016a).Explana-

tionsfortheimpasseareoffered,too.Amongthem,welistcloserelationsbetweenpolicy-

makersandtheindustry(Cohenetal.,2016),self-interestsdrivingpolicypreferences(Cohen

&Kantenbacher,2019), andprevailingneoliberal governance structures (Gössling&Scott,

2018).ThesestatementsreflectBuckley’sclaimthatpolicymakersmainlyuseinformationas

“meanstogain,power,fame,ormoney”(Buckley,2012,p.537).Yet,inthelightofourar-

gument, they seemone-sided. They suggest that certain scientific knowledgehas intrinsic

64

value (ibid.). However, in the policy process, this knowledge faces competing (scientific)

knowledge,andservesasameanstodifferentends(Jasanoff,2015).Anapproachthatex-

aminesthesettingsinwhichdifferentformsof(scientific)knowledgesimultaneouslyinform

alternative,andpossiblycontradictory,policydirectionsisthereforeuseful.

Thethirdasymmetryweidentifiedentailstherepresentationoftheknowledgerequiredto

close the ‘science-policy gap’. Since Gössling (2002) introduced aviation-induced climate

changeinSTR,aliteratureofcalculatedcertaintieshasdevelopedthatdepicts(climate)risks

as“knowable,calculable,andthereforecontrollable”(Oels,2013,p.20).Thesestudiespre-

sentmodels,scenarios,andestimatesconcerninglong-termemissionchallenges,costs,and

impactsofassumedpolicychoices(e.g.Peetersetal.,2019;Scottetal.,2016a).Knowledge

putforwardbypolicymakersandalternativeinterpretationsofriskareexclusivelyevaluated

withinthisframe.Incompatibleargumentsarepresentedasfabricateduncertaintiestojusti-

fybusinessasusual(Gössling&Scott,2018).Incompatiblesolutions,i.e.typesoftechnologi-

cal innovation, are exposed as hoaxes and myths (Peeters, Higham, Kutzner, Cohen, &

Gössling, 2016). This asymmetryobscureshowdifferent formsof knowledgebecome ‘ob-

jects’instrategiesthatpolicyactorswittinglyandunwittinglydeploytoexertinfluenceand

negotiaterisk (Duineveld&VanAssche,2011).Amorefine-grainedanalysisof theiruse is

thusrelevant.

3.2.1. Researchimpactasaprocessofobjectformation

We therefore argue that research impact can be understood as a process of object for-

mation.Objects–inourcase,aviation-inducedclimatechange–arepronounceddiscursive

constructs that feature as central elements of discourses. Examples include issues, topics,

physicalobjects, ideas,and ideologies (VanAsscheetal.,2014).Objectsareneveragiven

andalwaysconstructed(Howarth,2000).Objectformationtakesplace incontextsofcom-

petingdiscourses,wherepowerandknowledgeinteractmoreintensively(Duineveld&Van

Assche, 2011). As illustrated above, STRon climate changehas handedpolicymakers new

objects as arguments,most notably ‘health’ (e.g. Cohen& Kantenbacher, 2019). Like the

knowledgethatcreatedthem,noneof theseobjects ispoliticallyneutral.Asobjects form,

they change themeaningof theirenvironment: theirembedding in language, scienceand

institutionsmakesthemmorelikelytofunctioninpolicymaking(VanAsscheetal.,2014).To

examinetheformationoftheobjectofaviation-inducedclimatechange intheDutchavia-

65

tionpolicyprocess,weadopttheframeworkofDuineveldandVanAssche(2011),whodis-

cernpathways,sites,andtechniquesofobjectformation.

Pathwaysare“theseriesofdecisionsandeventsthattypifiestheemergenceandsolidifica-

tionofadiscursiveobject”(Duineveld&VanAssche,2011,p.81).AccordingtoVanAssche

et al. (2014), pathways entail the temporal dimensions of policy processes and comprise

dependencies on the past (path dependencies), present (interdependencies), and future

(goal dependencies). The past, in the shape of various legacies (i.e. previous policies, in-

grained governance habits and incumbent actors) informs a shared understanding of the

present. In the present, there is interdependence between policy actors and institutions

whoseauthority reliesoncommitments tocurrentpolicies, suchaselectoralandbusiness

interests. For the future, shared visions, for instance, steer policy directions and define

whichactorstakepartinpolicyprocesses.Insum,undertheseconditions,policyactorscan-

not freely changedirections. Byhighlighting the temporal dimensionsof policy processes,

pathways, thus, enableus to identify thedependencies thatholdback change inenviron-

mentalpolicystruggles.

Sites are the (in)formal settings inwhich object formation occurs. They include occasions

andplaceswhereactorsassessjointactions.Sitescanbepermanentortransient,butalways

constitutescenesof“highercommunicativedensity”(VanAsscheetal.,2014,p.29).Inthe-

sesettings,newobjectsemerge,andactorsenter–andleave–thepolicyarena,andtheir

presence/absencemay lead to new pathways and sites. As a result of actors associating

themselveswithobjects,distinctdiscoursecoalitionscanemerge,whicharegroupsofactors

thatshareidentifiablepracticesand“theusageofaparticularsetofstorylinesoverapartic-

ularperiodoftime”(Hajer,2005,p.302).Discoursecoalitionstranscendpathwaysandsites,

and different discourse coalitions canmanifest themselves in a single actor, e.g. coalition

governments. Consequently, by identifying sites in environmental policy struggles,we can

trace their emergence and/or demise over time. This enables us tomove beyond binary

presentationsof(gapsbetween)scienceandpolicy,tobetterunderstandthedynamicand

contestednatureofscienceinpolicyprocesses.

Techniquesareaspectsof theprocessofobject formationthatshapetheemergingobject

(Duineveld & Van Assche, 2011). Actors sometimes intentionally and strategically deploy

techniques,butoftentechniquesareunintended,emergenteffectsofinteractionsbetween

66

actors (Van Assche et al. (2014). Six techniques of object formation are distinguished

(Duineveld&VanAssche,2011): initially, thepresenceof theobject is generallyaccepted

but viewed as inconsequential (reification), before problems arise and it is perceived as

moreurgent (solidification).Next,elementspreviously taken forgrantedare linked to the

objectandbecomepartofthediscussion(codification).Thepublicperceptionthattheob-

jectisself-evidentisconcurrentlystrengthened(naturalisation).Throughtheuseofscientific

means,itbecomespartoftheobjectivetruth(objectification),whichobscurescontingencies

and alternatives, and it is included in policies and plans (institutionalisation). Techniques

helpusinvestigatehowpowermanifestsitselfinscience-policyinteractions.

3.3. Casestudy:sustainabletourismresearchinDutchaviationpolicymaking

WhenDelftUniversityofTechnology(TUDelft)awardedPeetersthePhDdegreeforhisthe-

sisonaviation-inducedclimatechange inNovember2017, therewasaperfectstorm.The

argumentofthethesiswasnotnew.Someoftheunderlyingevidencehadcirculatedsince

the 2000s (notably Gössling, 2002). Yet, that autumn, the thesis attracted substantial na-

tional media coverage. In Dutch aviation policymaking, an environmental policy struggle

emerged in which Peeters advised parliament twice (Peeters, 2019b; Peeters &Melkert,

2018),wasthesubjectofseveralparliamentaryquestions,andintensivelyengagedwithac-

torsacrossthepolicyspectrum(seee.g.N&M,Greenpeace,&MNH,2019;Peeters,2019a).

Whathappened?

3.3.1. Methodology

Totracetheunfoldingoftheseeventsandexamineourframework,weadoptedaprocess-

orientedcasestudyapproachbecauseofitsabilitytocapturethedynamic,context-specific

nature of research impact within the temporal dimensions of policy evolutions (Boaz,

Fitzpatrick,&Shaw,2009).

Thecasestudydesignencompassedthreecomponents(I-III),premisedonHajer’s(2005,p.

306) guidelines for argumentative discourse analysis. Document analysis (newspaper arti-

cles,reports,andacademicstudiesontheDutchaviationsector)andfourunstructured“hel-

icopterinterviews”(twointerviewswithPeetersandtwointerviewswithseniornewspaper

editors/journalistsfromopposingendsoftheDutchmediaspectrum)helpedusestablisha

balanced overall chronology of the debate, and identify key informants across the policy

spectrum(I).Usingasemi-structuredinterviewdesignbasedonatopiclistoperationalising

67

ourframework,eighteencentralactorsweresubsequentlyinterviewed(eightseniorindus-

tryexecutives;threeMembersofParliament;twoseniorgovernmentofficials;fourNGO&

action groupdirectors and senior advisors; andone senior aviation expert) to discern im-

portantmomentsandthedifferentsettingsofthedebate,aswellasways inwhichactors

influencedthedebate(II).Informantswerethusselectedusingacombinationofpurposive

and snowball sampling. A quantitative content analysis of all Dutch national and regional

newspapers,usingNexisUniTM(amajoronlinedatabasefeaturingfullDutchnewspaperar-

chives)complementedourinquiries(III).

InterviewstookplacefromApriltoOctober2019.Thestatedpurposeoftheinterviewswas

tounderstandthedevelopingnationaldebateonaviation-inducedclimatechange,without

explicitlyaddressingthePhDthesis.Inthisperiod,aswewillshow,thedebateevolvedrap-

idly,withnewdevelopmentsoccurringonaweeklybasis.Giventhepoliticalsensitivity,and

thefactthataconsiderablenumberofour informantsarepublicfigures,participationwas

on the conditionof anonymity. All respondentswere contactedby phoneor email. Inter-

views were held at locations picked by the respondents and lasted 60-90minutes, apart

fromthehelicopterinterviews(60-180minutes).Interviewsweretailoredtotheinformant’s

context;interviewersusedopen-endedandgenericguidingquestionstoprobeelaboration.

Dataanalysiscomprised:(i)themanualconversionofalltranscriptsintoindividualchronol-

ogies (comprising the keymoments, policy settings, andmeans of exerting influence that

each respondent perceived); (ii) data triangulation by comparing these chronologies with

newspaperarticles,reports,letterstoparliament,parliamentarymotionsandwebsites;and

(iii) aNexisUniTManalysis inwhich theaggregated timeframe (Q4-2015-present)andavia-

tionandclimatechange-relatedtopicsthatinformantsidentifiedwereusedasinput(results

weremanuallycleanedandpresentedinquarterlyyears).Inthisway,weidentifiedkeyinci-

dents,trackingthegradualformationoftheobjectofaviation-inducedclimatechangeinthe

Dutchaviationpolicyprocess(Hajer,2005).

Theresultisacomprehensivecasestudy,whichwepresentinthenextsections.Itconsists

ofthreeepisodes,reflectingpast,present,andfuturepolicypathwaysandrelateddepend-

encies.Withinthesetemporaldimensions,usingthemetaphorofaperfectstorm,weidenti-

fy the different sites and techniques that formed the object of aviation-induced climate

changeinthepolicyprocess.Allinterpretationsarebasedondata.Casestudyreferencesare

68

limitedtothosespecificallymentionedbyrespondents.

3.3.2. Legaciesofthepast

Historically, in theNetherlands, the object of aviation-induced climate changewas recog-

nised, but considered irrelevant to national aviation policy (reification). The government

treateditasaglobalpolicyitem,whichtheyaddressedthroughtheInternationalCivilAvia-

tionOrganisation(ICAO)andtheEuropeanUnion(Huijs,2011;VVD,CDA,D66,&CU,2017).

Like France,Germany, and theUnitedKingdom, theNetherlands – densely populated, in-

creasinglyurbanised–ishometooneofEurope’sglobalaviationhubs:Schipholairport.But

unlikeParisCharlesdeGaulle,Frankfurtairport,andLondonHeathrow,Schiphol isdispro-

portionally large compared to its national catchment area (de Jong&Boelens, 2014).We

identifiedaseriesofpastpolicies–spanningthreedecadesandrevolvingaroundtheques-

tionofhowtodevelopandmaintainacompetitiveglobalaviationhubwhenspaceislimited

– that helped create this situation. Thispathway nurtured certain governance habits and

facilitatedthebusinessoftwoincumbentactorswithclosegovernmentties:RoyalSchiphol

Group(RSG)andKLMRoyalDutchAirlines.

RSGisanindependentcommercialenterpriseinwhichthegovernmenthasamajoritystake.

Itownsandoperates thenational airport Schiphol and several regional airports, including

Lelystad Airport (hereafter Lelystad). Schiphol, situated in an increasingly urbanised area

nearAmsterdam,recorded499,444flightsandrankedassecondairportforhubconnectivity

worldwide in2018(RSG,2019).Thatsameyear,KLM(35,000employees;166destinations

fromSchiphol),whichhasalwaysbeen(partially)government-owned,served34millionpas-

sengersandgenerated11billionEURofrevenue(KLM,2019).Alongsidethesetwo,anaero-

spaceclusterhasevolved,mainlyaroundTUDelft.

Beforethestorm:forginggrowthinthefaceofenvironmentallimits

Schiphol’sdevelopmentintoaglobalaviationhubistheresultofaneffectivepublic-private

partnershipthatcanbetracedbackto1985,whenthegovernmentappointedSchipholasa

mainportoftheDutcheconomy(Huijs,2011).Eversince,theterm‘mainport’hasbecome

anobjectinDutchaviationpolicymaking,whereithasbeenusedtopropagatethefunction

of very large air- or seaports as engines of economic growth. Growth strategies between

Schiphol (globalhub)andKLM (homecarrier)werealigned.Byexerting influence through

69

theMinistryofInfrastructureandWaterManagement(I&W),KLMandSchipholsucceeded

inmakingtheirstrategiespartofgovernmentpolicy(ibid.).

Gradually, this public-private partnership institutionalised as an ‘iron triangle’: Schiphol,

KLM,I&Wdevelopedagovernancehabitofjointlypreparingandtakingdecisions,withthe

government relying heavily on aviation sector information (Huijs, 2011). The triangle has

sincefunctionedasasiteandcultivatedacommondiscoursethatfocusedonSchiphol’sna-

tionaleconomicimportance,whichfacilitatedhubexpansion.

As Schiphol’s environmental impacts (particularly noise) became increasingly pressing (de

Jong&Boelens,2014),actorsoutsidethetriangle,suchasSchiphol’sneighbouringresidents,

environmentalNGOs,andlocalandregionalgovernments,cametodependoneachotherto

influenceaviationpolicy.Theresultingstand-offresembledwhatHuijs(2011)describedasa

dialogueofthedeaf:actorsproducedstoriesabouttheenvironmentalcostsandeconomic

benefitsofaviationthatweretrueontheirowntermsandincreasinglytalkedatratherthan

listenedtoeachother.

Tobreakthisdeadlock,thegovernmentsupplementedthemainportpolicywithaso-called

dualpolicyobjectiveinthe1990s:expandSchipholashubwhiledecreasingitsenvironmen-

taleffects(Huijs,2011).ThisworkedinfavourofSchipholandKLM.Usingthemainportasa

frame, they stressed their national economic importance (see Boons, Van Buuren, &

Teisman,2010).Theenvironmentalobjectivemainlyfocusedonsafetyandnoise,notemis-

sions. I&Wconsideredenvironmental impactmeasuresexpensive.Parliamentdidnotpush

fornationalemissionreduction.EnvironmentalNGOssteeredclearofthetopicastheysaw

littlespacetoexertinfluence;residentsweremainlyconcernedaboutnoise.

Toconcretisethedual-policyobjective,severalcollaborativeplatformshavesincebeen in-

stalled,reminiscentoftheso-calledPoldermodel;thedeep-rootedDutchgovernancehabit

ofconsensus-basedpolicymakingthroughextensivenegotiations(Vogelij,2015).Oneofthe-

se platforms, theAlders Table, becamea central site for the implementationof the dual-

policyobjective.Itincludedrepresentativesofallrelevantstakeholders(deJong&Boelens,

2014),exceptforenvironmentalNGOs.TheAldersTablewaspresentedasapermanentin-

stitutionandwasgrantedlegitimacy:parliamentwouldacceptanyagreementthisplatform

reachedasnationalpolicy.

70

In2008,thefirstAldersAgreement(Alders,2008)cappedSchiphol’smainportexpansionto

500,000 flights per annum in 2020. The policy comprised a proposed ‘fifty-fifty principle’

(Schipholandresidentswouldsplitthebenefitsfromenvironmentalgains),andaso-called

‘selectivityrule’:atrafficredistributionarrangementthatenvisionedamoveofleisureand

budgetairlinestoregionalairports(Schipholsubsidiaries),forSchipholtoexpandhubtraffic.

TheAldersAgreementwascontroversialfromthestart.Theabstractfifty-fiftyprinciplewas

never legislated. The selectivity rule possibly conflictedwith EuropeanUnion competition

rules, which Alders (2008) acknowledged, and the proposedmove of leisure and budget

flights from Schiphol to regional airports would haunt aviation policymaking for the next

decade.Residentsaroundtheseregionalairportshadnotbeeninvolvedinthenegotiations

(Boonsetal.,2010).ParticularlyLelystad,ageneralaviationairfieldat the time,wasenvi-

sionedtobecomeaso-called‘overspillairport’,althoughitslocationwasconsideredunsuit-

ableforcivilaviation(LVNL-To70,2009).InMarch2015,thegovernmentdecidedtodevelop

Lelystadascivilaviationairport,toopeninApril2018.

These decisions and events constitute a history of steering attempts (Van Assche et al.,

2014):apathwayof(past)policycommitmentstohubexpansioninthefaceofenvironmen-

tal limits, in which the object of aviation-induced climate change lacked presence. These

policy legaciescontinueto informsharedunderstandingsofthepresent,makingitdifficult

forpolicymakerstochangedirectioninthefaceofastorm,asweshownext.

Stormsignals:moreroomforenvironmentalpolitics

Likeperfect storms,objects rarelyemerge fromnowhere.They formasunrelatedcircum-

stancesconverge. Inourcase, in2016and2017,differentandtaken-for-grantedelements

becamethesubjectofdebateandcorrespondinglybecamemoreurgent(solidification).Fig-

ure3-1showsthedynamicsintheformationofobjectsmostrelevantforthiscase.Before

the storm, only some media attention during the ‘Paris’ negotiations was notable in Q4

2015.Yet,in2016and2017,threedevelopments,clearlyvisibleinFigure3-1,signalledthe

storm’sarrival.

71

Figure3-1Objectformationdynamics.Thegraphillustratesthedynamicsoftheformationofseveral‘knowledgeobjects’

relatedtoSchipholandLelystad,intermsofthenumberofnationalandregionalnewspaperarticlesfrom2015onwards

(theperiodidentifiedbyourinformants).Source:ownanalysiswithNexisUniTM.

First,themainportpolicywascalledintoquestion.AsSchipholwouldreachtheagreedcap

of500,000flightssoonerthanexpected,I&WaskedtheAldersTableforarenewedadvice

onSchiphol’sdevelopmentupto2030inMarch2016.Upuntilthatpointinthedebate,the

2008AldersAgreementhadeffectivelyfunctionedasapolicythatlegitimisedSchiphol’sand

KLM’spushforexpansionwhilecontainingpublicdiscontent:itleftantagonistslittleroomto

makeanimpact.Thatchangedoverthesummerof2016.TheCouncilfortheEnvironment

and Infrastructure (RLI), a strategic advisory board of the government, published Beyond

Mainports, concluding that Schiphol was not amajor economic driver (Rli, 2016). ‘Noise’

gainedmomentum.The‘mainport’s’fallfromgracehadbegun.

Second, aviation became a topic on the national political agenda. Parliamentary elections

tookplaceinMarch2017.TheGreenPartyscoredwellandinitiallyparticipatedincoalition

talks,buteventuallyjoinedtheopposition.Aftertheelections,theyselectedaviationasone

of theirmain topics,as the lackof realistic technologicalmitigationsolutions legitimiseda

debateabout fundamentalsustainabilityquestions.Newspapers followedsuit inQ2,2017.

Unconventionally,thecoalitionagreementpresentedthatOctober,containedaspecificsec-

tiononaviation(seeVVDetal.,2017).Thetextcoinedtheterms‘smart’and‘sustainable’,

72

andannouncedthepreparationofanewCivilAviationPolicyMemorandum2020-2050.Po-

liticalopportunitiestoattacktheaviationsectorinparliamentappearedonthehorizon.

Third, a new actor emerged and entered the policy arena. In 2017, the Lelystad situation

escalated.Thegovernmenthadalreadypostponedtheairport’sopeningduetoflightrout-

ing issues in November 2016. A structural rezoning of (crowded) Dutch airspace was re-

quired.PressedbySchiphol’s loomingcongestion,I&Woptedforatemporarysolution.Le-

lystadtrafficwouldstaybelowSchipholtrafficanduselow-levelairspaceforapproachand

departures (Dijksma,2017a).Thismovetriggeredunanticipatedresistance fromcommuni-

ties under these (new) flight paths. Resident action groups formed. One of them (Hoo-

gOverIJssel) hadmemberswith in-depth technical expertise of aviation and knew how to

engagewithmediaandpoliticians.ThegroupanalysedLelystad’sEnvironmentalImpactAs-

sessment(EIA),andreachedouttoMPsandthemedia,claimingtheanticipatednoiselevels

were incorrect.Dijksma, the responsibleStateSecretaryof Infrastructureat the time,was

pressedbytheGreenPartytodiscussthematterwithHoogOverIJsselandhadtoadmitEIA

flawsafewmonthslater(Dijksma,2017b).‘Noise’andtheEIAenjoyedahighshareofhead-

linesforsixmonths.BythetimethenewgovernmenttookofficeinOctober2017,Lelystad

hadmovedintothenationalmediaspotlight.

Thesedevelopmentsillustratepathdependency:the2008AldersAgreementhadrestrained

thecourseof thepolicyprocess fornearlyadecade.Therelatedmounting resistancehad

drawntheattentionofasecondactorthat,untilthen,hadbeenabsentfromthedebate:the

environmentalmovement.EnvironmentalNGOswaitedforanopportunitytostepin.Itar-

rivedlatein2017,whenlong-awaitedroomtomakeaviationthesubjectofenvironmental

politicsopenedup.

Aperfectstorm:aviation-inducedclimatechangeentersthepolicyprocess

ThestormhitinNovember2017,whenTUDelftawardedPeetersthePhDdegree,andpre-

viouslyunrelatedelementsweredrawnintothedebate.ThePhDpressreleasewasdesigned

formaximumimpact(seeTUDelft,2017).Itscatchline(“tourismandtravelmakeParistar-

gets unachievable”) addressed Dutch policymakers attending the climate talks in Bonn

(COP23):maximumexpansionof“theDutchmainportSchipholairport”isnotasustainable

developmentoptionfortheNetherlands.Itsimpactwasconsiderable.

73

Severalmajor newspapers published articles that linked Schiphol’s expansion to the Paris

Agreement(Bruinsma&Stil,2017;Stil,2017).Somearguedforde-growthofSchiphol(Reijn,

2017).Themessagefeaturedinsome90+newspaperarticlesinthatfourthquarterof2017;

theeffectvisibleinFigure3-1.Peetersalreadyhadamediatrackrecordasaviationandcli-

mate change expert. Current affairs TV programme Buitenhof invited Peeters to discuss

Schiphol(Hagens,2017).ParliamentaryquestionsusedthemessageofthePhDtoscrutinise

Dutchclimatepolicy,Schiphol’sgrowth,andLelystad(vanRaan,2017). ‘Paris’hadentered

theDutchaviationpolicyprocess.

The environmentalNGOsnowhad their pretext. They entered theunfoldingdebate from

thatautumnonwards.InternationalNGOTransport&Environment(T&E)launchedaninter-

nationallobbycampaignincountriesdealingwithaviationcontroversies.IntheNetherlands,

T&E fed information to environmental NGOs, resident action groups, andMPs. New sites

subsequentlyemerged.Early2018threemajorDutchenvironmentalNGOs–Natuur&Mi-

lieu(Nature&Environment;hereafterN&M);Greenpeace;andtheNatuurenMilieuFeder-

atieNoord-Holland(regionalenvironmentalcouncil;hereafterMNH)–startedacoordinated

aviation policy lobby and nation-wide campaign. In Parliament, three opposition parties

formedagreenalliance.Onmultipleoccasionsinlate2017and2018,theysteeredaviation

debatestowardsemissionreductionandcompelledthegovernmenttoadmitthataviation

emissionswouldcontinuetoincreaseandthat–withthisknowledge–itsplanwastoopen

anewairport.Severalmotions,proposingemissionsmeasureshavebeentabledsince(taxa-

tion,reducingflightvolumesonSchiphol).

Accordingly,throughtheforgingofconnectionsbetweenSchipholandtheParisAgreement,

previouslyunrelatedandtakenforgrantedpolicyitems–hubexpansionandclimatechange

– entwined in the Dutch aviation policy process. The object of aviation-induced climate

change,consideredinternationalpolicymatterupuntilthatpoint,correspondinglyemerged

as a national policy item (codification). Ever since, Dutch aviation policy had become the

subjectofenvironmentalpolitics.

3.3.3. Presentpolicypathways

Competingpolicyactorstendtoblockorcomplementeachother’sstrategies,thusacknowl-

edgingtheiradversaries(cf.VanAsscheetal.,2014).Weidentifiedthesepathinterdepend-

enciesintheenvironmentalpolicystrugglethatunfoldedfrom2018onwards.

74

Inthewakeofthestorm:discursiveconfrontationsintensify

Thatyear, theobjectofaviation-inducedclimate(was)turned intoamatterofpubliccon-

cern.2018sawGretaThunberg-inspiredschoolstrikes,discussionsabout‘flightshame’and

increasedtraintravel.Duringanunusuallywarmsummer,mediacoverageonaviationand

climate changegrew steadily (see Figure3-1).N&M,Greenpeace, andMNHexploited the

publicdiscontent,which,inpart,theyhadhelpedcreate.Theyorganisedmeet-ups,sympo-

sia and rallies.With thehelpof greenallianceMPs, theNGOshelpedaction groupsbuild

nation-wideplatforms.TheCollaboratingActionGroupsAgainstLow-levelflightpaths(SATL)

and a national citizens’ council against aviation growth (LBBL) were subsequently estab-

lished. Both registered as legal entities. Thus, (the impression of) a nation-wide protest

movementhadbeencreated.Aviation-inducedclimatechangehadbecomeself-evident in

thepublicperception(naturalisation).

Thegovernmentandtheaviationsectorfacedmountingpublicscrutiny.Schiphol,preferring

thelocalisedsettingoftheAldersTabletoanation-widedebateaboutgrowth,deniedthe

actor-statusofSATL,arguingthatonlyresidentslivingnearoperationalairports(ratherthan

undertheflightpathsoffutureairports)hadalegitimatestakeinthediscussion.Thecredi-

bilityoftheAldersTable,however, furtherdiminished. ‘Schiphollen’hadearnedanational

dictionaryentry(vanDale,2019).Thisverbreferstothegovernancehabitofmaking(delib-

eratelycomplex)agreementsthatwillnotbekept,becauseoneknowsbeforehandthatfu-

tureagreementswillfollow(thatwillalsonotbekept).Meanwhile,actiongroupsworkedto

exposetheintimaterelationsbetweenthesectorandI&W.Nationalnewsmediaplayedinto

theirhands,revealingthatI&WofficialsandSchipholhadcollaboratedcloselyonpreparing

theairport’snewEIAandjointlydecidedwhatinformationwouldbemadeavailableforpar-

liament, local governments and residents. Reservations about the trustworthiness of the

governmentweremounting.

Intheseevents,wetracedtheemergenceoftwodiscoursecoalitions(cf.Hajer,2005).They

producedopposingrepresentationsoftheworld–andcorrespondinginterpretationsofthe

past,present,andfuture–ineffortstojustifyconcurrentpolicyorproposealternativepolicy

directions: a sector coalition and a green coalition. The former comprised the long-

established irontriangleactors(I&W,KLM,Schiphol),aerospaceassociationsandTUDelft,

andotherairlines.Thelatterincludedtheaforementionedgreenallianceandenvironmental

75

NGOs,andanevolvingnetworkoflocalactiongroups.

Thesectorcoalition,upholdingthestatusquo,depictsaviation-inducedclimatechangeasa

technological challenge entwinedwith pro-growth globalism and national pride. Together

withKLM,SchipholisportrayedasaniconoftheNetherlandsasatradingnation.Zeroavia-

tiongrowthispostulatedaspointlessbecauseofcurrentglobalgrowthprojections.Growth

ispresentedasacondition todevelopnewtechnologies that reduceemissions.Thereare

aspiring visions of developing and exporting these technologies, premisedon typicalmer-

cantilistinterpretationsofglobaltrade.Policiesshouldsupporttheseambitionsandnotdis-

tortthe‘internationallevelplayingfield’.Thegreencoalition,opposingthestatusquo,de-

pictsaviation-inducedclimatechangeasaproblemof injustice,exposing thesector’scon-

tinuouspushforgrowthdespitereachingvariouslimits(safety,environment,climate,etc.).

Thesector ispresentedas lackingmeaningfulclimateactionwhilebeing largelyexempted

fromtax;policiesshouldthereforeapplythe‘polluterpays’principle.

Intheunfoldingdiscursiveconflict,weobserveddifferentstrategiesforexerting influence.

We identified ‘commissioned results’, i.e. the commissioningof independent (commercial)

research agencies to generate science-based counter-evidence to increase credibility (see

Table 3-1), as a tried-and-testedmethod (see Boons et al., 2010). ‘Commissioned results’

servedtocreatearealmofscientificfactualnessintheconstructionofopposingtruthclaims

(objectification),whichfurtherpolarisedthedebate.

‘Commissionedresults’evokedselectivereasoning,reminiscentofthedialogueofthedeaf

(Huijs,2011): focusingononesideof theargument (bothcoalitions);cherrypicking ‘facts’

(researchagencies);andpoliticaleditingofreports (I&W). Italsohelpedarticulatedooms-

daystories,depictingthedystopiasthatawaitusifpreferredroutesarenottaken(e.g.mas-

siveunemploymentversustheworldnotmeetingtheParisAgreement).Finally,itaidedthe

devisingofframesthatputtheotherinabadlight,e.g.‘onepaysmoretaxwhenonerefuels

aFiatPandathanwhenonerefuelsa747’(MPaboutKLM)and‘bunglers’(I&Waboutaction

groups).Amidst this intensifyingdebate, therewaspressureonand in thegovernment to

taketheinitiativeandforgeabreakthrough.

76

Report(consultancyinbold;titleowntranslation) Commissioner Message

Decisio/SEO. (April 2018). Exploratory societal cost-benefit

analysispolicyalternativesaviation.

I&W ‘SchipholandLelystadgrowthisthe

most positive costs and benefits

scenario’

RoyalHaskoningDHV. (May 2018).Compare flyingwith rail

travelon shortdistancesandhowwecanchoose the train

moreoften.

MNH(NGO) Investigatingsolutionsforreplacing

shortdistanceflights

CE Delft. (June 2018). Economic and sustainability effects

aviationtax.

MinistryofFinance ‘A flight tax has positive, though

limited economic and environmen-

taleffects’

CE Delft. (June 2018).Developments Dutch aviation: short

overview.

N&M(NGO) 2050scenariosshowpassengerand

CO2growth

Motivaction. (October 2018). Aviation in the Netherlands:

investigationintoDutchpopulationsupport.

I&W Various(andopposing)outcomes

Aviation Economics. (October 2018). The true price of a

flightticket.

N&M(NGO) ‘Externalcostsadd63%toaverage

ticketprice’

SEO.(November2018).Effectsofanationalaviationtax. KLM ‘National aviation tax ineffective

forachievingclimategoals’

CE Delft. (November 2018). Evaluation of Smart and Sus-

tainableactionplanDutchaviation:35%lessCO2in2030.

Dutch Aviation

Group

‘Smart and sustainable goals

achievablewithstrongeffort’

RoyalHaskoningDHV. (March 2019). Emission reduction

potentialofDutchaviation.

N&M(NGO) ‘Reduction potential depends on

CO2pricedevelopment’

CE Delft. (April 2019). Economic and sustainability effects

aviationtax:calculationofnewvariants.

Ministry of the

Interior

‘A flight tax has positive, though

limited economic and environmen-

taleffects’

CEDelft.(June2019).CO2-emissionsofKLMandSchiphol. Greenpeace(NGO) ‘Complete picture of KLM and

Schipholemissions’

Leobus/NEO Observatory. (June 2019). Second opinion

exploratorysocietal cost-benefitanalysispolicyalternatives

aviation.

SATL(actiongroup) ‘Stopping Schiphol growth and not

opening Lelystad best for prosperi-

ty’

CEDelft. (July2019).Mustaviationgrowtokeepourpros-

perity?Criticalanalysisofmuchheardarguments.

N&M(NGO) ‘Economywilldofinewithoutavia-

tiongrowth’

Table3-1Commissionedresults(selection2018-2019).

3.3.4. Futurepathways?–Restoringtrustthroughtechnologicalinnovation

Sharedvisionsandplanscanstabiliseadiscoursebycreatingajointdependencyonthefu-

77

ture.Inthefinalepisodeofourcase,weobservedthisgoaldependenceinattemptsofI&W

and incumbentactors todevelopasharedvisionandplanaddressingaviation-inducedcli-

matechange,andresumecontroloverthedebate.

FromthemomentthenewcoalitiongovernmenttookofficeinOctober2017,theintensify-

ing debate jeopardised the position of the new Minister of Infrastructure, Van Nieu-

wenhuizen-Wijbenga. The conservative-liberal People’s Party for FreedomandDemocracy

(VVD),whichsupportedthesector’sgrowthaspirationsandhadjustformedathirdconsecu-

tivecoalitiongovernment,recognisedthepoliticalrisk.VVDprioritywastorestorecalmto

thedebate,sothatthegovernmentcouldimplementthecoalitionagreement.

Early2018,toeasepublicdiscontent,theministerinformedparliamentthat‘restoringtrust’

hadbecomepriorityandpostponedLelystad’sopeningforasecondtime.Mediaattention

regarding noise dropped (see Figure 3-1). Responsibility for aviationwasmoved from the

StateSecretarytotheMinister.Early2018,anewDirectorGeneral(Dronkers)wasappoint-

ed to support thedirectorof the aviationdepartment. The sectorhadquestioned the re-

quiredsensitivityandleadershipskillsofthelattertohandlethepoliticallycomplexmatter

ofSchipholandLelystad,provokingactiongroups.Schipholmadeasimilarstrategicmovein

thesemonths,byreplacingitsfull-blown-growthorientedCEObyanexperiencedpolitician

andmarked conciliator, adjusting the airport’s tone tomoderate, conditional growth. To

takethestingoutoftheopposition’sarguments,theministerpromisedparliamentregular

updates on the efforts of the aviation sector to reduce emissions (van Nieuwenhuizen-

Wijbenga, 2019). This promise led to the sustainable aviation Climate Agreement sub-

platform.

February 2018, the government started five ‘Climate Agreement sectorial platforms’ that

weretoformulateproposalsonhowtoachievethe2030CO2targetandcontributetoaNa-

tional Climate Agreement. I&Wwas responsible for the platform onmobility. As aviation

wasnot included inthisplatform(inaccordancewiththeParisAgreement),Dronkersper-

suadedthesectortoestablishasustainableaviationsub-platformaimedatachievingemis-

sion reductions. He chaired the sub-platform himself but lacked formal (legal) means to

movethesectorforwardintermsofclimateaction.Toputpressureonthesector,heinvited

N&M – as a respected environmental NGO – to join (also on behalf of Greenpeace and

MNH).InJune2018,thesub-platformmetforthefirsttime.

78

Aspartof thiseffort,main sectoractorspresentedanactionplan foremission reduction,

named‘SmartandSustainable’(keywordsthatalsofeaturedinthecoalitionagreement)in

October2018(DutchAviationGroup,2018), followedbyadraftsustainableaviationcove-

nantinMarch2019(ACNetal.,2019).Bothdocumentsconveyamessageoftechnological

optimism: theyshowcasenewtechnologies likeelectricand futuristicaircraftdesigns,and

linkthesetoclaimsofsignificantfutureemissionreductions(seetheriseofbothtechnology

and climate in Figure 3-1). In line with her promise of early 2018, Van Nieuwenhuizen-

Wijbengapresentedthecovenanttoparliamentthatsamemonth.

Meanwhile,itturnedoutthatN&Mwasnotjustinvitedtopressurethesector.Theirpres-

encemadethissectorplatformlooklikeafully-fledgedclimateplatformwithasocietalsup-

portbase.Yet,inmeetings,theirparticipationwascurtailed:I&Wandthesectoroftenspoke

withonevoice;thealternativesolutionsN&Mproposedwerediscardedasunfeasible(with-

out substantiating evidence). I&W-officials pushed for integration in the official Climate

Agreementsectorialplatformonmobility,whichwouldgrantsectoractorsaccesstoaspe-

cialclimateactionfunddesignatedfortheclimateplatforms.N&Mblockedthisattempton

legitimacygrounds(theParisAgreement).N&M’spresence,inotherwords,facilitatedanact

ofirontrianglestrategising:focusemissionreductionmeasureson(subsidiesfor)technolog-

ical innovation in thesector. InMarch2019,N&Mthereforeabandonedthetalks. In their

view,theactionplanandthecovenantsafeguardedsectorratherthanclimateinterestsand

leftalternativepolicymeasures(carbonpricing,reducingthenumberofflights)untouched

(vanNieuwenhuizen-Wijbenga,2019).

Accordingly, thesustainableaviationsub-platformprovedanewsite.Byconfining (future)

policyoptions, itdelineatedtheinclusionandexclusionofactorsandobjects(Duineveld&

VanAssche,2011).Theactionplanandcovenantcodifiedaviation-inducedclimatechangein

organisations and plans (institutionalisation) and placed the object firmly in the realm of

technologicalinnovation.

Stormimpact

It is too early to pinpoint the storm’s definitive impact. However, the object of aviation-

inducedclimatechangehadbynowbecomeacentralpolicy item inDutchaviation;more

dominant than the established objects ‘economy’ and ‘noise’ (see Figure 3-1), leading to

profoundshiftsinDutchaviationpolicymaking.

79

TheAldersTablegraduallybecameirrelevantanddisbandedinJanuary2019(generatingits

finalmediapeak,seeFigure3-1).Initsfinalreport,theAldersTablequestioneditsownpur-

posegiventhechangedpolicysetting,andacknowledgedthatLelystadhadbecomeintegral

todecisionsaboutSchiphol’sfuture(ORS,2019).Powertransferredfromthissitetonational

politicians(andthedifferentlobbiesinfluencingthem),enticingthegovernmenttocomeup

withlegislation-basedpoliciesratherthanPoldermodelcompromises.Atpresent,Schiphol’s

hubdevelopment isa full-blownpoliticalproblem.March2020, thestatus is that thegov-

ernmentintendstoopenLelystadinNovember2020,attheearliest.

Arguably, I&W,too, lostpolitical leverage. InNovember2018,parliamentpassedamotion

thatopened thedebateonaviation taxandencouraged thegovernment tobuild interna-

tional support foran internationalkerosene taxasamechanismtoencouragesustainable

aviationfuels.InMay2019,theMinistryofFinanceannounceditspursuitofaninternational

aviation taxand carbonpricing.Anewpolicypathway,beyond thedirect controlof I&W,

hadsubsequentlyopenedup.

3.4. Discussion

ThischapteruseddiscoursetheorytoevaluatehowSTRimpactedaparticularenvironmental

policystruggle.Westartedthischapterwiththeobservationthat,inSTR,researchimpactis

somewhatnarrowlyconceived.Emphasisontheadoptionofscienceinpolicyandtheclosing

of science-policy gaps through improved researchdissemination andpartnerships (see for

instanceFontetal.,2019)presupposesthatthedomainsofscienceandpolicyshareuniver-

sallyacceptedscientificdefinitionsofenvironmentalproblemsandthatthecontentofpoli-

ciesisalwaysthefocus(Hajer,2005).Weillustratedthisanalyticalasymmetryinpresenta-

tionsofthe‘science-policygap’inSTRonaviation-inducedclimatechange.Theadvantageof

discoursetheoryisthatitaccommodatesabroaderconceptualisationofresearchimpact.It

enabledustomovebeyondthesubstanceofscienceandpolicy,tracehowpolicyactorsas-

similate(thesame)knowledgeobjectsindifferentdiscourses,andidentifyresearchimpact

asanemergentdiscursiveeffectacrosscontrastingscience-policyconstellations.Weargue

thatsuchanexerciseisrelevant:itmakesusawarethatthecreationofpro-environmental

policychange involvesnegotiatingdifferentconstructionsofrisk inthefaceofuncertainty

(Oels,2013).

Inourcase,aPhDthesisonaviation’sglobalCO2emissionsintroducedtheobjectofaviation-

80

inducedclimatechangetotheDutchaviationpolicyprocess,whereitevokednewpercep-

tionsofrisksanduncertainties.Since1985,awell-troddenpolicypathwayhadcharacterised

Dutchaviationpolicymaking (Huijs, 2011).An institutionaliseddiscourse facilitated theex-

pansionpoliticsofthenationalairportSchipholwhilesubjugatingrivallingdiscoursesof lo-

calisedresistance.Intheresultingdialogueofthedeaf,theaviationemissionchallengewas

onlyrecognisedasaninternationalproblem.FromNovember2017onwards,however,this

topicbecamemoreurgent,asmediacoverageof thisPhD linkedpreviouslyunrelatedob-

jects(theglobalclimatecrisis,theParisAgreement)tothepolicyofexpandingSchiphol.This

offered the environmentalmovement the opportunity to join the debate. A newnational

policypathwaysubsequentlyopened,scrutinisingSchiphol, itspoliticsofgrowth,andavia-

tionat large for its climate impact. TheDutchaviationpolicy statusquohadbecomeem-

blematic of the global climate crisis and the subject of environmental politics (cf. Hajer,

2005).

In the resultingpolicy struggle, theobjectof aviation-inducedclimate change stabilised in

theopposingstorylinesoftwodiscoursecoalitions(Hajer,2005):anenvironmentalalliance

presentingtheobjectasamatterofclimatejusticeandinstitutionalchange,andagovern-

ment-mobilisedindustryalliancedepictingtheobjectasatechnologicalchallenge.Bothdis-

coursecoalitionsresortedtotestedstrategiesofexertinginfluence.Theenvironmentalalli-

anceconstructed(impressionsof)anation-wideprotestmovement;thesectoralliance,de-

fending the statusquo,againattempted tomake theirbusiness strategiespartofgovern-

mentpolicy,reflectedinthedraftcovenantforsustainableaviation(ACNetal.,2019).Both

coalitions used themethodof ‘commissioned results’ to generate scientific evidence sup-

portingtheirrespectivepositionsandtoconstructobjectivetruthclaims(seeTable3-1).This

evidencewassubsequentlyusedtodrawadditionalobjects,suchas ‘technological innova-

tion’and‘taxation’,intothediscussionanddevelopcontrastingvisionsandplans(e.g.Dutch

AviationGroup,2018;N&Metal.,2019).Science,thus,wasintegraltothispolicystruggle,

whichcontinuestothisday.

Theframeworkdevelopedinthischapteradvancesourunderstandingofresearchimpactin

environmentalpolicystruggles.Inourstudy,pathwaysofobjectformationilluminatedthat

different (inter)dependencies shapepolicypathsandholdbackchange (VanAsscheetal.,

2014).Thedomainsofscienceandpolicybothproducefutureclaims,evident,forinstance,

81

inPeetersetal. (2019)andtheDutchaviationsector’s ‘SmartandSustainable’actionplan

(DutchAviationGroup,2018).Inbothdomains,theseclaimsarescience-based(IPCCreports

and commissioned results, respectively). Yet, while the future claims produced in science

servethefutureandexposethepastandpresent(Scottetal.,2016c),thefutureclaimspro-

duced in the policy domain generally serve economic and electoral interests. In our case,

these dependencies showed from the “unique reproductive logic of the reigning ac-

tor/institutionconfiguration”(VanAsscheetal.,2014,p.42):hegemonicirontriangleactors

andsuccessivepoliciesupholdingSchiphol’s ‘mainport’expansion(seeHuijs,2011;VVDet

al.,2017).Accordingly,researchimpactisanaggregatedeffectthatdevelopsfrommultiple

(contrasting)science-policyinteractions.

Sitesofobjectformationaccentuatedthisdynamicandcontestednatureofscienceinenvi-

ronmental policy struggles. In our study, the thesis contributed to the emergence of new

sites(i.e.theenvironmentalalliance,collaboratingactiongroups),whichledtothecreation

ofcounter-sites(thesub-platformsustainableaviation)andthedisbandmentofestablished

sites(theAldersTable).BoththeAldersTableandthesustainableaviationsub-platformre-

sembled decentralised forms of Poldermodel decision-making (Vogelij, 2015). Although

seeminglyopennegotiationsbetweenactorswithdifferentinterests,theyresembledwhat

Jasanoff(2002,p.268)describedaspre-scriptedformsofgroupinteractionsthat“perpetu-

ateexistinghierarchies”.Their creation–ormaintenance– tends tomakediscoursesand

discoursecoalitionsmorepronounced.Inthisstudy,scienceplayedanimportantroleinthis

process:thetwodiscoursecoalitionsthatemergedacrossthesesitesusedsciencetoexert

influence. Thus, in environmental policy struggles, research impact comprises conflicting

policyactionsandreactions.Thisdisparityseemstogrowovertimeandisarguablyexacer-

batedbythecontinuousdeploymentof(commissioned)research.

Thedifferent techniquesofobject formationweobserved inourcasestudyunderline this

disparity. All contenders used science to bolster truth claims and undermine competing

ones.AccordingtoWeingart(1999),suchscience-politicserodesscientificauthoritybecause

itforcespolicymakerstomakedecisionsbasedoncontradictoryadvice.Inthesesituations,

science produces knowledge objects that function as “repositories of power” (Jasanoff,

2002,p.253).Theseobjectspresenttemporarycertaintiesinthefaceofuncertainty.Thisis

evident, for example, in the ‘models’ and ‘scenarios’ presented in STR on climate change

82

(e.g.Peetersetal.,2019;Scottetal.,2016a).‘Technologicalinnovation’–thecentralobject

ofthesustainableaviationsub-platform–isaparticularlyprominentinstrumentofpower.

This object “legitimises the practice of statecraft” (Jasanoff, 2002, p. 257), as established

hierarchies associate themselves with (concepts of) novel technologies to reinforce their

positions(seeFigure3-2).Accordingly,inenvironmentalpolicystruggles,researchimpactis

not a quasi-isolated effect on theworld beyond academia, butmanifests itself through a

multiplicityofknowledgeobjectsthatarebothembracedandmarginalised.

Figure3-2MinistervanNieuwenhuizen-Wijbengasupportingpromisingnewtechnology(Quote:“Weantaviationto

becomemoresustainableandcleaner.Theplatformsustainableaviationisagoodinitiativetoboostthedevelopments

inelectricaviation.”)Source:MinIenW(2018)

3.5. Conclusion

Thealternativeconceptualisationofresearchimpactdevelopedinthischapteroffersamore

nuanced understanding of the ‘science-policy gap’ presented in STR addressing climate

change.Wearguethatthis‘science-policygap’isnotagapbetweenscienceandpolicy,but

amanifestationofscience-politics,i.e.thesimultaneouspoliticisationofscienceandscienti-

ficationofpolicy(Weingart,1999).Thisconstitutesaclashbetweenanunfoldingdiscourse

ofecologicallogicandthestilldominantdiscourseofeconomiclogic.Betweenthem,these

discoursesconstructcontrastingsocio-technical futures (seeBuijtendijk,Blom,Vermeer,&

vanderDuim,2018)achievedthroughfundamentallydifferentscience-policyconstellations

(Jasanoff,2015).Theystemfromirreconcilableviewsonrisks(inourcasemarketfailurevs.

climatecrisis)andriskassessment,turningdecisionsoverthemintopowerstruggles(Half-

mann, 1990, in Beck, 2009; Oels, 2013). Consequently, as discursive gaps can never be

closed(VanAsscheetal.,2014),whatremains isafieldofprofoundculturalpolitics;ade-

83

bate inwhich society reflects on its achievements and questions values and politics itself

(Hajer,1996).

Asourstudyillustrated,culturalpoliticsisahostilesettingforconsensus-basedpolicymak-

ing, letalonetheunquestionedacceptanceofscientificevidence. Inthisrealm,agreement

orcompromiseendsdebateandtriggersnewuncertaintiesthatjeopardiseacquiredcredibil-

ityandpositionsofpower.Thismayexplain,asourstudyshowed,whygovernmentsprefer

the seemingly value-free option of technological innovation over structural policy change

(Jasanoff,2002)and,conversely,whyNGOssometimesabandonclimatenegotiations.Thus,

inthesesettings,thefunctionofresearchisnottoinform,buttolegitimisepre-existing,in-

stitutionalisedpolicypositions.Thisstrengthensthestatusquo.Themorepolicyactorsuse

science to cancelout the scienceofopponents, “themorepowerfulpoliticaloreconomic

interestsprevail,justastheywouldhavewithoutscience”(Rayner,2006,p.5).

Thischapterraisesquestionsaboutnarrowconceptionsofresearchimpact.Ourstudyshows

researchimpactisalong-term,emergenteffect,entwinedwithvariousotherelements,that

manifestsitselfsubtlyinpolicyprocesses.Inparticular,itdescribedtheintricateforcefield

inwhichpolicymakershave tonegotiate conflicting science-based truth claims, and select

options that allow them to make decisions and reduce risks in the face of uncertainty

(Weingart,Engels,&Pansegrau,2000).

STRresearchersshouldbeawareofthisforcefieldwhenengagingwithpolicyactorsaspart

ofthepropagated‘impactful’researchendeavours(Fontetal.,2019).Thisstudyshowedthe

importance of persuasive science communication and engagementwith policy actors: the

PhD press releasewaswell-timed and Peeters qualified as a convincing communicator of

science (see Peters, 2008). But, above all, it illustrated the importance of steadfastness.

Since the start of his professorship in 2002, Peetershasbeen conducting variousprojects

withpolicyactors.Hismessageandargumentshavealwaysbeenthesame.Incontrast,‘hit-

and-run’commissionedresultscangeneratesignificantfunding,mediaattentionandpublic

debate–greatforcasestudiesaboutresearch impact(Owensetal.,2006)–butalsopro-

gressivelylimitthepossibilitiesforgenuinepolicydialoguesandnewpolicypaths.

Policyactors,too,shouldbeawareofthisforcefieldandcriticallyreflectontheirreasonsfor

commissioningresearch.Suchstudiesmayhelpinbuyingtimeandcredibility,butcanalso

enforcedeadlocks.

84

Finally,thischapterhighlightstheneedforadvancedpolicyanalysesinSTRthataddressthis

intricate force field, examine environmental policy struggles from up-close and within

(Jasanoff,2015),andindifferentgovernancecontexts.Toavoidtheanalyticalasymmetries

thatemergewhenasingleenvironmentalrealityispitchedagainstpolicyrhetoric,environ-

mental policy studies acknowledging that impact takes time tomanifest, i.e. through the

reframingofproblemsandsolutions,andaslowchangeofvocabularyandmindsets(Owens

etal.,2006)– inotherwords, throughdiscourse–areparticularlyvaluable.Wehopethat

ourchapterhelpsinvigoratethisdebate.

86

Abstract

This chapter studies the productive role of innovation in organisations. Using the post-

structuralist insight that innovation isanopenconcept thatcanbecomeperformative,we

shifttheemphasis fromanalysing innovationsthemselvestoanalysinghowtheconceptof

innovationaffectstheorganisationalpracticesthroughwhichitacquiresmeaning.Deploying

thisframework,westudiedthedevelopmentofan innovationunitwithinTUI,acorporate

touroperator.Wefoundthatactorsinterpretedinnovationindifferentwaysandthatinitial-

lytheinnovationunitwasconsideredafailure.Thesubsequentdramatisationofthisfailure

resulted inanewversionof this innovationunit that strengthenedestablishedactorsand

institutionswithintheorganisation.Ourstudyshowshowtheuseoftheconceptofinnova-

tion in anorganisation canboth stimulate andhamper its innovativeness.Addressing this

paradoxrequiressensitivitytotheconcept’sproductiveroleandevaluationsof innovation

thatlookbeyondaccomplishedresults.

Keywords:innovation;innovativeness;performativity;openconcepts;corporatetouroper-

ators

Thischapterhasbeenpublishedas:

Buijtendijk,H.,VanHeiningen,J.,&Duineveld,M.(2021).Theproductiveroleofinnovation

inalargetourismorganisation(TUI).TourismManagement,85.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104312

87

4.1. Introduction

“Activelyshapingchangeandsuccessfullytacklingexternalfactorsandmarketchalleng-

es are two of TUI’s strengths.We delivered double-digit growth for four consecutive

years.”

(TUIGroup,2019,p.6)

Intheir2019annualreportTUIaddressedtheirshareholderswithconfidence.Afewmonths

later, facing a global pandemic and related market challenges, German government-

providedfinancialstabilisationpackagesworth€2.0bnarekeepingthe“theworld’sleading

integrated tourismgroup”afloat (TUIGroup,2020).Oneyearearlier,TUI’s long-termrival

ThomasCookfailedtoobtainasimilarbailoutafteraplannedrestructuringwasstoppedat

thelastminute,andcollapsed(Collinson,2019).

Shockevents likethesetendtoexposetheweaknessesofestablishedorganisations(Klein,

2007).Manydifferentexplanationsfortheseweaknesseshavebeenoffered.Somereiterate

theknownbusinessflawsofpackageholidayconglomerates(seee.g.Collinson,2019).Oth-

erscritiquethevolumegrowthmodelfortourismanditsnegativeimpactsonpublichealth

andclimatechange(seee.g.Gössling,Scott,&Hall,2020).Thisretrospectivefinger-pointing

can be very relevant, but it shrouds the complexities inherent to innovation fromwithin

(Akrich,Callon,&Latour,2002a).

Evenwhentheywantto,establishedorganisationslikeThomasCookandTUIcannoteasily

changedirections.Variousdependencies, suchaspast accomplishments, current routines,

and future commitments, shape their path (seeVanAssche, Beunen,&Duineveld, 2014).

Theyface,inotherwords,whatmanagementliteraturedescribesastherigidityoftheirown

businessmodel(seeDoz&Kosonen,2010).Todeliverongrowthpromisesinsaturatedmar-

ketsoftheirownmaking,tasksareoftenstandardised,andanoperation-focused,efficiency-

drivencultureismanifested.Thoseconditionedinsuchenvironmentsareusuallywellaware

thatlong-termsuccessnecessitatestheexplorationofnewavenues(seeGonthier&Chirita,

2019):theysimplysuccumbtotheinherentpoliticalpressuresthatcomewithtalkofinno-

vation (seee.g. Smith,Ree,&Murray,2016). Innovation can introduce risks that compro-

misesefficiencyand is thereforeoften ruledout (Christensen&Raynor,2003).This raises

questionsaboutinnovativeness(Tajeddini,2010),thecreationandadoptionofnoveltyfrom

within.

88

Innovationisavaguebutfashionableconcept.Ithasmanymeaningsand,regardlessoftheir

content,itmainlyevokespositiveconnotations(Bontems,2014).Withintourisminnovation

research (seePikkemaat,Peters,&Bichler,2019 for the latest review), a sizeablebodyof

literature addresses the innovativeness of tourism organisations (see e.g. Fraj,Matute, &

Melero,2015;Kallmuenzer&Peters,2018;Martínez-Román,Tamayo,Gamero,&Romero,

2015; Tajeddini, 2010). In this literature, organisations are unquestioningly understood as

‘firms’, distinct constructs separable from their performance (Guérard, Langley, & Seidl,

2013), and innovation is seenasamanagement tool. It is reduced toproxyvariables that

standinhierarchical,causal,orinclusiverelationswitheachother(cf.Kooij,VanAssche,&

Lagendijk,2012;Law&Urry,2005).Asaresultthefocusisonmeasuringitsassumedsteer-

ingpowertoexplainordirectorganisationalperformance.

Incontrasttothese instrumentalistapproaches, interpretivistapproachesconsider innova-

tionadynamicprocessindifferentorganisationalsettings(seee.g.Lowe,Williams,&Shaw

et al., 2012; Nordin & Hjalager, 2017; Smith et al., 2016; Rodriguez-Sanchez,Williams, &

Brotons,2019;Zhang,Kimbu,&Linetal.,2020).Innovationisseenastheprogressiveentre-

preneurialor intrapreneurialachievementof creativeandknowledgeablepersonscollabo-

rating in teams, self-organisingnetworks, or coalitions. The focus is on theperspectiveof

these individuals to identifyorunderstanddifferentantecedents thatcanexplaintheirac-

tionsandtheresultinginnovations.

Each approach has its ownmerits. Instrumentalist approaches advance innovationmeas-

urement,deemedimportantforcomparisonandbenchmarking(Montresor,2018;Camisón

&Monfors-Mir,2012).Interpretivistapproachesuncoverdifferentformsoffreedom,i.e.to

setgoals,tofail,andtobuildcoalitionsoflikemindedsouls,asimportantsourcesofinnova-

tion. Yet, central to both is an actor-focused interpretation of agency: innovation usually

emanatesfromspecificorganisationalattributesorfromthe(combined)charactertraitsand

cognition,i.e.theacquiredknowledgeandskillsofspecific(collaborating)entrepreneurialor

intrapreneurialpeople(seeGarud,Gehman,&Giuliani,2014).Thepossibilitythatthe idea

or concept of innovation itself also accumulates an agency of some kind remains un-

addressedinthesetwobodiesofliterature.Throughitspresenceanduseinorganisations,

‘innovation’asaconceptand idea–aidedby its inherentvagueness–canevokemultiple

meaningsandservedifferentpurposes(Kooijetal.,2012).

89

Bymeansofacasestudy,thischapterthereforeinvestigatestheuseandeffectsofinnova-

tionasaconceptinaspecifictourismorganisation,namelyTUIBenelux.Apartfromastudy

onThomasCookbySmithetal.(2016),thereislittleresearchexamining‘innovation’incor-

porate tour operators, despite their substantial role in shaping the international tourism

industry.AspartoftheTUIGroup,TUIBeneluxisaclusterorganisationofTUINetherlands

and TUI Belgium,which each serve their respective sourcemarkets, but operate under a

sharedmanagementboardforreasonsofefficiencyaspartofTUI’scorporatestrategy(TUI

Group,2018).Overaperiodof18months,wetracedthedevelopmentofaninnovationunit

inthisorganisation.

Forouranalysis,weturnedtoanalternativeapproachtoinstrumentalistandinterpretivist

studies of innovation, sensitive to themore political uses of the concept of innovation in

organisations(Kooijetal.,2012):post-structuralistorganisationandgovernancetheory(Van

Assche,Beunen,Duineveld,&Gruzbacher,2020;VanAsscheetal.,2014;Czarniawska,2009;

2004;1998;Kooijetal.,2012).Two interrelated ideasshape the theoretical frameworkof

thisstudy:openconceptsandperformativity.Openconceptsareseeminglyvagueconcepts

that lack inherentsubstance, i.e.specific technicalor ideologicaldefinition,andcanthere-

forecreatemeaningorgivedirectionwithoutdisclosingmuchdetail(Kooijetal.,2012).Per-

formativityistheself-fulfillingeffectofwrittenandspokencommunication(Mackenzie,Mu-

niesa,&Siu,2007),andinvitesustoprobethefunctionsofconceptsinlanguage(Czarniaw-

ska,2009).Combined,theseideascanhelpusshiftfocusfromtheallegedsubstanceofthe

conceptof innovationto itsproductive functions inanorganisationandtracehow itsorts

differentrealityeffects.Byrealityeffectswemean:changesinsharedunderstandingsofan

organisation’spast,present,andfuturethatcanbeobservedinorganisationalpracticesand

thatinformcoordinatedaction(VanAsscheetal.,2020).

This chapter proceeds as follows. The next section presents our theoretical framework in

furtherdetail.Section3explainsourmethods.Section4presentstheevolutionofaninno-

vationunitinTUIBenelux,andsection5analysestherealityeffectsweobservedinthispro-

cess.Basedontheresults,weproposeanew,morereflexiveapproachtounderstandingand

implementinginnovationinorganisationsinsection6.

90

4.2. Theoreticalframework

Inpost-structuralistorganisationandgovernancetheory,organisationsarenotseenasfixed

andclearlydelineatedentities,butasemergentandevolvingeffectoforganisationalprac-

tices(Czarniawska,2004).Inthisview,anorganisationisnotapre-givenentityor‘fact’but

theresultofnumerouscommunicationsthatcollectivelyproducemultiple,overlappingrep-

resentationsofasingleorganisation(Czarniawska,2009).Thisconceptualisationoforganisa-

tionshasmajorconsequencesfortheanalysisandunderstandingofinnovationinorganisa-

tions.Conceivingorganisationssuchas‘firms’and‘start-ups’asdynamicandcomplexpro-

cessesinsteadoffixedactors,fullyabletosteerandcontroltheirdevelopment(Kooijetal.,

2012; Law, 2001), opens thedoor toprobe thepolitical, arbitrary, and contingentdimen-

sionsofinnovationinorganisationalpractices.

4.2.1. Innovationasopenconcept

Todeepenourunderstandingoftheroleoftheconceptofinnovationinorganisationalprac-

tices,weaddthenotionofopenconceptstoourframework.AccordingtoKooijetal.(2012),

the seeming vagueness of open concepts creates space formultiple interpretations of an

organisationanditspracticestoco-exist.Thismultiplicityaccommodatestheconstructionof

temporalcertainties–evidentforinstanceinvisionandstrategydocuments–thatveilthe

general impossibilityofknowingorfullysteeringthefuture.Innovationisanopenconcept

because of its inherent lack of substance (Bontems, 2014). It canmean and imply many

thingsfordifferentpeopleandindifferentcontexts.Thus,conceptualisinginnovationasan

openconceptenablesustotracehowitevokesdifferentmeaningsasorganisationsandthe

relatedactorsmoulditintovariousshapesintheireffortstomobilisesupportfortheir‘in-

novative’ideas,andimplementchangeinorganisations(Akrichetal.,2002b).Toanalysethe

realityeffectsemergingfromthisprocess,wenowturntoperformativity.

4.2.2. Performativity:therealityeffectsofinnovation

Performativity highlights that the discursive use of the concept of innovation in organisa-

tionalpracticescanbeproductiveinitself,regardlessofthevalueattachedtotheoutcomes.

The‘innovative’ideasproducedwithinanorganisationcanresultintheemergenceofnew

actors and institutions, resistance, and altered patterns of inclusion and exclusion of

knowledgeandwaysof thinking (VanAsscheetal., 2014).These realityeffects cannotbe

assumedbeforehandbuthavetobeobservedinactualpractices(Kooijetal.,2012).Thus,

91

simplybybeingdiscursivelypresent,theconceptofinnovationcanbecomeproductiveand

inducechangeinanticipatedandunanticipatedways.

To identifyhowinnovationbecameproductive inTUIBenelux,wedistinguishbetweenthe

generativeandthetransformativefunctionof innovationasanopenconcept.Thegenera-

tivefunctionentailsthecapacityofopenconceptstosimultaneouslygeneratedifferentrep-

resentations of the organisation. As innovation can assume various shapes, the concept

evokesdifferent understandingsof anorganisation’s past, present, and future, and corre-

sponding tensions and conflicts (Van Assche et al., 2020). Innovation can confront actors

with their own conflicting loyalties, i.e. to direct colleagues, the organisation, clients, and

theirpersonalnetworks,evenwithinasingleprojectorpractice(Grabher,2004).Thismulti-

plicity highlights that innovation can stimulatedivergences inorganisational practices. Ra-

ther thanproducing instant shifts inperspectives, theconcept servesmultiple representa-

tionsoftheorganisationatonce.Itsconceptualvaguenessaccommodatesflexibleinterpre-

tation,whichenablesactorstoreflectandlookahead(VanAsscheetal.,2020).

Thetransformativefunctionconcernsthecapacityofopenconceptstofacilitatechange in

organisational routines, for instancethroughgradual institutionalisationofnew ideas (Van

Assche et al., 2014). Flexible interpretation accommodates the co-existence of different

meaningsandinterpretationsofinnovationanditsorganisation(Kooijetal.,2012).Thiscan

enableactorstobuymoretime,masktheirintentions,and/oravoidconflictintheprocess

ofmobilisingsupport fortheir ideas(VanAsscheetal.,2014).Suchcompetitionsfor influ-

encecancreateconvergencesinorganisationalpractices.Actorsarenecessarilyrequiredto

find broader strategic acceptance of their positions.Mobilising support through coalition

building is considered an important stage of the innovation process (see e.g. Nordin &

Hjalager,2017;Rodriguez-Sanchezetal.,2019),butitalsonarrowsone’soptionsovertime.

Coalitionscanbringfocustodiscussionsthatfirstmovedinmanydifferentdirections.Coali-

tionscanproducerulesandnormsthatstructureinteractionsandthatmakedistinctorgani-

sationalrepresentationsmorestableandlasting(VanAsscheetal.,2020).

4.3. Methods

AfteraseriesofmeetingswithTUImanagersintheNetherlandsin2016andearly2017,we

wereinvitedtostudythedevelopmentofaninnovationunitinTUIBeneluxupclose,fora

prolongedperiodoftime,andwithaccesstokeyinformants(TUIstaffdirectlyinvolved,sen-

92

iormanagement,andexternaladvisors).Acase-studyapproachwassubsequentlyadopted.

The case-studymethod is deemed suitable for exploring less accessible, unique organisa-

tionalpractices(seeTasci,Wei,&Milman2020).

Ourcase–thedevelopmentofaninnovationunitinTUIBenelux–consistedofacollection

of innovation unitmeetings andworkshops at various (external) locations, (management)

meetingsabouttheinnovationunit,andrelatedcommunications(emailexchanges,informal

conversations)thatfollowedeachother inrapidsuccession,happenedatseveralplacesat

once,butwithinaspecificorganisationalcontext.Wethereforeoptedforaniterativecase-

studydesigncommoninresearchpremisedonpost-structuralistthought(seeBeard,Scarles,

& Tribe, 2016). Its integrated process of data generation and analysis granted us the re-

quiredmobilityandflexibilityinthefield(seeCzarniawska,2004):thepossibilitytochange

directions and include new events or informants during the inquiry as we learned more

aboutinnovationinTUIBenelux.

WeenteredthefieldinAugust2017,whenthedevelopmentoftheinnovationunitbegan.

WeleftinApril2018,aftertheprocesshad(temporarily)stalled,butreturnedinJune2019

for a reflection (and learned about the unit’s re-emergence).We generated data through

direct observation and interviews. We observed different innovation unit events as they

unfolded(seetable4-1).Weusedtheseevents topresentourselves,ourresearch,andto

relatetoandunderstandtheTUIstaffequippedwiththetaskofshapingandoperatingthe

unit(‘theinnovationteam’).Wemadedescriptiveobservations(forinstanceofpeople,loca-

tions,presentations,anddiscussions)and interpretativeobservations(forinstanceourper-

ceptionsoftheatmosphere,theinteractionsbetweenpeople).Werecordedtheseobserva-

tionsinfieldnotesandaresearchdiary.

Alongside,we interviewedmembersof theorganisationdirectly and indirectly involved in

thedevelopmentofthe innovationunit (seetable4-2).Weusedthese interviewstotrace

interpretationsofthisprocessas informantsreflectedon–andmadesenseof–whathad

happened (see Czarniawska, 2004). In 2017, using a pre-tested topic list,we conducted 9

semi-structuredinterviewswithinnovationteammembers.Inaddition,wefacilitatedafocus

groupdiscussion(FGD)duringthesecondinnovationteamevent,inwhichinnovationteam

memberscollectivelyidentified,visualised,andclustereditemsenablingorhamperinginno-

vationinTUI.In2018and2019,4unstructuredinterviewswithTUIBeneluxexecutiveboard

93

members–seniormanagerscommissioningandsupportingtheinnovationunitundertaking

–servedtofacilitateretrospectivereflectionsontheinnovationunitprocessandthelessons

learned,andcomplementeddatageneration. Inherent toour iterativeapproach, respond-

entswereselectedusingacombinationofpurposiveandsnowball sampling (seeBeardet

al., 2016). The last unstructured interview (with R13) turned out to be of profound im-

portanceforourstudyasthisrespondentplayedapivotalroleinourcase.Interviewslasted

between35and104minutes.Allinterviewswereaudio-recordedandtranscribedatverba-

tim(inDutch).

Event Participants Duration Date

Kick-offinnovationteam Innovationteam,external

advisors,boardmember

6hours 31-08-2017

Reflectionkick-offinnovation

team

Coordinator 1hour 04-09-2017

Reflectionkick-offinnovation

team

Coordinator,seniormanag-

er

1hour 04-09-2017

Preparationnextinnovation

teammeeting

Coordinator 1hour 13-09-2017

Preparationinnovationengine Coordinator,someinnova-

tionteammembers,exter-

naladvisor

2hours 18-09-2017

2ndInnovationteamevent(in-

troductioninnovationengine)&

FGD

Innovationteam,external

advisor,boardmember

6hours 28-09-2017

3rdinnovationteamevent(vi-

sioning)

Innovationteam 2days 29-11-2017&30-11-2017

4thinnovationteamevent(op-

erationalisation)

Innovationteam 3hours 22-12-2017

Designsprintinnovationteam Innovationteam 3days 06-02-2018to08-02-2018

Reflectioninnovationteam Coordinator 2hours 03-04-2018

Table4-1Observedinnovationunitevents

94

Respondent Expertiseasstatedinjobtitle Date

Semi-structuredinterviews

R1 Corporatepolicy 21-11-2017

R2 Sales 13-09-2017

R3 Digitalinnovation 23-11-2017

R4 Innovation 27-10-2017

R5 Productmanagement 17-10-2017

R6 Humanresources 28-11-2017

R7 Retail 19-10-2017

R8 Humanresources 14-11-2017

R9 ICT 26-10-2017

Unstructuredinterviews

R10 Executive 19-01-2018




Table4-2Interviewsandrespondents

In thisstudywehadveryusefulaccess tokey informants.TheparticipatingTUIstaffhave

beenhelpful,welcoming,andopentodiscuss issuesduring interviewsand innovationunit

events.Overall,theappliedtechniquesenabledustoidentifyandfollowtheevolutionofthe

innovationunit. Yet, regardlessof thedurationof fieldworkand the techniquesdeployed,

accessisalwaysprecariousandpartial(Czarniawska,1998).Inthefield,wepositionedour-

selvesasresearchers.Despitebeingovertaboutourrole,wesporadicallygottheimpression

that some informants viewed us as innovation experts rather than researchers and wel-

comedourinputs.Tomaintainoptimalaccessinthesecases,wesometimeshadtoshiftour

rolefromobservertoparticipant-observer.Thismayhaveinfluencedthepracticeswesub-

sequentlyobserved:ourpresenceandcontributionsmayhavehelpedothersincreatingar-

guments that further legitimised – or delegitimised – aspired courses of action (see Czar-

niawska, 2001). Related, organisational hierarchies and pecking orders arguably confined

groupdiscussionsduring theobservedevents. Specificparticipantobservation techniques,

suchasshadowingandobservantparticipation(seeCzarniawska,2004),couldhaveprovid-

95

edfurtherinsightsintotheseinstitutionalisedrepertoires, i.e.bycontrastingourdirectob-

servationsoftheeventswithobservationsoflessvisible,informalpracticesthatexistedout-

sideoftheseevents.

Inourdatawetracedthe innovationunitasa token(seeBeardetal.,2016):acirculating

quasi-objectthattransformsthroughthediscussionsitevokes(Latour,1996a).Dataanalysis

comprisedthreesteps:(i)werepeatedlyreadtheinterviewtranscripts,observationalnotes,

andresearchdiarytofamiliariseourselveswithalldata;(ii)wechronologicallyorderedrele-

vantdata to identify theaggregatedsequenceofeventsconstituting the innovationunit’s

evolution;and(iii)weusedcombinationsofinitialandfocusedcoding(seeCharmaz,2014)

todetectmultiple,evolvinginterpretationsofTUI,innovation(withinTUI),andtheinnova-

tionunit. In termsofdata triangulation,wetreatedthe interviewsasstandardaccounts–

distinctrepresentationsofTUI’sinstitutionalisedrepertoire–andtheobservationsasinter-

feringaccountsthatdidnotsharethisinterpretativetradition(seeCzarniawska,2009).We

regularlydiscussedourinterpretationsofthedataandreviewedthecodingprocess.Andwe

deployed document analysis (websites, annual reports, academic publications) to verify,

supplement,andcontextualisedata.InitialfindingsweresharedwithTUIBenelux.Meetings

withkeyinformantsinApril2018andJune2019furtherenhancedourinterpretations.The

resultisacomprehensivecase-studyaccountillustratingtheinnovationunit’sevolutionand

relatedrealityeffects,aspresentednext.

4.4. Case:innovationinTUIBenelux

First,wesituateourcaseinitsorganisationalcontext.Thenwepresenttheevolutionofthe

innovationunit.

4.4.1. TUI,abriefhistory

Thehistoryofpresent-dayTUIisoneofcorporateventuring.Itstartedaroundthemillenni-

umwhentheGermancompanyPreussag,adiversifiedindustrialconglomerateatthetime,

implementedwhatDittmann,Maug,andSchneider(2008)describeasararelyseenstrategy

ofbusinessmigration.Holdingsinmining,oilexploration,andshipbuildingweredisinvested;

differenttourism-relatedcompanieswerebought.AmongtheacquisitionswasTUI:Germa-

ny’smain touroperator.Preussagchanged itsname toTUI in2002andhasdeveloped its

tourismenterprisesever since. Throughvertical integration it sought controlof theentire

tourismvaluechainanddirectedconsumerstocompany-ownedairlines,hotels,andcruise

96

shipstosecurehighoccupancyrates.Shareholdingsindifferenthotelgroupswereacquired

andlargetouroperatorsinEurope’smainsourcemarkets,includingBelgiumandtheNeth-

erlands,wereprocured.In2007,thetouroperatingbusinessofTUIAGmergedwiththeUK

listedcompanyFirstChoiceto formtheLondonStockExchange listedcompanyTUITravel

PLC,whichmergedin2014intotheTUIGroup.

TUIGroupispresentlystructuredasamatrixorganisationbasedonthecomponentsof its

corebusiness(Markets&Airlines;Cruises;DestinationExperiences)andthesourcemarkets

of its touroperatoracquisitions (Northern,Central,andWesternRegion).TUINetherlands

andTUIBelgiumformtheTUIBeneluxclusteroftheWesternRegionSegment(TUIGroup,

2018).TheyoperateunderasharedTUIBeneluxmanagementboard.

IntheBeneluxaswellaselsewhere,storiesofmountingpressureonthestandardpackage

holidaymarkethadbeencirculatingforyears(seee.g.WorldTourismOrganisation,2004).

Today’schallengesincludestrongcompetition,lowmargins,seasonality,andtheimpending

market entrance of global tech companies likeGoogle (R12). To address these challenges

andsafeguarditsfuture,TUIadoptedanewstrategyin2014,transformingitself intoaso-

calledintegratedtourismcompanythatofferscustomersanend-to-endholidayexperience

(flights,hotels,cruises,activities)(seeTUIGroup,2018).

TheTUIBeneluxboard(hereafterreferredtoasboard)welcomedTUI’stransformationde-

spitetheenormouschallengeofimplementingthenewstrategy.Thedifferentcountryoffic-

esofTUINederlandandTUIBelgiumhadtobealignedwiththenewmatrixorganisationof

theWesternRegionSegment.Thepurposeofthematrixorganisationwastohavedifferent

departments learn from one another, the rapid transfer of “successfulmodels” from one

markettoanother,andharmonisationof“non-customerfacingactivities”(TUIGroup2018,

p.7).Thistransformationprovedmoredifficultthanexpected:

‘Wehavesevencontentdepartmentsnow…seven!Andthat’sonlyinourregion!So,theeffortputincoordinatingthatisenormous.Atthesametime,weneedtomergethingswithinthecompany,simplifythings.Atpresent,wedoalotofdoublework.Inmyopinion,thatisthebiggestchallengefortop-levelmanagement.’(R11)

Theboardrealisedthattheon-goingstrategicrealignmentprocessconstrainedratherthan

improvedtheidentificationanduptakeofnewideasinTUIBenelux,andthat–asaresult–

theywastedalotofpotential(R11,R12).InJanuary2017,theythereforedecidedtosetup

97

aninnovationunit.Thisunit,theyenvisioned,wouldoperateasacross-functionalteamra-

ther than a business incubator independently pursuing new business opportunities (see

Gonthier&Chirita,2019;O’ReillyIII&Tushman,2004).Itwouldidentifyandcentralisethe

different innovation initiatives in theorganisation (R10;R11).Aseniormanager (hereafter

referred toasC.)wasassigned tocoordinate thisprocess,and forman interdepartmental

team.

4.4.2. TheevolutionofaninnovationunitinTUIBenelux

On9August2017, fifteenTUIBeneluxstaffmembersreceivedanemail fromC. informing

them that theboardhad selected them to joinTUIBenelux’s innovation team.Recipients

helddifferentpositionsandworkedindifferentdepartments,equallyrepresentingTUINe-

derlandandTUIBelgium.

Threeweekslater,tenoftheinviteesmetup.C.ledthemeetingandstartedwithapresen-

tationexplainingthatparticipantswoulddevelopaninnovationagendatogether.C.empha-

sisedtheimportanceofgrowth–‘an importantKeyPerformanceIndicator(KPI)’–andre-

mindedparticipantsthat ‘theyhadbeenpickedbytheboard’tojointhis initiative.C.con-

cludedwithsomepointers,mainlyformulatedbytheboard,aboutorganisinginnovationin

TUI:‘Lookingfurtherahead(2-5years);Defineprioritiesandmakeanactionplan;‘Thinking’

separated from ‘doing’; Facilitate; Structurally rather than ad hoc; Platform for ideas and

solutionssourcedfromstakeholders;Innovation-driven.’

Asecondpresentationfollowed,deliveredbyanexternalexpertinindustrialproductdesign,

whotalkedaboutdesignthinkingtechniques.Then,participantscollectivelystartedworking

on an innovation agenda that resulted in the ranking of twenty problem statements that

coveredawiderangeoftopics,includingsustainability,technology,customerrelations,hu-

manresources,andtherelevanceofTUI’sbusinessmodel.Afterthisexercise,C.announced

thataprojectmanagementstructurewouldsetimplementationprioritiesbasedoninternal

and external needs. This sparked unease among the participants. A discussion started, in

whichtheideaoftheinnovationteamgotentangledwithvariousoperationalconcerns.Par-

ticipantsexpresseduneaseabouttheboardcontrollingtheprojects,theadditionalworkon

top of their regular jobs, the organisation’s culture, andpossible frictionwith operational

andsalestargets.C.triedtocalmeverybodydownbyproposingthattheattendeeswould

answertwoquestionsforthemselves: ‘doIwanttobeinvolved?’; ‘canIgettimeforthis

98

frommymanager?’Itwasafutileattempt.Participantsdemandedcleartargetsanddeliv-

erables.Energyintheroomdrained.Themeetingendedinanemployee-managerdichoto-

myandwithoutclearconclusion.C.wasdisappointedbutdidnotgiveupandcalledase-

condmeetingon29September2017.

This time,nineTUI staff (sevenhadalsoparticipated in thekick-off) andanotherexternal

expert(anagilebusinessconsultant)gatheredinaroomdecoratedwithpre-drawnflipchart

papers.C.,whoagain led themeeting,hadopted foramoredirectiveapproach.C. intro-

duced (a flipchartwith a drawing of) ‘the innovation engine’ (Figure 4-1). This innovation

engine,whichC.haddevelopedearlierwiththehelpoftheagilebusinessconsultant,wasa

generic innovationprocess basedonCooper’s (2011) stage-gatemodel. The engine’s pur-

pose,C.explained,wastoputsomethinginandtogetsomethingout.Theinnovationengine

consistedof fourdifferentsilos.The innovationteamwassupposedtostaff theengine. In

each silo, therewould be a smaller team carrying out specific tasks. These smaller teams

wouldbe‘self-steering’and,becauseofthat,C.contended,theywould‘automaticallyadd

value’.Yet,thetasksoftheseself-steeringteamshadalreadybeendefinedonsomeofthe

flipcharts.Thefirstteamwouldberesponsibleforportfoliomanagement,andmanageand

prioritise the innovation agenda. The second team would be the creative engine team,

mannedwithpeoplewhocould‘thinkoutofthebox’toidentifysolutionstoselectedprob-

lems.Thethirdteamwouldsetprojectparametersforimplementation,andthefourthteam

wouldexecutetheproject.Collectively,theseteamshadtoensurethattheinnovationen-

ginewould‘produce’‘innovations’onathree-monthlybasis.

Theexplanationraisedallsortsofquestionsandturnedtheconversationtoproductdesign,

whichseemedtonarrowtheengine’spossibilities.Participantswonderedwhethertheen-

ginewasgoingto‘facilitate’or‘create’new‘products’?Wastheenginegoingtobefedwith

problems,opportunities,orideas?OneparticipantquotedTUI’sChiefExecutiveOfficer,who

oncesaidthatcompanieswithinnovationteamsoftenfinditunnecessaryto‘create’things

andthatitismoreusefulifaninnovationteamwouldsolverealproblems.Otherswondered

whether it was feasible to complete one ‘innovation’ within the proposed three-month

timeframe? Was this engine capable of stimulating an innovation-minded culture in the

company?Andhowtomeasureresults?

99

‘Ifyouwanttoseeresults,howcanyoudothatwithopportunitiesonly?Howdoyoucalculatetheresults?Whenyouuseproblems,youcanmeasureresults.’(R7)

Figure4-1The'innovationengine'

Therewasdiscussionabout vision, scope, andKPIs.Aboutwhat theengine shoulddeliver

andwhatitshouldnotdeliver.Theengine’sinnovationshadnotyetbeendefined.Yet,there

was consensus that TUIwas an organisation that celebrated success and results first and

foremost. Therefore, the engine should deliver rapid results and solve practical problems

fast.Theyranoutoftimewithmanyquestionsunaddressed.

‘ThemainthingIremembered(fromthatmeeting)wasthelackofagoalandtheroadtowardsit’(R1)

‘ArewetheonesthatshoulddecideuponthefutureofTUI?Itwascompletelyun-clearwhatwassupposedtohappen.’(R4)

Themeetingendedwithoutaclearconclusion,butonethinghadbecomeclear.Thosewho

hadparticipatedinbothmeetingshadbecometheinnovationteamofTUIBenelux.

100

Inthethirdinnovationteammeeting,on29and30November2017,11TUIstaffparticipat-

ed.Thevibewaspositive.Aguestspeakeradvisedtheinnovationteamtodefinetheirpur-

pose.Thisinspiredtheteam.‘Customer-centricinnovation’wasembracedaspurpose.They

decidedtoaddressabusinessproblemasatestcase:howtomotivatecustomerstobook

againasquicklyaspossibleaftertheirtrip?Theteamcameupwiththetravelboxconcept:a

meta-holiday package offer that sells customers multiple package holidays at once,

strengthenstieswithcustomers,andaccomplisheslock-in,i.e.high-volumerepeatbusiness

(seeAmit&Zott,2001).Therewasanatmosphereofenthusiasmwhenthemeetingended.

Someproposedtopresenttheteam’spurposetotheboard.

Tocontinuethediscussionandplanforthefutureoftheinnovationteamafollow-upmeet-

ing was planned in December 2017. Eight TUI staff participated. Initially, there was little

traceof the lastmeeting’senthusiasm.Focusconcentratedon the travelbox.Someques-

tionedit,wonderingwhetherthisconceptwasreally‘customer-centric’.Nevertheless,they

decidedtoproceedwiththetravelbox,eagertodemonstratecommercialsuccess.Tothis

end,C.proposedamultiple-daydesignsprintinwhichanexternalfacilitatorwouldpushthe

teamtodevelopasolution.Thisproposalwentdownwellandthemeetingended.

Thedesign sprint tookplace from6 to8February2018.NineTUI staffwerepresent.The

externalfacilitatoraskedtheteamtodovariousassignments,includinggoal-settingexercis-

esandcustomerinterviewroleplays.Theyhadtodevelopapitchandselltheirideastothe

board. After 3 days, despite all good intentions, they still lacked concrete output. Energy

levelswerelow.Peoplewantedtogohome.Atthatmoment,C.startedadiscussionabout

thenextstepsandproposedtosendtheoutcomesofthedesignsprinttotheProjectMan-

agementOffice(PMO),adepartmentresponsiblefortheimplementationofICT-relatedpro-

jectsinTUIBenelux.Thiscausedastir.Somewereworriedtheywouldendupatthebottom

ofPMO’spriority list.C.acknowledgedthat,atPMO, ‘musthave’comesfirst,and ‘niceto

have’second,andsaidPMOwouldbedifficulttoconvince.Theyalsoknewtheycouldnot

showupat theboardwithhalf-baked ideas and felt theyhadnotprogressedmuch since

December.C.concluded.

‘IfIdon’tbelieveinthisproduct,ifIdon’tbelieveinit,then,whodoes?’

Attheendofthedesignsprint,weobservedasenseoffailure.Despiteallthehardwork,the

travelboxconcepthadremainedaconceptandtheteamstoodempty-handed.

101

Atfirst, the ideaof the innovationenginewaskeptonthetable,asawork inprogress. In

April2018,itsproclaimedpurposewasculturechangebyachievingtangibleresultsandvice-

versa.Theenginewasstilltobefedwith‘problems’thatthebusinesscouldnotsolve.‘Solu-

tions’attheotherendwouldhavetodemonstrate(quick)success.Atleasttwoofthefour

envisionedsiloteamswerestillincomplete.Thetravelboxconceptalsolingered.Therewere

design-sprintparticipantswhowantedtogiveitanothertry.Someblamedtheexternalfacil-

itatorforitsinitialfailure.

Eventually,astheinnovationteamdisintegratedinthecourseofthatspring,theideasofthe

innovationengineandtravelboxstalled.

‘Thewholethingcollapsed,therewasnofollowup.Peoplewerepreoccupiedwiththeirmaintasks,changedjobs,orleftthecompany(…)itdidnotwork.’(R13)

Over summer, C. looked into design thinking techniques and took a changemanagement

course.AconsultancyfirmwashiredtorestructureC.’sdepartmentandto jointlydevelop

an innovation programme thatwould organise ‘real’ innovation in TUI Benelux. This pro-

gram,namedthe ‘employee journey’,depicted innovationasa5-pillaremployeedevelop-

mentprocess.Thefirstpillarwasabout‘inspiration’,andconsistedof in-companysessions

abouttrendsanddevelopments.Thesecondpillartheycalled‘theacademy’, inwhichem-

ployeeswereofferedcoursesinleanmethodsanddesignthinking.Thethirdandthefourth

pillarwere‘accelerators’.Thethirdpillarwasaboutprocessoptimisationandaimedateffi-

ciencygains:

‘HowcanIimproveoperationalprocessesandmakethemmoreefficient,sothatitnolongerisan8-hourbuta6-hourtask,andIcreatetimetoworkondifferentthings?’(R13)

Employeesthatsucceededinreducingthetimetheyspentontheiroperationaltaskscould

jointhe ‘acceleratortomorrowprogramme’(thefourthpillar)andworkonnewcustomer-

centric products. The fifthpillar, ‘the sandbox’,was aboutplaying: experimentingwithout

cleartargets,forinstancewithnewtechnologies.Bymakingtheirownworkprocessesmore

efficient in the third pillar, people created their own space to develop new capabilities,

whichtheycouldsubsequentlydeployforbusinessdevelopmentandinnovation:

‘Withouttimeandcapabilities,itisnotpossibletoworkonnewthingsanyway.’(R13)

102

Meanwhile,C.’sdepartmenthadgainedprominence. InSeptember2018,TUIhiredanew

innovationheadwithabackground inbusinessand innovation rather than ICT. In January

2019,C. joined theTUIBeneluxboard.By June2019,C.manageda teamof fifteen.Most

staffwerenewhires;noneofthemhadparticipatedintheinnovationteam.‘Processexcel-

lence’wasaddedtothedepartment’sexistingtasksof‘businessdevelopment’and‘innova-

tion’.Teammembershad jobtitlesrangingfrom‘leanconsultants’and ‘designexperts’ to

‘businessdevelopmentmanagers’and‘categorymanagers’.InJune2019,whenourempiri-

calenquiriesended,theimplementationofthe‘employeejourney’wasabouttobegin.

4.5. Analysis:InnovationasaconceptinTUIBenelux

Wewillnowanalyseourcaseinthreesections.Wefirstanalyseinnovationasanopencon-

cept.Thenweexamineitsgenerativeandtransformativefunctions.

4.5.1. Innovationasanopenconcept

Inthiscasestudy,innovationoperatedasanopenconcept.Multipleinterpretationsofinno-

vation emerged, throughdiscussions about innovation and the innovation unit, and there

wasnoconsensusonitsmeaning(cf.Kooijetal.,2012).

In the board, somedepicted it as an integral aspect of daily operations (R11), and talked

aboutaconstantcollectiveprocessof implementing incremental improvements that,over

time,enabledthecompanytothrive.Othersrepresenteditasameanstoadvancestrategy

(R10). Innovation could comprise anything new, provided it fitted the strategy. And there

were those who portrayed innovation as something that covered multiple scales, distin-

guishingbetweensmall,incrementalimprovementsandastrategicexercisetoaddresslong-

term,moreprofoundissues(R12).

Innovationteammembersmostlypresentedinnovationassomethingthatwouldsolveprob-

lems.Onceaddressed, therewouldbe success, in the shapeof (more) growth, relevance,

bookings, and/or profit (R2). To some, innovation was about creating new products that

generatedmediaattentionandservedasameanstoearnthecompanyareputationofbe-

inginnovative(R9).Otherstalkedofinnovationintermsoforganisationaltransition,asking

oneselfexistentialquestions,andgettingridofingrainedhabits(R3).

Also,theinnovationunitwasopentodifferentinterpretations.Whentheboarddecidedto

establishaninnovationunitinJanuary2017,theywantedapanelthatwouldstructureand

103

streamline ideauptake insupportofTUI’scorporatestrategy.Butduring theAugust2017

kick-offmeeting,ratherthanmappingexistingideasintheorganisation,attendeesrankeda

selectionof individuallypreparedproblemstatements. Thosewithan interest in changing

theproductviewed the innovationunitasa ‘creativeengine’ (R1;R4).Theyusedstart-up

vocabulary,suchasdesignsprints,MinimalViableProducts,andProofofConcepts, tode-

scribetheirideas.Theytalkedabout(theneedfor)anexternalincubatorthatcoulddevelop

ideas independentfromTUI’sregularprocedures(seee.g.Gontha&Chirita,2019).Others

wantedittoaddressurgentoperationalissues(R2;R6;R8).Asaresult,somestaffwantedto

endthisbabelandexpressedalongingforcleardefinitions:

‘Wemustavoidconfusionoftongues.Weshouldbeclearaboutwhatinnovationmeans!Letmeaskyouthesamequestion;doyouknowwhatinnovationmeansinTUI?Didpeoplegiveyouthesameanswertentimes?Didpeopletellyoutentimesthesameaboutthepurposeandimportanceofinnovation?Isitjustanadd-onorisitanecessity?Ifthesepeoplegaveyouthesameanswertentimes,thenitiswellcommunicated.Ifnot,thenImademypoint.’(R1)

Themultipleinterpretationsofinnovationandtheinnovationunitprovedproductiveindif-

ferentways,aspresentednext.

4.5.2. Thegenerativefunctionofinnovation

Discussionsaboutinnovationandaninnovationunitgenerateddifferenttensionsandcon-

flicts.WeobserveduneaseaboutTUI’sconcentrationonshort-termgains.Respondentsun-

derstoodthat,aspartofapubliclistedcompany,theyhadtoperform.Therewasconstant

pressure to deliver quick returns; the KPIs theyworkedwithwere designed to guarantee

immediatesuccess.Yet,therewereconcernsthat,tosomeextent,thiscameattheexpense

oflong-terminvestmentsvitaltoaddressfundamentalchallengesandsafeguardthecompa-

ny’sfuture:

‘Wearelistedonthestockmarketandthereforehaveonlyoneprimegoal:beingattractiveforinvestors.(…)Wheninvestorsloseinterestinourcompany,ourcashflowwilldecline,wewillhavenoresourcestoinvest.Consequently,ourpotentialasaventurediminishes;weceasetoexist.’(R1).

Wealso noted doubts about TUI’s new strategy. Somewonderedwhether the integrated

tourismcompanyconceptwouldbeviableinthemarketoftheWesternregion,whichwas

structurallyshrinking.OtherswonderedwhetherTUIhadgotwhat itwouldtaketo imple-

104

mentthisnewstrategy.Despitealltheeffortstodistanceitselffromtraditionaltouroperat-

ing,theyfeltthatTUIBeneluxremainedmiredintraditionaltouroperatingconventions.

SomeboardmembersofTUIBenelux shared theseworries. Thereweredoubtsabout the

persistingconventionthatTUIalwayshadtocompeteonpriceandthecorrespondingneed

foroperationalexcellence,despitealleffortstoemphasisetheTUIbrand:

‘Takeforinstanceafive-starall-inclusivetriptoTurkey.Nobodycaresaboutwheth-ertheaccommodationbelongstoTUI.(…).Ithinkifyouasktheaveragecustomerwhattouroperatortheybookedwith,theywillgiveyouthenameoftheirtravelagency….Asaresult,weprimarilycompeteonprice.Thecustomersimplydoesnotcareaboutthetouroperatortheybookedwith.Andpeoplewhodonotcareaboutthat,basetheirchoiceonprice’(R12).

In addition, the establishment of the innovation unit prompted discontentwithin various

organisationalpractices.Somefeltunhappywiththeirworkloadanddescribedhow(their)

innovationeffortsfailedbecausetheygotstuckinprojectgroupswithunmotivatedpeople

(R2;R3;R5;R8;R9).Othersarguedthiswasduetoaflawedemployeeassessmentprocess

andacorrespondinglylowstaffturnoverrate:

‘WhenIacceptanewtask,Ikeepmypresentworkload;noneofmycurrenttasksareredistributedtoothers.’(R5)

‘Managersseemreluctanttoscoretheirstaffeitherhighorlow.Obviously,therearealotofpeopledoingthesamejob,whichmakesitmoredifficult,butifpeopleareconstantlygraded3outof5itresultsinalackofsharp-mindedness,alackoffeedback.So,yeah,individualsarevaluedhere,butalsopeoplethatshouldbedoingsomethingelse.’(R8)

Talking about innovationmade people complain aboutmanagerial hierarchy complicating

ideauptake.Intheireyes,dislikedormisunderstoodideasweredropped;andthegrounds

forthesedecisionswereoftenunclear.Also,whenmanagerslikedideas,thisdidnotauto-

maticallyresultinimplementation:

‘Ifhe(themanager)likesitthenhewillworkonithimselforpassitthroughtothegeneralmanager.’(R9)

Others felt that TUImissed amethod to systematically learn frommistakes. According to

some, the problemwas not thatmistakes happened, but the astonishment, blame-game,

andfinger-pointingfollowingsuchmistakes,atalllevelsoftheorganisation:

105

‘Ibelievethisissobad.Especiallyseniormanagementhastoadmitmistakes,showthattheylearnedfromit,andhowtheywilldoabetterjobnexttime,ratherthanshiftingtheblameontoothers,orevendenyingthatsomethingwentwronginthefirstplace.Thatwouldshowalotmoreleadershipandprofessionalism.’(R8)

These tensions and conflicts – confronting innovation teammemberswith theirown con-

flictingloyalties(cf.Grabher,2004)–revealeddiscontentwiththefunctioningoftheorgani-

sation.FromApril2018onwards, someof thisdiscontentcreateda ‘burningplatform’ for

reflection on TUI’s current situation and its future (cf. Van Assche et al., 2020), as itwas

turnedintoaproductiveargumenttocreateasenseofurgencyandmobilisesupportforan

integratedinnovationapproachinTUIBenelux.Weexaminethisnext.

4.5.3. Thetransformativefunctionofinnovation

Someargued that, inTUIBenelux, innovationhadbecomeanaim in itself. This, they felt,

fosteredinertiaratherthanatransformationoforganisationalroutines.

‘Everybodywantstohavethewordinnovationinhisorherjobtitleorcompany,sinceitishipandtrendy.Theyjustwanttopastethenameonit,butdon’twanttheaction.So,eventually,nothinggetsdone.’(R4)

‘Sometimes,Ihavethefeelingthatweareinnovatingjusttoinnovate,justbecausewehaveto,notbecauseourheartisreallyinit.’(R5)

Yet,theeventssinceFebruary2018paintadifferentpicture.Initially,indeed,therewasin-

action.AperiodoflackofresolvefollowedtheunproductivedesignsprintofFebruary2018.

Thatspring,therewasnojointevaluation,withorwithouttheboard,onthefailedattempt

toestablishtheinnovationengine.Therewassimplynotimetolearnfrommistakes:

‘Wearealwaysrunning(…)fromprojecttoproject.Alwaysinahurry.Often,wedonotevencompleteaproject,becausethereisalreadysomethingnewthatdemandsourattention.Weneverstop.Weneverlookback,andthinkabouthowdidIdothis,howcanIdothisbetternexttime?’(R13)

At that point, interest in the necessity of changing the culture of the organisation had

waned.Theboardwasundertheimpressionthatculturechangehadbeenachieved.Staff,

afterall,hadbeengrantedmorefreedom,buttheproblemwas,asweweretold,thatthey

didnothingusefulwiththatfreedom.

Thiswasfollowedbyaperiodinwhichtheconceptofinnovationdisplayeditstransforma-

tivefunction.Fromthesummerof2018onwards,thefirst8monthsoftheinnovationunit,

106

withtheinnovationteamandinnovationengine,evolvedintoahistoryoffailure, inwhich

someoftheorganisationaldiscontentwasusedtoexplaintheengine’s lackofsuccess (cf.

Akrichetal.,2002a).Staffwereoverburdenedandlackedtherequiredknow-how.Theen-

ginelackedaclearscopeandsatinanorganisationthatrarelygrantedpeopletimeforre-

flection,tothinkthingsthrough:

‘Initially,Iwentstraightintodoingnewthings,fullfocusonnewpassengers,newservices,butitdidnotwork.Iranintoabrickwall,inspiteofmydrive,ofworking24hoursaday.Iblameditonotherpeople(colleagues).Buttheywerenottoblame.Thecauseoffailurewasalackoftime,andthatpeoplesimplydonotknowhowtodonewthings.Theyhavebeentrainedtodotheirdailyjobs.’(R13)

(Insuchsituations)‘onetendstoforget,whatisactuallytheproblemwearetryingtosolve.Theessence.Verifyforwhomwearedoingit.Whataresuitablesolutions?(…)Alotofitwaswastebecauseitdidnotcreateanycustomervalue.Weweredo-ingthewrongthings.’(R13)

Lessonswerelearnedtoo.Developinganddeliveringnewproductsandservicesandtapping

into newmarkets requires an organisational culture embracing innovation and staff that

striveforconstantself-improvement:

‘So,acultureofconstantimprovementcontributestoaninnovationculture,con-tributestoinnovationandcontributestocustomervalue.’(R13)

Toaccomplishthis,thehistoryoftheinnovationteamandinnovationenginewasintegrated

into a new narrative, inwhich the innovation unit re-emerged, this time renamed as the

‘employee journey’. The engine metaphor and its mechanical, impersonal, and product-

oriented connotations gaveway to an emphasis on inclusive employeedevelopment. The

focushadmovedfromsolvingproblemstofosteringtalentwhileachievingefficiencygains:

twoelements that fitted–andcontributed to–TUI’sconcurrentstrategy (seeTUIGroup,

2018).

Processexcellenceisthecreationofsparetime.Andinnovation,‘isusingthattimetoaddresstomorrow’schallengesandopportunities.’(R13)

The narrative of the ‘employee journey’was subsequently used to create leverage for an

integratedinnovationapproachinTUIBenelux.Itdownplayedtheimportanceoftheinnova-

tion teamand innovationengine.The team’s struggleswere retrospectively labelledasan

‘experimentationphase’,‘chaos’,andanecessaryfirststepthatinvolved‘ambassador’em-

107

ployees,generatedinitial ideas,andharbouredexperiments, likethefaileddesignsprintin

February2018.Theteam’s lackofsuccesswas instrumentally insignificant: itdidnotharm

theorganisation,affectsales,scarecustomers,etcetera.Yet,rhetorically,itmadeavaluable

pretextfortheemployeejourney,strengtheningtheplotofthisnarrative.Failurelendsitself

welltodramatisation(Czarniawska,1998).Inourcase,failurewasstrategicallydeployedto

createasenseofurgency:

‘Sometimes,youjusthavetocreatethatsenseofurgency,youknow,like,dearpeo-ple,itisreallygreatIamworkingonthis,butitisnotgoingtowork.Andthenactu-allyshowthatitisnotgoingtowork.’(R13)

‘Youget(leverage),becauseIhavethisburningplatform,andthatis,Ithink,tocre-atethatsenseofurgency,andIthinkIamgoodatthat.’(R13)

The ‘employee journey’ aided coalition building (cf. Nordin & Hjalager, 2017; Rodriguez-

Sanchez et al., 2019) and provided focus to innovation discussions (cf. Van Assche et al.,

2020).Uponcompletionofourcase,welearnedthatinitialreactionsamongTUIstaffwere

positive.Therewasafeelingthatthistimetheywereontherighttrack.

4.6. Conclusionanddiscussion

Inthischapterweexaminedtheproductiveroleof innovation ina largetourismorganisa-

tion(TUI).Ourstudyshowedthatinthisorganisationinnovationissubjecttomanyinterpre-

tationsanddefinitions.These ‘misunderstandings’about innovation initiallycreatedaself-

perceivedfailureasitgeneratedtensionsandconflictstypicalofefficiency-drivenorganisa-

tionalcultures(seeDoz&Kosonen,2010). Italsoenhancedreflexivitywithintheorganisa-

tionbyhighlightingdifferent formsofdiscontentwith the functioningof theorganisation,

includingdoubtsandspeculationsaboutTUI’sfuture,corporatestrategy,anditsimplemen-

tation. Some forms of organisational discontent operated as ‘knownunknowns’ that staff

weregenerallyawareofbutdidnotdirectlycommunicatetomanagement.Otherformsof

organisational discontentwere part of an implicit knowledgewithin the organisation that

foregroundedwhentheinnovationunitwasbeingsetupandpeoplediscussedinnovation.

Thedifferentformsofdiscontentmadethestructurallimitsofinnovationintheorganisation

explicit. Posed as barriers to innovation (cf. Rodgriguez-Sanchez et al., 2019), they func-

tionedasa reservoirofproductivearguments thatenabled strategisingactors tomobilise

supportfortheiragendasandactions.Intheend,thisresultedinaversionoftheinnovation

108

unit–theemployeejourney–thatbolsteredTUI’sconcurrentcorporatestrategyandwith

thatthepositionofitsproponents:theTUImanagement.

InTUIBenelux,theconceptofinnovationthuseventuallystrengthenedestablishedinstitu-

tions and actors (cf. Kooij et al., 2012). In otherwords, ‘doing innovation’ simultaneously

underminedandstimulatedinnovativenessinthisorganisation,therebydemonstratingthe

paradoxofinnovation(Bontems,2014).Ontheonehand,thediscursivepresenceofinnova-

tion in organisational practices generated fundamentally different understandings of the

organisation’s future.On theotherhand, it illuminated the transformationof thiswish to

innovateintotheconservativepracticeofgraduallyaddingminormodificationstothestatus

quo.Or,asBontems(p.55)putsit,“everythingmustchangesothateverythingcanstaythe

same”,highlightinginnovation’spoliticaldimension:‘politics’,i.e.coalitionbuilding,isnota

phaseor task thancanbedelimitedandplanned in the innovationprocess (cf.Rodriguez-

Sanchezetal.,2019),butisinherenttotheuseoftheconceptinorganisations.

4.6.1. Theproductiveroleofinnovation

This chapter studied innovation as a concept with multiple meanings that are produced

throughorganisationalpractices.Thisapproachdivergesfrommanystudiesmeasuringinno-

vativeness,whichtendtoassumethatdefinitionsof innovationarewell-understood inor-

ganisations(cf.Tajeddini,2010).Humanaspectsofinnovation,i.e.therecognitionofoppor-

tunities, theacceptanceof andwillingness to take risks and change, areoften reduced to

proxyvariablesfitformeasurement(seee.g.Frajetal.,2015;Kallmuenzer&Peters,2018;

Martínez-Románetal2015).Theresultingstatisticsoninnovationandrelatedterminology

depictinnovationasatechnicalmatterandobscurethatinnovationinvolvesmanydifferent

negotiationswithuncertainoutcomes.

Thisapproachalsodeviatesfromstudiesexaminingthe innovationprocessand itssources

(seee.g.Loweetal.,2012;Nordin&Hjalager,2017;Smithetal.,2016).Thesestudiesalso

highlightinnovation’sinherentuncertainty,butfocusonthe(combined)charactertraitsand

cognition,i.e.theacquiredknowledgeandskills,ofspecific(collaborating)people.Bothlit-

eraturesdisplayanactor-focusedinterpretationofagency(cf.Garudetal.,2014).Contrib-

uting toandat thesametimediverging fromthesebodiesof literature,weexaminedthe

possibility that the concept of innovation, through its presence and use in organisational

practices,alsoaccruesagency.

109

Our study showed that the concept of innovation served as an open concept to ‘store’ a

multiplicity of interpretations. This makes innovation not only an attractivemanagement

idea,butalsoapoliticaldeviceinorganisations(Czarniawska,2008).Strategisingactorsop-

eratingunder the innovationbannercanpursuedifferentgoalsas theyturncirculating in-

terpretations into productive narratives and mobilise support for their agendas, without

disclosing thedisparities thatwouldbeobvious if the innovation lexiconweremoreexact

(Bontems,2014).Thesenarrativesnecessarilyfluctuatetomaintaintheirfunctionas“trigger

for actions towards goals that are forever changing” (Garud et al., 2014, p. 1181). In our

case,theevolvingenactmentofdistinctorganisationalrepresentationsabouttheorganisa-

tionof change– the ‘innovationengine’ and ‘employee journey’ – created impressionsof

knowing,ofcollectivereasoningandofconsensusthatisnecessarytomaintaincoordination

inanorganisation(cf.VanAsscheetal.,2020;Kooijetal,2012).Thus,‘innovation’canbe-

comeproductivethroughitsconceptualvagueness.Vaguenessallowsactorstocontextual-

iseinnovationthroughevolvingnarrativesthatgraduallyaddmorespecificmeaningstothe

conceptanddelineateinnovationinanorganisation(cf.Garudetal.,2014).Thisraisesim-

plicationsfor(tourism)innovationresearch.

4.6.2. Innovationbeyondaccomplishment

Thefindingsofourstudyopenupanalyticalspacetoevaluatetheproductiveroleofinnova-

tion as a concept for the creation and adoption of novelty in tourism organisations.We

therefore encourage researchers measuring innovativeness to treat vagueness as an im-

portant empirical feature of innovation, rather than as a definitional andmethodological

obstacle inhibiting its accuratemeasurement (see e.g.Montresor, 2018; Camisón&Mon-

fors-Mir,2012).Innovationaccumulatesdifferentmeaningsthatresultinsite-specificeffects

thatarenoteasilyforeseenormasterminded(cf.Kooijetal.,2012).Wearguethatitispre-

ciselytheanticipatedandunanticipated,wantedandunwanted,realityeffectsthatsimulta-

neously strengthen and limit innovativeness in organisations. They can turn discussions

about innovation into actual innovation, or its opposite. Rather than veiling innovation’s

conceptualvaguenesswithpresupposedsubstance(VanAsscheetal.,2014),studiesmeas-

uring innovativeness inorganisations,webelieve, shouldacknowledgethesecontradictory

effects. Innovativeness thus, is bestobservedas anemergenteffect embedded indistinct

organisational practices. To acknowledge this specificity, studies can usemore proximate

110

(micro- ormeso-level) performance indicators (Guérard et al., 2013), or develop context-

specificindicatorsincollaborationwithactorsintheorganisation.

For the same reason, we call for researchers examining the innovation process to fore-

groundinnovation’spoliticaldimensionintheirstudies.Coalitionbuilding,ratherthanapro-

cessual stageor task that canbedelimitedandplanned (cf. e.g.Rodriguez-Sanchezet al.,

2019),canbeviewedasintegraltoinnovationitself;narrativesplayaprominentroleinthis

process(Garudetal.,2014).Theaccomplishmentsthatindividualsdescribewhendescribing

their innovation journeys can result from prior intention or hindsight attribution and are

strengthenedthroughobservation(VanAsscheetal.,2020).Wethereforebelievethatthere

isvalueinevaluatingtheaccountsoftheseinnovatorsnotonlyforcontent-relatedaspects

(seee.g.Loweetal.,2012;Nordin&Hjalager,2017),butalsofortheirproductivefunctions.

Andlastly,weinvitepractitionerstoevaluateinnovationbeyondoutput-basedperformance

indicators.In(tourism)businessandbeyond,innovationisgenerallyunderstoodandrepre-

sented in thecontextofcompetitiveness. In this frame, thedifferencebetweensuccessful

andfailed innovationequatestherealisationofdistinctoutputs–newproducts,technolo-

gies,processes,etcetera–thatareexpectedtoachievea (competitive)advantageforor-

ganisations(seePikkemaatetal.,2019).Thisframe,weconclude,istoonarrow:innovation

comprisesgenerativeandtransformativefunctions inorganisation.Output isan important

aspect of innovation, but requires and results from divergent interpretations and ideas

about novelty and its limitations in organisation. A one-sided focus on output, thus, risks

failing to grasp these other important functions of innovation. Process-based indicators,

suchasindicatorsthatcapturetheabilityofanorganisationtoreflectonitsownpractices

andlearnfromitssuccessesandfailures,areequallyimportant.

4.6.3. Finalremarks

Innovationwillremainprominentinorganisations,asadiscourse,agoal,boardroomrheto-

ric,aspracticeandsoon,notlesssointhe(post-)COVID-19era.Actorspursuingchange,like

theTUIBeneluxstaff,willalwaysrunupagainststructurallimitsofsomekind(Akrichetal.,

2002a;2002b).Ultimately,theirdesireforrecognitiondrivessubmissiontoandmasteryof

thedominantorganisationaldiscourse(Laine,Meriläinen,Tienari,etal.,2016).InTUI,aswe

showed,this isadiscourseofcorporateventuring:maintainingprofitabilityforthecompa-

ny’s shareholders. In times of crisis, this discourse arguably gains prominence. Successful

111

corporate venturing requires top-level coordinated responses to secure shareholder and

relatedexecutive interests.At thesametime, top-downcoordinationandcontrolprogres-

sively limits space for open-dialogue, productive conflicts andmisunderstandings, and the

considerationofnewideas.InthecaseofTUIBenelux,thiscontributedtotherigiditiesthat

limit the kindof innovationdeemednecessaryby thoseworking to instigate change from

within.

Therearevariouswaystosoftentheserigiditiesandstrengthentheadaptivecapacitiesof

efficiency-driven organisations. Reflexivity at board level can be strengthened (see Doz&

Kosonen, 2010) and organisational structures that separate exploration from exploitation

canbeinstalled(seeO’ReillyIII&Tushman,2004).Webelievethatacknowledgingandstim-

ulatingtheproductiveroleofinnovationasanopenconceptinorganisationscansmoothen

theentireprocess.Openconceptsenableactorstomediatepresentandfutureuncertainties

(Kooijetal.2012),likethosepresentedbythecurrentCOVID-19pandemic(Gösslingetal.,

2020).Theyaccommodateconstantadaptation,alsowhenactors cannotadmit this:plans

andpoliciesrarelyworkoutasintended,yettheirpresenceinorganisationsisessential(Van

Asscheetal.,2020).Tomakeinnovationmoreproductivewithinanorganisation,thevague-

nessofthisconceptshouldthereforebecherishedratherthanscorned.

115

5.1. Introduction

Innovation is generally framedpositively andoftennarroweddown to commercialised in-

vention. This interpretation is largely seen as a given: explanations for this optimism are

rarelyoffered.Thisunderstandingofinnovationisalsoprominentininnovationdiscoursesin

theDutch outbound travel industry and in themainstreamand tourism innovation litera-

tures. Theunquestioned faith in themeritsof innovationmademecuriousabout itsuses

andusefulness,i.e.theproprietyofinnovationasaconceptforthecoordinationofnovelty

inthefaceofperceivedchange,intheDutchoutboundtravelindustryandbeyond.

Bymeansofthreecasestudiesconductedfrom2016until2019, I thereforeexaminedthe

usesandeffectsof innovationasapracticeanddiscourse in tourismatdifferent levelsof

organisation.Thefirstcasestudytracedthedevelopmentofacarbonmanagementcalcula-

tor(CARMACAL)fortouroperatorsintheDutchoutboundtravelindustry.Thesecondcase

studyevaluatedtheimpactofaPhDthesisaboutaviation-inducedclimatechangeonDutch

aviationpolicy.Andthethirdcasestudyinvestigatedthedevelopmentofaninnovationunit

inalargetouroperator(TUI).

Thetheoreticalnotionsofmaterialeventsandrealityeffectsguidedmyanalysis(seechapter

1).Material events are relations between (a particular) changingmateriality and the con-

structionofinterpretationsandresponsesthroughdistinctorganisationalpracticesembed-

ded indifferentdiscourses (Duineveldetal.,2017).Thenotionofmaterialeventsenabled

me to trace innovation as a construct that emerged and obtained meaning in situations

whendifferentactorscoordinateresponsestoaperceivedchangeofsomekind.Realityef-

fectsarechangingwaysofunderstandingthatcanbelinkedtothecoordinatedresponsesof

actors(VanAsscheetal.,2020).Thenotionofrealityeffectshelpedmeunderstandthatin-

novationiscontingent.Innovationbothconstitutedandresultedfromcollectiveinterpreta-

tionsandrepresentationsof(changing)materialandsocialenvironmentsthatcontinuously

evolve.

Next,Iwillpresenttheconclusions;adiscussionofthetheoriesandmainfindings;aswellas

theimplicationsofmyresearch,whichwasguidedbythefollowingresearchquestion:

WhataretherealityeffectsofinnovationintheDutchoutboundtravelindustry?

116

5.2. Conclusion

5.2.1. Materialevents

Inthisthesis,innovationmanifestedandgatheredmeaningthroughspecificmaterialevents.

Thesematerialeventswerenotnewtoactors.The increasingcontributionof tourismand

aviation to climate change (chapter 2 & 3) and the arrival of powerful, new competitors

(chapter4)hadlingeredforsometimeandhadbeenbroadlyrecognisedintheDutchout-

boundtravel industry(seeBeulinketal.,2012;Capgemini,2015;Reiswerk,2015a)andbe-

yond (Buhalisetal.,2019;Gössling,Hall&Peetersetal.,2010;Gössling,2002;Lawetal.,

2014;Peeters,2017).Therehadhoweverbeenlimitedconcertedresponse.

Inthepresentedcasestudies,actorshadcometorelyonpathsofactionandcorresponding

arguments that justified inertia (cf.VanAsscheetal., 2014).Among the touroperators in

chapter2,thesewerestrategic,ideological,orboth.Someviewedtheirproductasatoolto

createpositiveimpactsin(long-haul)destinationsindevelopingcountries(seee.g.VanWijk,

2009):an interpretationof tourismthatdoesnot siteasilywithclimatechangemitigation

(Peeters&Eigelaar,2014). Inchapter3,actors sensed therehadneverbeena realisticor

impactfulwaytorespond.Theenvironmentalmovement, for instance,hadbeenawareof

thedecades-oldnationalpolicypathofstimulatingaviationgrowthanditsadverseenviron-

mentalimpacts:apolicyprocessthattheyhadcometoconsiderasdifficulttoinfluence.And

TUI’sefficiency-drivencorporateenvironment (chapter4)hadalwayscompelledmanagers

and staff to focus on operations and short-term results rather than probing their implicit

knowledgeaboutthecompany’sageingclienteleandthe limitationsof its integratedtour-

ismconcept.Thus,thesematerialevents–eventhoughtheybecamethesubjectofdiscus-

sionsandwereviewedasrelevantandimportant–didnotautomaticallytriggerconcerted

actions(c.f.Duineveldetal.,2017).

Instead,collective interpretationsneededtobereachedfirst: interpretationsthatcantrig-

geranddelineatesomesenseofcoordinationtowardsaresponse.Inchapter2,apresenta-

tionduringanindustryeventintroducedtheideaofcarbonlabellingandtriggeredthejoint

interestincarbonmeasurement.ThisledtoasubsidisedprojectthatcreatedCARMACAL:a

pieceofsoftwarethatenablestouroperatorstouniformlymeasurethecarbonfootprintof

theirproducts.Inchapter3,aPhDthesishadre-introducedtheproblemofaviation-induced

climatechangeinDutchaviationpolicy(whereithistoricallyhadbeentreatedasaninterna-

117

tionalpolicyissue).Asadiscursiveobject,aviation-inducedclimatechangehelpedtoexpose

theheavily institutionalisedexpansionpoliticsofDutchnational airport Schiphol andKLM

Royal Dutch Airlines. New actors – citizen action groups and environmental NGOs – then

entered thedebate.And in chapter4,an initiative to improve ideauptake inTUIBenelux

made people discuss innovation in the organisation and accentuated the organisation’s

structuralweaknesses that,until thatmoment,hadbeen ‘knownunknowns’–blind spots

thatmanagersandstaffweregenerallyawareofbutcouldnotdirectlyaddress. Ineachof

thepresentedcasestudies,coordinatedresponsescorrespondinglymanifested.

5.2.2. Realityeffects

Therealityeffects thatbecameapparentbothconstitutedandresultedfromthesecoordi-

nated responses.As they compriseddistinctorganisationalpracticesandcommunications,

theyhadbothmaterialanddiscursivedimensions.

Inchapter2,realityeffectsconstitutedthedifferent,changingandcontradictingideasabout

carbonmanagement that CARMACAL entangled. The identities and roles of the actors in-

volvedinitscreationfluctuated,triggeringdifferent,accusationaldiscoursesintheprocess

(seeAkrich,Callon&Latour,2002a).Thesediscoursesforegroundedvariousabsences,such

asmoney,customers,andbusinesstraveloperators(seeVanderDuim,Ren&Jóhannesson,

2013).Uponcompletion,CARMACALdidnotcreateasenseofstabilityorcommonpurpose.

Instead,ithadmadedifferentcarbonmanagementapproachespossible,eachprescribingits

ownconditionsforsuccess.Disputesabouttheseideasandtheirrepresentativessoonarose,

andCARMACAL–envisionedasaway toaddress thecarbon footprintof tourpackages–

remained a passive tool, subjugated to the established business routines that itwas sup-

posedtotransform.

Similarly,inchapter3,realityeffectscomprisedanenvironmentalpolicystrugglethatbegan

to unfold after the PhD thesis had reintroduced the object of aviation-induced climate

change to theDutchaviationpolicyprocessandnewactorshadentered thedebate.Two

discoursecoalitionssubsequentlyemergedthatrepresentedtheobjectindifferentways(cf.

Hajer, 2005): an environmental alliance presenting aviation-induced climate change as a

matterofclimatejusticeandinstitutionalchange;andagovernment-mobilisedindustryalli-

ancedepicting theobject as a technological challenge and thatproposed their Smart and

Sustainable Action Plan as a solution. Among different tested strategies of exerting influ-

118

ence, actors across the discursive spectrum used the method of ‘commissioned results’:

commission scientific researchanduse the resultingevidence to constructobjective truth

claimsthatsupportone’sownpositionanddiscreditthepositionofone’sopponents.Inthis

way,additionalknowledgeobjectsweredrawn into thediscussion, including theobjectof

‘technological innovation’. Thisenvironmentalpolicy struggle still continues todaywithno

changeofthestatusquoinsight.

Andchapter4showedhowtheconceptofinnovationitselfgeneratedrealityeffectsthrough

itsuseinorganisationalpractices.Inthecollectiveattemptsofaninnovationteamtodevel-

op an innovationunit in TUIBenelux, the conceptoperated as anopen concept thatwas

subjected to many interpretations and definitions (see Kooij et al., 2012). Organisational

discontentarose,andpeoplequestionedtheorganisation’sstrategyanditsfuture.Someof

thisdiscontentoperatedsubtly,aspartoftacitknowledgepresentinthecollectivememory

oftheorganisation,andcreatedimpressionsofknowing,ofcollectivereasoning,andofcon-

sensusthatisnecessarytomaintaincoordinationinorganisations(VanAsscheetal.,2020).

Thedifferentformsoforganisationaldiscontentfunctionedasareservoirofproductivear-

gumentsthatenabledstrategisingactorstomobilisesupportfortheiragendasandactions.

IntheendthisresultedinaversionoftheinnovationunitthatbolsteredTUI’sexistingstrat-

egyandwiththatthepositionofitsproponents:theTUImanagement.

5.2.3. TherealityeffectsofinnovationintheDutchoutboundtravelindustry

Insum, intheDutchoutboundtravel industry,realityeffectsof innovationunfoldthrough

practicesandcommunicationsthatemergewhenever–lingering–materialeventsbecome

thesubjectofactiveandevolvinginterpretationsandrepresentations.Theseinterpretations

andrepresentationslinkachangingmaterialitytoconcreteanddelineatedissuesandpostu-

lateanurgencyofsomekindtoaddresstheseissues.Differentandattimesconflictingcon-

certedactionsandreactionscorrespondinglymanifest.Inthepresentedcasestudies,these

actions and reactions took the form of projects, project teams, coalitions, platforms, and

formalised organisations that functioned as sites (Van Assche et al., 2014): spaceswhere

actors assessed joint actions and coordinated different, collective responses. Innovation

constitutesthesesitesandtheresultingaggregatedactionsandtheiroutcomes.Asthecase

studies presented in this thesis show, these actions andoutcomes canbe intentional and

119

unintentional; they can come inmany shapes, and can trigger their own support and re-

sistance.

5.3. Discussion

5.3.1. Theoreticalreflection

ForthisPhDthesis,IusedinsightsfromActor-NetworkTheory(ANT)(chapter2),Discourse

Theory(chapter3),andpost-structuralistorganisationtheoryandEvolutionaryGovernance

Theory(chapter4).

In chapter 2, ANT helpedme understand eco-innovation as an actor-network that is per-

formedinavarietyofways,andthatconsistsofevolvingrelationsbetweenhumanandnon-

humanelements.Thisconceptualisationmadeitpossibletoidentifythefirm-centredinter-

pretations of eco-innovation that dominate the eco-innovation literature – a feature this

literature shares with innovation studies (see e.g. Fagerberg et al., 2012, Fagerberg &

Verspagen, 2009; Fagerberg, 2003) – and the related tendency to explain innovationwith

pre-determinedobject-subjectdividesusingsocialvariablesonly(seee.g.Hojnik&Rozzier,

2016).WiththehelpofANTIcouldreachbeyondthisframe,andanalyseeco-innovationas

dynamic,multipleandhybridratherthanstable,singularandsocial.Thisbroadenedmyana-

lyticalperspective. Itenabledmetofocusnotonlyonpeopleandfirms: Icouldalsogrant

various non-humans (such as technology, CO2, tour packages) equal analytical weight. By

puttinghumansandnon-humansonequalanalyticalfooting,Itraced,amongothers,distinct

interpretationsofsustainabilityinthedifferentcarbonmanagementapproachesthatactors

advocated.

Inchapter3,discoursetheoryandtherelatednotionofobjectformation(seeDuineveld&

VanAssche,2011)enabledmetotraceinnovationintheshapeofresearchimpact:acollec-

tionof long-term,emergingrealityeffectsthatbuildovertime.Theserealityeffectsmani-

festedsubtlythroughtheconflictingactionsandreactionsofopposingactorsandthrougha

constellationofknowledgeobjects–includingnewtechnology–thatwerebothembraced

andmarginalised.Here,thenotionofobjectformationaccommodatedabroaderconceptu-

alisationofresearchimpact,beyondthesubstanceofscienceandpolicy.Asaresult,Icould

observehowdifferentpolicyactorsusethesameknowledgeobjectsindifferentdiscourses.

It thendawnedonme that creatingpro-environmentalpolicy change involvesnegotiating

differentconstructionsofriskinthefaceofafuturethatcannotbeknownorpredicted.On-

120

tologicallyandepistemologicallyspeaking,discoursetheory iscompatiblewithANT.Hence

themove fromANTtodiscourse theorywasastraightforwardone.Both treat realityasa

constantly evolving social construct (see e.g. Howarth, 2000). Discourse theory helped to

focusoncommunicationsandinterpretationsasconstructionmechanisms.

Finally,inchapter4,Iturnedtopost-structuralistorganisationandgovernancetheory–an-

otherontologicallyandepistemologicallycompatiblefieldoftheory–becauseitaccommo-

datedashiftofanalyticalfocus.Itmadeitpossibletomovebeyondtwocommoninterpreta-

tionsandrepresentationsofinnovationintheliterature:instrumentalistconceptualisations

thatdepict innovationas inputoroutputofdifferentorganisationalperformanceaspects,

and interpretivistconceptualisationsthatunderstand innovationasaproductof the(com-

bined) character traits and cognition of specific individuals. Aided by the notions of per-

formativityandopenconcepts(Mackenzieetal.,2007;Kooijetal.,2012),Iwasabletocon-

ceiveinnovationasaseeminglyvagueideathathasalifeofitsown,andthatbecomespro-

ductive,i.e.displaysgenerativeandtransformativefunctions,onceactorsinanorganisation

starttouseitintheircommunications.Thisallowedmetohighlighthowtheconceptofin-

novationacquiresmultiplemeaningsthroughtheorganisationalpracticesinwhichitisused

andaccruesanagencyofsomekind.

Theusedtheoriesinchapter2,3and4shareacommonground(seechapter1).Theytend

to explain interactionsbetweenmaterial and socialworldswith thehelpof an integrated

ontologyandepistemology.Andtheyassumethatrealityismultipleandperformed:anef-

fectofdistinctandcontinuouslyreproducedinterpretationsofmaterialityand(other)social

elements.Thetheoreticalnotions ‘materialevents’ (Duineveldetal.,2017)and ‘realityef-

fects’ (VanAsscheetal.,2020) functionedasabridge, linking thedifferent theories. Iwill

reflectonthesenotionsnext.

Thenotionofmaterialeventsprovedusefulinconstructingananalyticaldistinctionbetween

change and innovation. Change evolves through interactions betweenmaterial and social

worlds;whereas innovationemergesandobtainsmeaningthroughthese interactions.This

analyticaldistinction,inmyview,isimperativeasinnovationisnottheonlypossiblecoordi-

nated response to change. Take, for instance, the imported innovation jargon of experts-

consultantsandacademicsthatlimitedaresponsetochangeintheDutchoutboundtravel

industrytoe-commerceinchapter1.Thisresponseisnotself-evidentbutrequiresexplana-

121

tion.Therearealwaysalternatives(BarbaLata,2017)–otherconditionsofpossibility,(ideas

aboutnovelty,thevalueof itsuses,andassociatedmaterialities)–tothepathsadvocated

bythosegatheringundertheinnovationbanner.And,asthestudiedcasesinthisthesisillus-

trate,evenamongtheso-calledinnovators,innovationbothcreatedandconstitutedavarie-

tyofrealityeffectsthataredifficulttopredictormastermind.

Thenotionofrealityeffectshighlightedtheseinherentdynamics. Ithelpedmeunderstand

innovationasacontext-specificmaterial-discursivearrangementthatcomprisesdifferent,at

timescontrasting,interpretationsofchangeandrelated,coordinatedresponsesfromactors

(VanAsscheetal.,2020).Asaconceptthatindicatesnoveltyinorganisationalpractices,in-

novation constitutes sometimesgradual andatother times rather sudden redefinitionsof

materialandsocialworlds. It cancreateorerodedistinctionsaswell as completely trans-

formtheidentitiesoffocalobjects(Latour,1990).Viewedinthisway,innovationtranscends

theattemptsofindividualsororganisationstorealiseanideaofsomekind.Aidedbyitscon-

ceptual vagueness, innovation provides fertile grounds for different, competing ideas to

manifest. These ideas represent and perform different realities and corresponding condi-

tionsforsuccessandfailure.Theycanintroducemiscellaneousknowledgeobjects,suchas

currentandfuturetechnologies, thatarebothembracedandmarginalised,andthatserve

differentpast,presentandfutureinterests.

Insum,thetheoreticalnotions‘materialevents’and‘realityeffects’enabledanintegrated

analysisofthedifferentcasestudies.Theyofferedabroadertheoreticalbasetostudyinno-

vationandsurpassedthedisadvantagesoftheoreticalessentialism:becomingtoomiredin

theconventionsofasingletheoryintheanalysisandexplanationsofphenomena(cf.Cohen

&Cohen,2012).Theyhelpedmeunderstandhowinnovation,throughitsuseincommunica-

tions and practices, creates spaces that explore – and contest – alternatives (Barba Lata,

2017),aninsightthathighlightsinnovation’spoliticaldimension.

5.3.2. Innovationaspolitics

Thepoliticalaspectofinnovationaspresentedinthecasestudiesofthisthesishasreceived

limitedattentioninmainstreamandtourisminnovationresearch.Prevalentintheselitera-

turesareneo-Schumpeterianorevolutionaryeconomics-inspiredframeworksthatconsider

innovation as the basis of economic growth; innovation is portrayed as the unquestioned

foundation of firms to compete and create new products (Fagerberg, 2003). In this view,

122

marketsfeatureasaselectionmechanism;routineswithinfirms influencetheirabilityand

capacity(knowledge,resources)todeveloptheseproducts(Fagerbergetal.,2012;Martin,

2012). These frameworkspresuppose thatmarkets and firmsare solid and rational actors

fullyabletosteerandcontrol theirdevelopment (Kooijetal.,2012;Law,2001).Theyalso

suggestthateconomicgrowthistheundisputedpremiseofinnovation.Thisdepoliticisation

ofinnovationcanbeviewedasproblematicinthelightofthecasestudiespresentedinthis

thesis:theyshowinnovation–theideaandassociatedactivities–asapoliticalendeavour.

ThematerialeventsIexaminedinthisthesiswerecommonlyrecognisedasurgent,yetdid

notautomaticallytriggeraction(Duineveldetal.,2017).Inthepresentedcasestudies,indi-

vidualsandorganisationswereeithermobilisedorrequiredmobilisationtobecomeactors

inaddressingtheseevents(seeCallon,1986).Onlyoccasionally(theimpressionwasraised

that)theiractor-statusformedmoreor lessorganically.Take, for instance,thenationwide

protestmovementagainstaviationgrowthinchapter3.Thismovementdevelopedsponta-

neouslyinpart,buttheenvironmentalmovementalsostimulateditsformation.Theprepa-

rationanddelineationofplans,projectsandactionstooktime.Theresultinginnovationac-

tivities sparked competitions for influence (chapter 2 & 4) or competitions for influence

evokedinterpretationsofinnovation(chapter3).Regardlessoftheirexistenceascommuni-

cations or materialised practices – these activities generated their own support and re-

sistance.Actorsconstantlyevaluatedtheirpositionsandcommitments.Viewedinthisway,

competitions for influence –particularly those revolving aroundenvironmental controver-

sies (cf.Hajer,1996)–areahostilesettingforaccomplishingsolutions.Solutionsmayend

certaindebates, but consensus, compromise, andevenagreement can triggernewuncer-

taintiesthatjeopardiseactors’credibilityandacquiredpositionsofpower.

Theseacquiredpositionsofpower,inmyview,arecentraltoourunderstandingofinnova-

tionasaconceptforcoordinatingnoveltyandchange.Power,surprisinglyenough,receives

limited attention in mainstream innovation literature. It is usually considered in abstract

termsasthepowerofmarkets,consumers,andknowledge(Fagerberg,2003;Martin,2016;

2012).Fagerberg(2003)andMartin(2016)locateit–ratherone-sidedly–intheoldideas,

routines,andrelatedpathdependencies thatholdback innovation.Thepossibility that in-

novationalsooperatesasatechniqueofpowerthatservestheEstablishmentisdisregarded

inthisliterature.

123

As the case studies presented in this thesis illustrate, innovation is an attractive idea to

strategising actorswho attempt to reinforce their positions of power. Innovation is com-

monly considered as inherently good and value-free but lacking in clear definitions (Blok,

2018b; Bontems, 2014;Godin, 2015). This combination grants actors operating under the

innovationbannerspacetomanoeuvre.Asaseeminglyvalue-free idea, innovation isdiffi-

cult to reject. Itsconceptualvaguenessallows formultiple interpretations toco-exist.And

beingassociatedwith innovationsuggestsadedicationtoactionsthatpromiseprogressof

somekind.Itallowstouroperatorsrelyingonlong-haulholidayproductstoadvocatecarbon

management,expansion-drivenairportsandairlinestopromotesmartandsustainableavia-

tion,oranefficiency-drivenorganisationtochampionpersonalisedemployeedevelopment

initspursuitofevenmoreefficiencythroughprocessexcellence.Focusingattentiononin-

novation,inotherwords,canglossovertheseinherentcontradictions,andgiveimpressions

ofcollaborationandcommitmenttochangethatcantakethestingoutoftheopposition’s

arguments. In thisway, strategising actors canbuy time as they pursuedifferent goals. It

allowsthemtoturncirculatinginterpretationsintoproductivenarrativesandmobilisesup-

portfortheiragendas,withoutdisclosingthedisparitiesthatwouldbeobviousiftheinnova-

tionlexiconweremoreexact,whichhighlightstheparadoxofinnovation(Bontems,2014).

5.3.3. Innovationasparadox

In this thesis, I presented evidence of how innovation simultaneously gives shape to new

directionsandholdsbackchange(Bontems,2014).Thisinherentcontradictionofinnovation

has been largely overlooked in themainstream innovation literature. Recent self-analysis

identifies the field’s bias towards high-tech innovation and its dated economic rationale

(Martin, 2016). Similarly, emerging spin-off literatures scrutinise the current econom-

ic/technological fixationof innovation. These literatures promote various alternative acro-

nyms and labels of innovation as capable of addressing contemporary sustainability chal-

lenges (see e.g. Hellstrom, 2003; Soete, 2013; Lechevalier, 2019). Some of these labels –

notably ‘eco-innovation’ – also resonate in tourism innovation research (seePikkemaatet

al.,2019).Theseliteratureshowevermaintainanunquestionedfaithin‘innovation’asprob-

lemsolver:theproprietyofthisconcepttocreatenoveltyandchangeisrarelydisputed.

ThecasestudiesIpresentedinthisthesis illustrateinsteadhowinnovationcanstrengthen

established institutionsandactors (cf.Kooijetal.,2012). Inchapter2, theengineersenvi-

124

sionedtheirtechnologyasadevicethatwouldmaketouroperatorsreducethecarbonfoot-

print of their product portfolios. Instead, CARAMCAL alsomade soft approaches possible

(i.e. carbon offsetting), increasing the legitimacy of tour packages containing (long-haul)

flights.Theproponentsofclimate justice inchapter3 facedan industrycoalitionthatpro-

posed technological innovationasa strategy to realisea ‘smart’ and ‘sustainable’ aviation

sector.Well aware of the political risks inherent to compromise, namely losing leverage,

relevance,and–ultimately–influence,theyhavesofarpreferredtokeepupthedialogueof

thedeaf(seeHuijs,2011).Andwhentheinnovationteammembersinchapter4temporarily

mimickedstart-upbehaviour,theygotasenseofthecreativelibertiesthatmiddlemanagers

inefficiency-focusedorganisationsoften lack (seee.g.Doz&Kosonen,2010).But theulti-

mateversionoftheinnovationunitbolsteredtheorganisation’sefficiency-drivencorporate

strategyandthepositionofitsproponentsinseniormanagement.Thus,conservativeprac-

tices prevailed that used the created novelty tomaintain the status quo.Or, as Bontems

(2014,p.55)putsit,“everythingmustchangesothateverythingcanstaythesame”.

Innovation is thereforenot tobeviewedas theexclusivedomainof theprotagonists: the

fiercest advocates of change face the “unique reproductive logic of the reigning ac-

tor/institutionconfiguration”(VanAsscheetal.,2014,p.42).Ineachofthepresentedcase

studies,‘innovation’luredactorsthatrepresentandbenefitfromthestatusquo:touropera-

torspersisting intheirrelianceonthesalesof long-haulholidays;Schiphol,KLM,andtheir

associates in theDutch government; TUI’s corporate executives and short-termprofit ori-

ented shareholders. Likewise, some of the sites, such as the sustainable aviation Climate

Agreementsub-platform(chapter3)andtheinnovationteam(chapter4),functionedaspre-

scriptedformsofgroupinteractionsthatreinforcedthedominantdiscourseandrelatedhe-

gemonies(Jasanoff,2002;Laine,Meriläinen,Tienari,etal.,2016).Thiscanexplainwhyinno-

vation is suchacaptivatingenterprise in theeyesof theEstablishment (see1.1): theycan

turntheconceptintoavehiclefortheirideas.

5.3.4. Innovationastechnology

Finally,thisthesisprovidesinsightsintotheroleoftechnologicalinnovationintheorganisa-

tionofchange.Themainstreaminnovationliteraturetendstoanalysetechnologyininstru-

mental,economictermsasasourceofinnovation(seee.g.DiStefanoetal.,2012;Fagerberg

et al., 2012). It depicts technology as part of an attractivemessage to policymakers: new

125

technologyispresentedasasourceofeconomicgrowth,andscienceshouldthereforesup-

porttechnologicalinnovation(Godin,2012).Thismessage–andinparticularitsadvocated

aimofeconomicgrowthanditsemphasisonhigh-tech–hasrecentlybeenchallengedwith-

inmainstreaminnovationresearch(seeMartin,2016).Earlierworkalreadyraisedquestions

aboutthenegativesocialeffectsoftechnologicalinnovation(seeSoete,2013).Morerecent-

ly,callshavebeenmadetomoveinnovationbeyondtechnologyandeconomicgrowth(see

e.g.Lechevalier,2019).Whilerelevant,theseconcernsmainlyaddresstheutilityoftechno-

logical innovations, namely the impacts of their instrumental application on society. They

tend tooverlook themorepoliticalusesof technological innovationasanobject inpolicy

processes.TheexamplesthatIprovidedinthisthesismaketwocontributionstothesede-

bates.

Thefirstoneisofaninstrumentalnaturebuthasanimportantpoliticalimplication.Techno-

logical innovationby itselfdoesnotnecessarily instigate the typeof changeaspiredby its

creators(seeLatour,1996bforacaseinpoint).Aschapter2illustrated,onceinthehandsof

its users, CARMACAL made different and contradicting carbon management approaches

possible.Theseapproachesembodied‘strong’and‘weak’formsofsustainability(Hansson,

2010) and conflicting socio-technical imaginaries (Strand, Saltelli, Giampietro et al., 2016;

Jasanoff&Kim,2009).CARMACALsucceeded–albeittemporary–inholdingthesedifferent

ideastogether,realisingtourismindustrysupportforeffectiveclimateaction.Thus,techno-

logical innovation trajectories can connect seemingly incompatible ideas and, in thisway,

graduallydevelopbroader–political–supportforsustainabilitytransitions.However,there

isacaveatthatshouldbenoted;hence,thesecondcontribution.

Thisoneis(again)ofapoliticalnature.Asapolicyobject,technologicalinnovationiscentral

tothedominantpolicydiscourseoftechnologicaloptimism(seeStrandetal.,2016).Some

oftheexamplesIpresentedinthisthesissuggestthatthepromiseof(future)technological

innovationsfunctionasapoliticallegitimisationinstrument.Inchapter2,CARMACAL,simply

bybeingpresentandbybeingheralded (itwon international tourism innovationawards),

grantedlegitimacytotheroutinesofitsadvocatesandpotentialusers,includingtouropera-

torswhodidnothavetheexplicitambitiontomanagethecarbonfootprintoftheirproduct.

Inchapter3,‘technologicalinnovation’functionedas“repositoryofpower”(Jasanoff,2002,

p.253)thatlegitimised“thepracticeofstatecraft”(p.257).Establishedhierarchies,namely

126

the‘IronTriangle’:theMinistryofInfrastructureandWaterManagement,SchipholandKLM

(Huijs,2011),associatedthemselveswith(conceptsof)noveltechnologiestoreinforcetheir

positionswhenfacedwithincreasingoppositionfromparliament,environmentalNGOs,and

resident action groups. Technological innovation, in other words, can provide temporary

certaintiesinthefaceofuncertaintythatreinforcethepositionsofthoseinpower.Viewed

inthisway,technologicalinnovationcanberegardedasanobstacletomoreprofoundinsti-

tutionalchange.

5.4. Implications:bewareofchameleons–chameleonsbeware

Inthisthesis Ishowedinnovation isadominant idea intourism-relatedorganisations,asa

goal,rhetoric,asapractice,andsoon.Itwillremainprominentinthefuture,notlesssoin

timesofcrisis,suchastheCovid-19pandemic.Actorsingovernment,business,andsociety

at largewill continue to see innovationas somethinggoodandbeneficial.At somepoint,

actorsadvocatingchangearelikelytoadoptorcomeacrosstheconceptofinnovationand,

astheexamples Ipresented inthisthesissuggest, runupagainststructural limitsofsome

kind.

Over the past five years, I got the impression that, sooner or later, these protagonists of

changewillencounterchameleonsontheirpath:hegemonicstrategisingactorsthatrepre-

sent the status quo and that – like their reptilian equivalent – change colour to suit the

changing situation. They can reside in old institutions disguised as newones, such as the

SmartandSustainableActionPlan(chapter3).Byaccidentorbyintent,chameleons‘talkthe

talk’butdonot‘walkthewalk’.Chameleonsproclaimcommitmenttotransformations,but

theirrhetoricandpracticestendtocontributetotherigiditiesthatlimitthekindofchange

deemednecessary.Chameleons,inotherwords,embodytheparadoxofinnovation.

Chameleonsareremarkablydifficulttodetect.Inmyresearch,Ibecameawareoftheirpres-

enceonanumberofoccasions.Theywerearguablyatplaywhenhiredconsultantsshow-

cased and heralded Silicon Valleymarket shake-ups at near-delusional levels (chapter 1);

certainparticipantsofacarbonmanagementprojecttacitlyfrustrateditsprogress(chapter

2); aviation sector incumbents beganpreaching smart and sustainable aviationout of the

blue (chapter 3); anda corporate tourismorganisationpursuedevenhigher levels of effi-

ciencyunderanewly-craftedpretextofemployeedevelopment(chapter4).Theseexamples

suggestthatchameleonsightingscanbeembitteringexperiences.Buttheyarenot.

127

Asmyresearchprogressed,Ilearnedthatitispointlesstoholdagrudgeagainstthem.Many

ofthepeopleIinterviewedfeltfrustrated,evenintimidated,inthepresenceofchameleons.

Atthesametime,someofthemwerenotawareoftheirown‘chameleonism’.Chameleons

aretheproductofchangingcircumstances.Asthereptilechangescolourwhenitisstressed,

chameleonismmanifestsingovernancewheneverimpressionsdawnthatthingsarestarting

tofallapart,centrescannothold,andwell-troddenpolicypathwaysandrelateddependen-

ciesbegin to lose their relevance (cf.VanAsscheetal.,2014).Theprotagonistsofchange

should therefore treat the first sightingsof chameleons as a signof hopeandencourage-

ment:transformation,afterall,couldbe justaroundthecorner.BelowIwillwrapupwith

someways forward thatcanhopefullyhelp researchersandpractitioners tobetterunder-

standanddealwiththesetrickycreatures.

5.4.1. Researchimplications

Researchthattraceschameleonismcanarguablycontributetoamorenuancedandempiri-

callyunderpinnedunderstandingof thecontemporaryuseof innovation–andotheropen

concepts(cf.Kooijetal.,2012)–inaddressingcontemporaryglobalchallenges.Toincrease

ourchancesofspottingchameleonisminthesesettings,Iarguethatthereisvalueinaccen-

tuating–andarguablyreinstalling– thepoliticaldimensionof innovationasaconcept for

coordinatingnovelty. Such anexercise, inmy view, could comprise two steps, as detailed

below.

Wecouldbeginwith research thatexamines fromupclose thecompetitions for influence

thatemergewhenstrategisingactorsuse the term innovation.Suchexaminationsof their

innovation-related communications and practices are inmy view a helpful and necessary

first step, because mainstream and tourism innovation literatures have been dominated

withresearchfocusingonthemeasurementofinnovation.Asexplainedinchapter4,there

is nothingwrongwith that.Measurementmakes comparison and benchmarking possible.

The resulting statistics and related terminology however depict innovation as a technical

matter. The resulting representations tend to reduce organisations to faceless, taken-for-

grantedentities,andobscurethatinnovationinvolvesmanydifferentnegotiationswithun-

certainoutcomes.

Attemptshavebeenmadeto illustratetheinnovationpracticesofactors,asshows,for in-

stance, fromspecific,micro-levelstudiesexaminingthe innovationprocessand itssources

128

(seee.g.Nordin&Hjalager,2017;Rodriguez-Sanchez,Williams,&Brotons,2019forexam-

plesintourisminnovationresearch).Whilevaluable,thefocusofthesestudiestendstocon-

centrateon the (collective)knowledgeandskills thatare requiredofentrepreneurial indi-

viduals if theywish toaccomplishsuccessful innovations.Thepolitics thatcomeswith the

enactment of entrepreneurial identities, opportunities, failures, and successes (see e.g.

Garud, Gehman,&Giuliani, 2014; Korsgaard, 2011) are given limited attention. Politics is

viewedasadistinctactivityor taskthatcanbemanagedorplannedaspartofaclear-cut

innovationprocess.Furtherstudiesthathighlighttheproductivepoliticalrolesofinnovation,

i.e.thedifferentwaysinwhichactorsstrategisingundertheinnovationbannerfosterboth

progressandinertia,arethereforerelevant.

Oncewe have learnedmore about this – arguably neglected – aspect of innovation (see

Godin,2015),wecouldembarkonajourneybackintime.Wecouldrevisitearlier,historical

interpretationsofinnovation,rediscoverthemifyouwill,andconductresearchthatevalu-

atestheirmeritsinaddressingcontemporaryglobalchallenges.

Thisundertakingcouldbeginwitha focusonthefirsthalfof the20thcentury. Inthiswar-

markedepoch, interpretationsof innovationwere less sterile than theones thatemerged

with the riseof technological innovation studies from the1960sonwards (see chapter1).

We could revisit the proclaimed founding father of this field, Joseph Schumpeter. Such a

revisit isnotnecessarilyoriginalandshouldnotignoreSchumpeter’speers(seee.g.Fager-

berg,2003;Godin,2008).But,forourpurposehere, it isusefulbecauseitcouldhelpusin

appreciatingthat,toSchumpeter,innovationwasnotunilaterallypositive.Hetalkedaboutit

intermsofeconomicwavesandcreativedestruction(Blok,2018a).Maybethiswasbecause

Schumpeter–likeKarlMarxbeforehim–didnothavemuchfaithincapitalism.AsBontems

(2014) explains, Schumpeter believed in the inevitable self-destruction of this economic

productionsystem.Innovationwassimplyoneoftwodelaymechanismsthatcouldprevent

thisfromhappening(theotherwaswar).InSchumpeter’sview,innovation–particularlythe

disruptivekind–servedtoupseteconomicsystemsandrenewelitegroups.Onlyinthisway,

unhealthylevelsofcapitalconcentrationandtherelatedoligopoliesandmonopoliescould

beaverted.Viewedinthisway,innovationisnotnecessarilypartof(thecapitalist)economic

productionsystem,butresembles its limits (Blok,2018a).Futureresearchcouldtreat itas

such.

129

This interpretation of innovation puts the figure of the Schumpeterian entrepreneur in a

differentlight.Nowadaysembracedasthedrivingforceofstart-upsthatshakeupmarkets

withnewproducts and services in tourismandbeyond (seeCalvino, Criscuolo,&Menon,

2016;OECD&Eurostat,2018;Pikkemaatetal.,2019),intheearly20thcentury,Schumpet-

er’sentrepreneurwasanorganiserratherthananinventor;afixerofsomekind.Entrepre-

neursdidnotnecessarily trade,but combined, adopted, and imitated (by copyingnovelty

fromelsewhere),renewingelitesastheyprogressed.Ifthischaracterhadabusiness,itwas

thebusinessofovercomingresistancetochange(cf.Fagerbergetal.,2012).Thisprocess,in

my view, requires further examinations at different organisational levels and in different

contexts.

Wecouldthengofurtherbackintimeandfindthatupuntilthe19thcenturyinnovationwas

contestedandprohibited–athreattothepowerof institutions,suchasthestateandthe

church–andnotyetpartofthediscourseofscienceandprogress(Godin,2015).Itwascon-

sidered destructive, but not yet economically, as in Schumpeter’s days. Innovation was

aboutpoliticaldestructionandundermining theestablishedorder (Blok,2018a).AsGodin

explains(2015,p.2),theinnovatorwasapersonwhodeviatedfromsocialnorms(adanger-

ousthingtodointhosedays).Protagonistsofchangeavoidedusingtheterm.Instead,“in-

novationwasawordusedbytheopponentsofchange”.Chameleons,itseems,shareahis-

torywiththeconcept.Ithinkthatthereisvalueinresearchthatseekstobetterunderstand

thiscontradictioninrelationtodifferentcontemporaryglobalchallenges.

Effortstobetterunderstandthisapparentcontradictionofinnovationandchangecouldtake

usfurtherbackintimeandtoNiccolòMachiavelliandFrancisBacon.Godin(2015)andalso

Bontems(2014)provide insightfulaccountsofhowtheseRenaissancethinkersunderstood

innovationinrelationtorulingelites.Godin(2015)illustratesthat,toMachiavelli,innovation

was a quasi-military act that involved (covert) actions to acquire ormaintain power; that

requiredthewillingnesstoinflictdamageonone’sopponent;andthataimedtoreplaceold

institutionswithnewones.Thesesortsofriskydisruptionsaimedtobreakwith(bad)habits:

theyweretobedeployedincrisissituationsonly,asundernormalcircumstancesinnovation

wouldharmthecurrentruler(Bontems,2014).

Bacon,likeMachiavelli,consideredinnovationasariskyundertaking.AsBontems(2014,p.

43)describes,toBaconanychangewasinevitable,inherenttothepassingoftimeandthe

130

relatedevolutionofallthingshuman,andinnovationwasawayofresistingtime.Yet,such

resistancemade thingsprogressivelyworse: “illworsenswhereasgoodweakens”.Bacon’s

solution was gradualism: in attempts to improve conditions, the innovator should follow

ratherthanopposethenaturalwaysofthingsandoperatequietlyand–unlikeMachiavelli’s

innovator–openlyandslowly,akintotimeitself(Godin,2015).

BothMachiavelliandBaconopposedthe ideaofvaluing innovationforthesakeof it.Asa

commonplaceactivity,innovationwouldonlymakethingsworse.So,forinnovationtobring

change,itistobeusedinspecificoccasionsandwithgreatcare.Ontheonehand,Machia-

velli’sapproachof‘walkingthewalk’andnot‘talkingthetalk’appearstobetheoppositeof

chameleonismandcouldarguablytakethechameleonsbysurprise.Ontheotherhand,Ba-

con’sgradualismispossiblymorechameleon-friendly. Itgrantsthereptiletimetoadjust–

not by changing colours but through a natural evolution of its species. These approaches

raise relevant 21st-century questions that areworthpursuing in further research.Will the

resultingfalloutofMachiavelliandisruptionsalsoinflictdamageontheinnovator?Andcan

Bacon’sgradualistsaffordtobepatient,oris(Earthly)timesimplyrunningout?

5.4.2. Practicalimplications

Themain,andprettybasic,lessonthatwecanlearnfromthisthesisisthatthecreationof

novelty, let alone change, is not easy.And it shouldnotbeeasy. Innovationhurts.And it

shouldhurt.If innovationdoesnothurt,thekindofchangepropagatedislikelytobemar-

ginalatbest.Chameleonismembodiesthenotionthatchangewithoutpain isan ideathat

canbesoldbutthatisimpossibletoaccomplish.Related,thecreationofnoveltyandchange

isnotvalue-free.Benefitsanddisadvantagesarerarelyevenlydistributed.Somesuffermore

thanothers;benefitstendtocreatenewelites.Inmyview,theprevailingpositive,narrow,

and seemingly value-free interpretations and representations of innovation that tend to

equatetheconceptwithcommercialisedtechnologicalinventionarethereforedeeplyprob-

lematic. The innovators, or at least those who are really after toppling dominant orders,

shouldrealisethat.Andtheyshouldcomeprepared.Thisthesisconcludeswithfourinterre-

latedwaysforward.

I. Bewareofthechameleons

Firstandforemost,ifyouseektoinstigategenuinechange,youshouldbewareofchamele-

ons. Steadfastness is a virtue in the faceof these reptiles (chapter3 illustrated that). You

131

shouldalwayslistentotheideasandargumentsofothersbutstayloyaltoyourhopesand

aspirations. Inyourcommunications,youareprobablybetteroffwhenyoufollowMachia-

velli’slessonandavoidtheterminnovationaltogether.Beparticularlycautiouswhenoppo-

nentsorpartnersbeginusingtheword.Stayoutofthatdiscourse. Inthe longrun,sucha

strategycouldproveusefulforall. Innovationwilleventuallybecometheexclusivedomain

ofchameleons.Inthiswaythesecreaturesaremucheasiertospotandexpose.

II. Createsoftspacestofosterexperimentandopenupdebates

Softspacesare‘free’spacesthatattempttodisconnectanissuefromtheestablishedlogic

androutinesthatperpetuateitsexistence(Hajer,2017).AsHajerexplains,softspacescom-

prise–oftentemporary–collaborationsbetweenunusualagentsofchange.Theycancon-

nectvariousorganisationsindifferentwaysandbridgeexistinginstitutionalgaps.Softspac-

esarerelevantherebecausetheycanhelpyouinmediatingthecurrentandfutureuncer-

taintiesthatyouarefacing,sparknewideas,andhelpyouandyourorganisationgetaccus-

tomed to the practice of experimentation (see Brown, Farrely & Loorbach, 2013). In this

way,youcanusesoftspacestomakeitclearwhattheunderlyingassumptionsofconven-

tional practices in your organisation are, but also in government, business, and society at

large.

These assumptions are not simple, operationalmatters; they comprise quite fundamental

andtakenforgrantedideasaboutorganisationsandtheirfuturethatareembeddedindom-

inantdiscourses.Theyareofthetypethatconfinetourisminnovationtoe-commerce(chap-

ter1);thatportrayclimatechangeintourismasacarbonmanagementissueandtechnolog-

icalchallenge(chapter2,3);andthattreatimprovedideauptakewithinanorganisationasa

vehicle of process excellence (chapter 4). Hopefully, one day, policymechanisms such as

RAAK(chapter2)canbealteredsothattheycanbeusedtostimulatethedevelopmentof

soft spaces. Thesemechanisms thenwould firsthave toabandon theiroutput-orientation

(seealsoSmith,Voβ&Grin,2010)andinstallperformanceindicatorsthatincludethevalue

ofthelessonslearned(ofparticularinterestarethelessonswelearnfromfailures);thear-

ticulationof supportive institutional requirements; and–upnext– theenrolmentofnew

actors.

132

III. IntroducenewactorsthatchallengetheEstablishment

Upuntilnow,thepresentedwaysforwardhavebeenrathermildandarguablyalignedwith

theideasofFrancisBacon.NowIinclinetowardsMachiavelli.Softspacesarefirstandfore-

mostsoft:theydonotofferanyguaranteesforsuccess.Chancesarethatyouseeareturnto

businessasusualthemomentdialoguesandexperimentsend.Tocompensateforthisrisk,

softspacescanserveadualpurpose.Theycanbedeployedtomanipulatehardspaces,i.e.

theformalpolicysetting.Theycanbeusedtogivenewandunusualactorsthatwerenever

consideredasstakeholdersaseatatthetable(ortocreateaseatforthem).Thechangetra-

jectoriespresented in this thesis, for instance, couldhave includedexemplary low carbon

tourismoperators(chapter2);youthorganisationsandtheNationalOmbudsmanforyouth

affairs(chapter3);andsuccessfulsocialenterprisesandslowtourismbusinesses(chapter4).

Yet–upuntilthispoint–theydonot.This,Ithink,isamissedopportunity.Simplybybeing

present,theseactorscanprovidenewinsightsandchallengedominantdiscourseandrelat-

edpractices.Ithereforeinviteyoutolookbeyondtheusualsuspectswhenmobilisingsup-

portforyouragendas.Chameleons,afterall,maynotknowhowtobehave–whatcolourto

wear–inthefaceofstrangers.Thiscouldhelpyourcause.

IV. Dismantleestablishedinstitutions

Replacingoldinstitutionswithnewoneswas,accordingtoMachiavelli,amainobjectiveof

innovation (seeabove). Institutionsarehowevernoteasily replaced.Theyconstitute rules

andnormsthathavestructuredinteractionsforprolongedperiodsoftimeandthatareem-

bedded in narratives, possibly even ideologies,whichmake them look solid and powerful

(VanAsscheetal.2014).Actorsaffiliatedwithestablished institutionswillobviously resist

theirdismantlement,butsoonerorlatertheywillhavenootherchoicethantogivein.

Inchapter3,theAldersTable–a‘permanent’institutionthathasdirecteddecision-making

regardingtheexpansionofDutchnationalairportSchipholforoveradecade–dismantled

itselfaftersustainedpublicpressureandthearrivalof (yes)newactorsonthescene.This

onlytooktwoyears.Granted,thedisintegrationofAlderswasaby-productofalargerenvi-

ronmentalpolicystruggle,but itshowsthatconsistentlyconfronting institutionswith their

imminentirrelevancecanultimatelytopplethem.

Similarly,inchapter4,thepackageholidayconglomerateTUIcanbeviewedasaninstitution

that is losing relevance fast. Current pandemic conditions have exposed TUI’s structural

133

weaknesses.ButTUIisacorporateventure.Theywillsurviveaslongastheysucceedincon-

vincingtheirprimecustomers–theshareholdersand,atpresent,theGermangovernment–

thatsellingmasstourismpackagestoapredominantlyagingclienteleissound21st-century

business.Oncethiscarefullycrafted illusioncomestoanend,TUI’sexecutivesmayrepeat

Preussag’soldtrick(seeDittmann,Maug,&Schneider,2008):disinvestcurrentassets,pur-

suequickreturnselsewhere,andadoptthenameoftheirmoststrategicacquisition inthe

process.Oldhabits,afterall,diehard.

Whetherthedismantlementofoldinstitutionsisthenuclearoption,Idonotknow.There-

sultingeffectscanbeunpredictableorcansustainalreadyexistingdeadlocks.Butitispossi-

ble,andintourism,urgentlyneeded.

135

ReferencesACN,AOPANetherlands,BARIN,Correndon,Dnata,easyJet,...VNO-NCW.(2019).Ontwerpakkoord

DuurzameLuchtvaart[DraftCovenantSustainableAviation].

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/rapporten/2019/03/27/bijl

age-2-ontwerpakkoord-duurzame-luchtvaart/bijlage-2-ontwerpakkoord-duurzame-

luchtvaart.pdf

Aguiló,E.,Alegre,J.,&Sard,M.(2003).ExaminingthemarketstructureoftheGermanandUKtour

operatingindustriesthroughananalysisofpackageholidayprices.TourismEconomics,9(3),

255-278.https://doi.org/10.1177/135481660300900302

Akrich,M.,Callon,M.,&Latour,B.(2002a).TheKeytoSuccessinInnovationPartI:TheArtofInter-

essement.InternationalJournalofInnovationManagement,6(2),187-206.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919602000550

Akrich,M.,Callon,M.,&Latour,B.(2002b).TheKeytoSuccessinInnovationPartII:TheArtofChoos-

ingGoodSpokespersons.InternationalJournalofInnovationManagement,6(2),207-225.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919602000562

Alders,H.(2008).AldersadviesSchiphol[AldersadviceSchiphol].

https://www.omgevingsraadschiphol.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/advies-alders-

middellange_termijn.pdf

Amit,R.,&Zott,C.(2001).ValuecreationinE-business.StrategicManagementJournal,22,493-520.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187

ANVR(2020).ANVRBrochure2021.[ANVRProspect2021].

https://www.anvr.nl/publicaties/brochure.aspx

ANVR(2017,September4).ANVRenNyenrodestartenleerstoelinnovatieintoerisme.[ANVRand

NyenrodeBusinessUniversiteitstartspecialprofessorshipinnovationintourism].

https://www.anvr.nl/lists/nieuws/artikel.aspx?ID=8064

ANVR.(2015).ANVRView2015(2).

http://content.yudu.com/web/1r3p1/0A2i0bs/View1502/flash/resources/index.htm?referre

rUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fleden.anvr.nl%2Fnieuws%2Fanvr-view-2015-16565%2F

ANVR.(2014).ANVRView2014(2).https://www.anvr.nl/publicatie/VIEW02_2014.pdf

ANVR.(2013).ANVRJaarverslag2013.[AnnualReport2013].ANVR


136

ANVR.(2011).ANVRjaarverslag2011.[AnnualReport2011].ANVR


ANVR.(2009a).ANVRJaarverslag2009.[AnnualReport2009].ANVR

ANVR.(2009b).ANVRView2009(4).https://www.anvr.nl/publicatie/View%202009%20nr4.pdf

ANVR&Capgemini.(2015,June16).TravelTomorrowCongres[ANVRTravelTomorrowCongress],

Utrecht.

BarbaLata,I.I.V.(2017).Dis-locatinginnovation:Amphibiousgeographiesofcreativereuseandalter-

nativevalueproduction.[Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation].WageningenUniversity.

Barnosky,A.D.,Hadly,E.A.,Bascompte,J.,Berlow,E.L.,Brown,J.H.,Fortelius,M.,Getz,W.M.,Harte,

Hastings,A.,Marquet,P.A.,Martinez,M.D.,Mooers,A.,Roopnarine,P.,Vermeij,G.,Wil-

liams,J.W.,Gillespie,R.,Kitzes,J.,Marshall,C.,Matzke,N.…Smith,A.B.(2012).Approaching

astateshiftinEarth’sbiosphere.Nature,486(7401),52-58.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11018

Beard,L.,Scarles,C.,&Tribe,J.(2016).Messandmethod:usingANTintourismresearch.Annalsof

TourismResearch,60,97-110.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.06.005

Beck,U.(2009).Worldatrisk.PolityPress.

Becken,S.(2017).Evidenceofalow-carbontourismparadigm?JournalofSustainableTourism,25(6),

832-850.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1251446

Beeton,S.(2005).TheCaseStudyinTourismResearch:aMulti-methodCaseStudyApproach.In:B.

Ritchie,P.Burns,&C.Palmer(Eds.),TourismResearchMethods(37-48).CABIPublishing.

https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851999968.0037

BetterPlaces.(2017,June15).CO2uitstootperreis[Carbonfootprintpertrip].

https://www.betterplaces.nl/co2-uitstoot-per-reis

Beulink,P.,Dijkmans,C.,Erdkamp,C.,Lier,H.,&Mensink,H.(2012).ToT2025.Toekomstvisieop

Toerisme.(Futurevisionontourism).

https://www.anvr.nl/publicatie/Toekomstvisie_2025_ANVR.pdf

Blok,V.(2018a).TowardsanOntologyofInnovation:OntheNew,thePolitical-EconomicDimension

andtheIntrinsicRisksinvolvedinInnovationProcesses.InD.Michelfelder&N.Doorn.(Eds.),

RoutledgeHandbookofPhilosophyofEngineering.Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276502

137

Blok,V.(2018b).PhilosophyofInnovation:AResearchAgenda.PhilosophyofManagement,17,1-5.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0080-z

Boaz,A.,Fitzpatrick,S.,&Shaw,B.(2009).Assessingtheimpactofresearchonpolicy:aliterature

review.ScienceandPublicPolicy,36(4),255-270.

https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X436545

Bontems,V.K.(2014).WhatdoesInnovationstandfor?Reviewofawatchwordinresearchpolicies..

JournalofInnovationEconomics&Management,3(15),39-57.

https://doi.org/10.3917/JIE.015.0039

Boons,F.,VanBuuren,A.,&Teisman,G.(2010).Governanceofsustainabilityatairports:Moving

beyondthedebatebetweengrowthandnoise.NaturalResourcesForum,34(4),303-313.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2010.01314.x

Bramwell,B.,Higham,J.,Lane,B.,&Miller,G.(2016).Advocacyorneutrality?Disseminatingresearch

findingsanddrivingchangetowardsustainabletourisminafastchangingworld.Journalof

SustainableTourism,24(1),1-7.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1106146

Bramwell,B.(2015).Theoreticalactivityinsustainabletourismresearch.AnnalsofTourismResearch,

54,204-218.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.07.005

Brown,R.R.,Farrelly,M.,&Loorbach,D.A.(2013).Actorsworkingtheinstitutionsinsustainability

transitions:ThecaseofMelbourne'sstormwatermanagement.GlobalEnvironmental

Change,23,701–718.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.013

Bruinsma,G.,&Stil,H.(2017,November18).Luchtvaartexpert:Maakvliegenpeperduur[Aviation

expert:makeflyingveryexpensive].AD,26-27.

Buckley,R.(2012).Sustainabletourism:Researchandreality.AnnalsofTourismResearch,39(2),

528–546.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.003

Buhalis,D.,Harwood,T,Bogicevic,V.,Viglia,G.,Beldona,S.,&Hofacker,C.,(2019).Technological

disruptionsinservices.Lessonsfromtourismandhospitality.JournalofServiceManagement,

30(4),484-506.https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-12-2018-0398

Buijtendijk,H.,Blom,J.,Vermeer,J.,&vanderDuim,V.R.(2018).Eco-innovationforsustainable

tourismtransitionsasaprocessofcollaborativeco-production:thecaseofacarbon

managementcalculatorfortheDutchtravelindustry.JournalofSustainableTourism,26(7),

1222-1240.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1433184

138

Caiado,R.G.G.,Dias,R.,Mattos,L.V.,Quelhas,O.L.G.,&Filho,W.L.(2017).Towardssustainablede-

velopmentthroughtheperspectiveofeco-efficiency.Asystematicliteraturereview.Journal

ofCleanerProduction,165,890-904.https://doi.org/0.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.166

Callon,M.(1986).Someelementsofasociologyoftranslation:Domesticationofthescallopsandthe

fishermenofStBrieucBay.InJ.Law(Ed.),Power,actionandbelief:Anewsociologyof

knowledge?(pp.196–223).Routledge.

Calvino,F.,Criscuolo,C.,&Menon,C.(2016).Nocountryforyoungfirms?:start-updynamicsand

nationalpolicies.OECD.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jm22p40c8mw-en

Camisón,C.,&Monfort-Mir,V.M.(2012).MeasuringinnovationintourismfromtheSchumpeterian

anddynamic-capabilitiesperspectives.TourismManagement,33,776-789.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.012

Capgemini.(2015).TravelTomorrow.Envisionthefutureoftravel.

https://www.anvr.nl/publicatie/TravelTomorrow_Report-2943.pdf

Charmaz,K.(2014).ConstructingGroundedTheory.Sage.

Cherrylab.(2016).TravelExperienceTomorrow.

https://www.anvr.nl/publicatie/Travel%20Experience%20Tomorrow%20%20-

%20trendrapport.pdf

Christensen,C.M.,&Raynor,M.E.(2003).WhyHard-NosedExecutivesShouldCareAboutManage-

mentTheory.HarvardBusinessReview,September2003

CNG.(2017,November28).Aboutus.https://www.climateneutralgroup.com/en/about-us/

Cohen,S.A.,&Kantenbacher,J.(2019).Flyingless:personalhealthandenvironmentalco-benefits.

JournalofSustainableTourism,28(2),361-376.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1585442

Cohen,S.A.,Higham,J.,G.,Gössling,S.,Peeters,P.,&Eijgelaar,E.(2016).Findingeffectivepathways

tosustainablemobility:bridgingthescience-policygap.JournalofSustainableTourism,

24(3),317-334.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1136637

Cohen,E.,&Cohen,S.A.(2012).Currentsociologicaltheoriesandissuesintourism.AnnalsofTour-

ismResearch,39(4),2177-2202.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.07.009

Cohen,S.A.,Higham,J.,&Cavaliere,C.T.(2011).Bingeflying:Behaviouraladdictionandclimate

change.AnnalsofTourismResearch,38(3),1070-1089.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.013

139

Coles,T.,Warren,N.,Borden,D.S.,&Dinan,C.(2017).BusinessmodelsamongSMTEs:identifying

attitudestoenvironmentalcostsandtheirimplicationsforsustainabletourism.Journalof

SustainableTourism,25(4),471-488.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1221414

Coles,T.,Fenclova,E.,&Dinan,C.(2014).CorporatesocialresponsibilityreportingamongEuropean

low-faresairlines:challengesfortheexaminationanddevelopmentofsustainablemobilities.


https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.790391

Coles,T.,Fenclova,E.,&Dinan,C.(2013).Tourismandcorporatesocialresponsibility.Acriticalre-

viewandresearchagenda.TourismManagementPerspectives,6,122-141.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2013.02.001

Collinson,P.(2019,September23).WhydidThomasCookcollapseafter178yearsinbusiness?The

Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/23/thomas-cook-as-the-world-

turned-the-sun-ceased-to-shine-on-venerable-tour-operatorAccessed27.11.20

Cooper,R.G.(2011).Theinnovationdilemma:Howtoinnovatewhenthemarketismature.Journal

ofProductInnovationManagement,28(s1),2-27.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

5885.2011.00858.x

CSTT.(2017a,June3).CARMACAL.http://www.cstt.nl/carmacal

CSTT.(2017b,June3).CARMATOP.http://www.cstt.nl/Pojects/CARMATOP/17

CSTT.(2017c,June3).Sustainabletourismandtransport.http://www.cstt.nl/cstt-home

Czarniawska,B.(2009).STSMeetsMOS.Organization,16(1),155-160.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508408098927

Czarniawska,B.(2004).OnTime,Space,andActionNets.Organization,11(6),773-791.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404047251

Czarniawska,B.(2001).IsitpossibletobeaConstructionistConsultant?ManagementLearning,

32(2),253-266.https://doi.org/10.1177/13507601322006

Czarniawska,B.(1998).Anarrativeapproachtoorganisationstudies.Sage.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983235

deJong,B.,&Boelens,L.(2014).UnderstandingAmsterdamAirportSchipholthrough

controversies.SystemsResearchandBehaviouralScience,31(1),3-13.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2188

Didion,J.(1968).SlouchingtowardsBethlehem.Farar,Strauss,&Giroux

140

Dijksma,S.A.M.(2017a).Luchtvaartbeleid.#31936-390[Aviationpolicy].HouseofRepresentatives

oftheNetherlands

Dijksma,S.A.M.(2017b).Luchtvaartbeleid.#31936-422[Aviationpolicy].HouseofRepresentatives

ofTheNetherlands

DiStefano,G.,Gambardella,A.,&Gianmario,V.(2012).Technologypushanddemandpullperspec-

tivesininnovationstudies:Currentfindingsandfutureresearchdirections.ResearchPolicy,

41,1283-1295.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021

Dittmann,I.,Maug,E.,&Schneider,C.(2008).HowPreussagBecameTUI:AClinicalStudyofInstitu-

tionalBlockholdersandRestructuringinEurope.FinancialManagement,Autumn2008,571-

598.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-053X.2008.00025.x

Doz,Y.L.,&Kosonen,M.(2010).EmbeddingStrategicAgility.AleadershipAgendaforAccelerating

BusinessModelRenewal.LongRangePlanning,43,370-382.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006

Dredge,D.(2015).Doesrelevancematterinacademicpolicyresearch?JournalofPolicyResearch

inTourism,LeisureandEvents,7(2),173-177.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2014.990661

Dredge,D.(2019,October31).Sustainabilityevidence-basedtourismpolicies[Onlineforumpost].

TRINET

Duineveld,M.,VanAssche,K.,&Beunen,R.(2017).Re-conceptialisingpoliticallandscapesafterthe

materialturn:atypologyofmaterialevents.LandscapeResearch,42(4),375-384.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1290791

Duineveld,M.&VanAssche,K.(2011).Thepoweroftulips:Constructingnatureandheritageina

contestedlandscape.JournalofEnvironmentalPolicy&Planning,13(2).79–98.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2011.572655

DutchAviationGroup.(2018).Sliménduurzaam:ActieplanLuchtvaartNederland:35%minderCO2in

2030[SmartandSustainable:ActionplanDutchaviation:35%lessCO2in2030].Dutch

AviationGroup.

Eijgelaar,E.,Nawijn,J.,Barten,C.,Okuhn,L.,&Dijkstra,L.(2016).Consumerattitudesandprefer-

encesonholidaycarbonfootprintinformationintheNetherlands.JournalofSustainable

Tourism,24(3),398-411.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1101129

141

Eijgelaar,E.(2011).VoluntaryCarbonOffsetsaSolutionforReducingTourismEmissions?Assessment

ofCommunicationAspectsandMitigationPotential.EuropeanJournalforTransportandIn-

frastructureResearch,11(3),281-296.https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2011.11.3.2933

Fagerberg,J.,Fosaas,M.,&Sapprasert,K.(2012):Innovation:Exploringtheknowledgebase.Re-

searchPolicy,41,1132-1153.https://doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008

Fagerberg,J.,&Verspagen,B.(2009).Innovationstudies–Theemergingstructureofanewscientific

field.ResearchPolicy,38,218-233.https://doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006

Fagerberg,J.(2003).Schumpeterandtherevivalofevolutionaryeconomics:anappraisaloftheliter-

ature.JournalofEvolutionaryEconomics,13,125-159.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-003-

0144-1

Font,X.,Higham,J.,Miller,G.,&Pourfakhimi,S.(2019).Researchengagement,impactand

sustainabletourism.JournalofSustainableTourism,27(1),1-11.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1560673

Font,X.,Guix,M.,&Bonilla-priego,M.J.(2016).Corporatesocialresponsibilityincruising:Usingma-

terialityanalysistocreatesharedvalue.TourismManagement,53,175-186.


Fraj,E.,Matute,J.,&Melero,I.(2015).Environmntalstrategiesandorganizationalcompetitiveness

inthehotelindustry:Theroleoflearningandinnovationasdeterminantsofenvironmental

success.TourismManagement,46,30-42.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.05.009

Frankfurt,H.G.(1929).OnBullshit.PrincetonUniversityPress.

Gad,C.,&Jensen,C.B.(2010).OntheconsequencesofPost-ANT.Science,Technology,&Human

Values,35(1),55-80.https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243908329567

Garud,R.,Gehman,J.,&Giuliani,A.P.(2014).Contextualisingentrepreneurialinnovation:Anarrative

perspective.ResearchPolicy,43,1177-1188.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.015

Godin,B.(2015).InnovationContested.Theideaofinnovationoverthecenturies.Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315855608

Godin,B.(2012).“InnovationStudies”:TheInventionofaSpeciality.Minerva,50,397-521.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-012-9212-8

Godin,B.(2010).InnovationWithouttheWord:WilliamF.Ogburn’sContributiontotheStudyof

TechnologicalInnovation.Minerva,48,277,307.https://doi10.1007/s11024-010-9151-1

142

Godin,B.(2008).IntheShadowofSchumpeter:W.RupertMaclaurinandtheStudyofTechnological

Innovation.Minerva,46,343-360.https://doi1007/s11024-008-9100-4

Gonthier,J.,&Chirita,G.M.(2019).Theroleofcorporateincubatorsasinvigoratorsofinnovation

capabilitiesinparentcompanies.JournalofInnovationandEntrepreneurship,8(8).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-019-0104-0

Gössling,S.,Humpe,A.,&Bausch,T.(2020).Does‘flightshame’affectsocialnorms?Changingper-

spectivesonthedesirabilityofairtravelinGermany.JournalofCleanerProduction,266.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122015

Gössling,S.,Scott,D.,&Hall,C.M.(2020).Pandemics,tourism,andglobalchange:arapidassess-

mentofCOVID-19.JournalofSustainableTourism.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708

Gössling,S.,&Scott,D.(2018).Thedecarbonisationimpasse:globaltourismleaders’viewson

climatechangemitigation.JournalofSustainableTourism,26(12),2071–2086.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1529770

Gössling,S.(2016).Tourism,informationtechnologiesandsustainability:anexploratoryreview.


https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1122017

Gössling,S.,&Buckley,R.(2016).Carbonlabelsintourism:persuasivecommunication?Journalof

CleanerProduction,11,358-369.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.067

Gössling,S.,Hall,C.M.Peeters,P.,&Scott,D.,(2010).TheFutureofTourism.CanTourismGrowth

andClimatePolicybeReconciled?AMitigationPerspective.TourismRecreationResearch,

35(2),119-130.https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2010.11081628

Gössling,S.,Broderick,J.,Upham,P.,Ceron,J.,Dubois,G.,Peeters,P.,&Strasdas,W.(2007).Volun-

taryCarbonOffsettingSchemesforAviation:Efficiency,CredibilityandSustainableTourism.

JournalofSustainableTourism,15(3),223-248.https://doi.org/10.2167/jost758.0

Gössling,S.(2002).Globalenvironmentalconsequencesoftourism.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,

12(4),283–302.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00044-4

Grabher,G.(2004).TemporaryArchitecturesofLearning:KnowledgeGovernanceinProjectEcolo-

gies.OrganizationStudies,25(9),1491-1514http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840604047996

Gren,M.,&Huijbens,E.H.(Eds.).(2016).TourismandtheAnthropocene.Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747361

143

Gren,M.,&Huijbens,E.H.(2012).TourismtheoryandtheEarth.AnnalsofTourismResearch,39(1),

155-170.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.009

Guérard,S.,Langley,A.,&Seidl,D.(2013).Rethinkingtheconceptofperformanceinstrategyre-

search:towardsaperformativityperspective.Management,16(5),566-578.

https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.165.0566

Hagens,P.J.(2017,November11).Remopvliegen[Breakonflying][Televisionseriesepisode].In

Buitenhof.VPRO.

Hajer,M.(2017).ThePowerofImagination.[Inauguralspeech].

https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/hajer_oratie_eng_0.pdf

Hajer,M.(2005).Coalitions,practices,andmeaninginenvironmentalpolitics:FromacidraintoBSE.

InD.Howarth&J.Torfing(Eds.),Discoursetheoryineuropeanpolitics:Identity,policyand

governance(pp.297–315).PalgraveMacmillan.

Hajer,M.(1996).Ecologicalmodernisationasculturalpolitics.InS.Lash,B.Szerszynski,&B.Wynne

(Eds.),Risk,environment,andmodernity:Towardsanewecology(pp.246–268).Sage.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221983

Hall,C.M.(2019).Constructingsustainabletourismdevelopment:The2030agendaandthe

managerialecologyofsustainabletourism.JournalofSustainableTourism,27(7),1044-1060.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1560456

Hall,C.M.,&Williams,A.M.(2019).TourismandInnovation.NewYork:Routledge

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162836

Hall,C.M.,Amelung,B.,Cohen,S.,Eijgelaar,E.,Gössling,S.,Higham,J.,Leemans,R.,Peeters,P.,Ram,

Y.,Scott,D.,Aall,C.,Abegg,B.,Araña,J.E.,Barr,S.,Becken,S.,Buckley,R.,Burns,P.,Coles,T.,

Dawson,J.,…Weaver,D.(2015).Denyingbogusscepticisminclimatechangeandtourismre-

search.TourismManagement,47,352-356.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.009

Hall,C.M.,Amelung,B.,Cohen,S.,Eijgelaar,E.,Gossling,S.,Higham,J.,Leemans,R.,Peeters,P.,

Ram,Y.,&Scott,D.(2014).Onclimatechangeskepticismanddenialintourism.Journalof

SustainableTourism.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.953544

Hansson,S.O.(2010).Technologyandthenotionofsustainability.TechnologyinSociety,32,274–

279.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.003

144

Haug,B.(2012).EnactingRiskatBesseggen.In:R.VanderDuim,C.Ren,&G.T.Jóhannesson(Eds.).

ActorNetworkTheoryandTourism.Ordering,materialityand multiplicity(80-93).

Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203122976

Hellström,T.(2003),Systemicinnovationandrisk:technologyassessmentandthechallengeofre-

sponsibleinnovation,TechnologyinSociety,25,369-384.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-

791X(03)00041-1

Hillebrand,B.(2018).InnovatieinToerisme.Eenecosysteemperspectief(Innovationintourism;an

ecosystemperspective).[Inauguralspeech].https://www.nyenrode.nl/docs/default-

source/pdf's/pdf's---faculteit-research/oraties-

emeritaatsredes/oratieboekje_bhillebrand_okt18.pdf?sfvrsn=9829d614_5

Hjalager,A.M.(2010).Areviewofinnovationresearchintourism.TourismManagement,31,1-12.


Hjalager,A.M.(2002).Repairinginnovationdefectivenessintourism.TourismManagement,23,465-

474.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00013-4

Hojnik,J.,&Ruzzier,M.(2016).Whatdriveseco-innovation?Areviewofanemergingliterature.En-

vironmentalInnovationandSocietalTransitions,19,31–41.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIST.2015.09.006

Howarth,D.(2000).Discourse.OpenUniversityPress.

Huijs,M.G.(2011).Buildingcastlesinthe(Dutch)air:UnderstandingthepolicydeadlockofAmster-

damAirportSchiphol1989-2009.[Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation].TUDelft

INRetail&NRIW(2014).HighlightsShopping2020.

https://www.anvr.nl/publicatie/shopping2020.pdf

IPCC.(2013).ClimateChange2013.ThePhysicalScienceBasis.ContributionofWorkingGroupItothe

FifthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/wg1/WG1ARS5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Isil,O.,&Henke,M.T.(2017).TheTripleBottomLine:ACriticalReviewfromaTransdisciplinaryPer-

spective.BusinessStrategyandtheEnvironment,26(8),1235- 1251.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1982

Jasanoff,S.(2015).Futureimperfect:Science,technology,andtheimaginationsofmodernity.InS.

Jasanoff&S.-H.Kim(Eds.),Dreamscapesofmodernity:Sociotechnicalimaginariesandthe

145

fabricationofpower(pp.1-33).UniversityofChicagoPress.

https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226276663

Jasanoff,S.,&Kim,S.(2009).ContainingtheAtom.SociotechnicalImaginariesandNuclearPowerin

theUnitedStatesandSouthKorea.Minerva,47,119-146.https://doi.org10.1007/s11024-

009-9124-4

Jasanoff,S.(2002).Newmodernities:Reimaginingscience,technologyanddevelopment.Environ-

mentalValues,11(3),253–276.https://doi.org/10.3197/096327102129341082

Jóhannesson,G.T.(2012).“ToGetThingsDone”:ARelationalApproachtoEntrepreneurship,Scandi-

navianJournalofHospitalityandTourism,12(2),181-196.

https://doi.org10.1080/15022250.2012.695463

Jørgensen,U.(2012).Mappingandnavigatingtransitions.Themulti-levelperspectivecomparedwith

areasofdevelopment.ResearchPolicy,41,996-1010.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.001

Kallmuenzer,A.,&Peters,M.(2018).Innovativenessandcontrolmechanismsintourismandhospi-

talityfamilyfirms:Acomparativestudy.InternationalJournalofHospitalityManagement,70,

66-74.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.022

Kasim,A.,Gursoy,D.,Okumus,F.,&Wong,A.(2014).Theimportanceofwatermanagementinho-

tels:aframeworkforsustainabilitythroughinnovation.Journalof SustainableTourism,

22(7),1090-1107.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.873444

Klein,N.(2007).TheShockDoctrine:TheRiseofDisasterCapitalism.MetropolitanBooks

KLM.(2019).Annualreport2018.KLMRoyalDutchAirlines.

https://www.klm.com/travel/nl_nl/images/KLM_Annual_Report_2018_tcm541-1045331.pdf

Kooij,H.,VanAssche,K.,&Lagendijk,A.(2012).OpenConceptsasCrystallizationPointsandEnablers

ofDiscursiveConfigurations.TheCaseoftheInnovationCampusintheNetherlands.Europe-

anPlanningStudies.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.731039

Korsgaard,S.(2011).Entrepreneurshipastranslation:Understandingentrepreneurialopportunities

throughactor-networktheory.Entrepreneurship&RegionalDevelopment,23(7-8),661-680.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2010.546432

Lachman,D.A.(2013).Asurveyandreviewofapproachestostudytransitions.EnergyPolicy,58,269-

276.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.013

146

Laine,P.,Meriläinen,S.,Tienari,J.,&Vaara,E.(2016).Mastery,submission,andsubversion:Onthe

performativeconstructionofstrategistidentity.Organization,23(4),505-524.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508415575629

Latour,B.(2014).AgencyatthetimeoftheAnthropocene.NewLiteraryHistory,45,1-18.

https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2014.0003

Latour,B.(2005).Reassemblingthesocial.Anintroductiontoactor-networktheory.OxfordUniversi-

tyPress.

Latour,B.(1996a).Onactor-networktheory:Afewclarificationsplusmorethanafewcomplications.

SozialeWelt,47,369-381.

Latour,B.(1996b).ARAMISortheloveoftechnology.HarvardUniversityPress.

Latour,B.(1990).Technologyissocietymadedurable.TheSociologicalReview,38(1),103-131.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03350.x

Law,J.(2007).ActorNetworkTheoryandMaterialSemiotics.

http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf

Law,J.,&Urry,J.(2005).EnactingtheSocial.EconomyandSociety,33(3),390-410.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000225716

Law,J.(2001).OrderingandObduracy.CentreforScienceStudies,LancasterUniversity.

http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Ordering-and-Obduracy.pdf

Law,J.(1992).Notesonthetheoryoftheactor-network:Ordering,strategyandheterogeneity.Sys-

temsPractice,5,379–393.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059830

Law,R.,Buhalis,D.,&Cobanoglu,C.(2014).Progressoninformationandcommunicationtechnolo-

giesinhospitalityandtourism.InternationalJournalofContemporaryTourimandHospitality

Management,26(5),727-750.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2013-0367

Lechevalier,S.(Ed.).(2019).InnovationbeyondTechnology.London:Routledge.

Long,T.,V.Blok.(2017).Whenthegoinggetstough,thetoughgetgoing:Towardsanew–More

critical–EngagementwithresponsibleresearchandinnovationinanageofTrump,Brexit,

andwiderpopulism.JournalofResponsibleInnovation,4(1),64–70.

https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1319036

147

Lowe,M.S.,Williams,A.M.,Shaw,G.,&Cudworth,K.(2012).Self-organisinginnovationnetworks,

mobileknowledgecarriersanddiasporas:insightsfromapioneeringboutiquehotelchain.

JournalofEconomicGeography,12,1113-1138.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbs021

LVNL-To70.(2009).LuchtruimFlevoland2020:eenverkenningvandemogelijkheden[Airspace

Flevoland2020:astudyofoptions].LuchthavenSchiphol,Netherlands:AirTrafficControlthe

Netherlands(LVNL).

Mackenzie,D.,Muniesa,F.,Siu,L.(2007).DoEconomistsmakeMarkets.Ontheperformativityof

economics.Princeton.https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691214665

Marasco,A.,DeMartino,M.,Magnotti,F.,&Morvillo,A.(2018).Collaborativeinnovationintourism

andhospitality:asystematicreviewoftheliterature.InternationalJournalofContemporary

HospitalityManagement,30(6),2364-2395.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2018-0043

Martin,B.(2016)Twentychallengesforinnovationstudies.ScienceandPublicPolicy,43(3),432-450.

https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2744637

Martin,B.(2012).Theevolutionofsciencepolicyandinnovationstudies.ResearchPolicy,41,1219-

1239.http://doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012

Martínez-Román,J.A.,Tamayo,J.A.,Gamero,J.,&Romero,J.E.(2015).Innovativenessandbusiness

performancesintourismSMEs.AnnalsofTourismResearch,54,118-135.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.07.004

Medina-Muñoz,R.,Medina-Muñoz,D.,&García-Falcón,J.(2003).UnderstandingEuropeantourop-

erators’controlonaccommodationcompanies:anempiricalevidence.TourismManage-

ment,24(2),135-147.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00062-6

MinIenW(2018,July2).Partijenbundelenkrachtenvoorduurzaamvliegen[Partiesjoinforcesfor

sustainableaviation].[Tweet].Twitter.

https://twitter.com/MinIenW/status/1013817489153806336

Montresor,S.(2018).Innovationintourism.Adiverginglineofresearchinneedofasynthesis.Tour-

ismEconomics,24(7).pp.765-780.https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618773189

Muniesa,F.(2015).Actor-NetworkTheory.InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialandBehavioral

Science,2(1),80-84.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.85001-1

N&M,Greenpeace,&MNH.(2019).Eennieuwtoekomstbeeldvoordeluchtvaart[Anewfuturevision

foraviation].Natuur&Milieu,Greenpeace&NatuurenMilieufederatieNoord-Holland.

148

Nordin,S.,&Hjalager,A.M.(2017).Doing,Using,Interacting:TowardsaNewUnderstandingofTour-

ismInnovationProcesses.InA.Királová(Eds.),DrivingTourismthroughCreativeDestinations

andActivities(165-180).IGIGlobal

NRITMedia,CBS,NBTCHollandMarketing,&CELTH(2020).Trendreporttourism,recreation,and

leisure2020.NRITMedia




leisure2018NRITMedia



OECD/Eurostat(2018),OsloManual2018:GuidelinesforCollecting,ReportingandUsingDataon

Innovation,4thEdition,TheMeasurementofScientific,TechnologicalandInnovationActivi-

ties.OECDPublishing,&Eurostat.https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en

OECD.(2011).BetterPoliciestoSupportEco-innovation.OECDPublishing.

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264096684-en

Oels,A.(2013).Renderingclimatechangegovernablebyrisk:Fromprobabilityto

contingency.Geoforum,45,17-29.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.09.007

Omerzel,D.G.(2016).Asystematicreviewofresearchoninnovationinhospitalityandtourism.In-

ternationalJournalofContemporaryHospitalityManagement,28(3),516-558.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2014-0510

O’Reilly,C.A.,&Tushman,M.L.(2004).TheAmbidextrousOrganization.HarvardBusinessReview,

April2004

ORS.(2019).AdviesToekomstbestendigNNHS&AdviesMiddellangetermijnoplossing“wonenen

vliegen”[Advicefuture-proofnormsandenforcementregime&advicemid-termsolution

livingandflying].OmgevingsraadSchiphol.

Owens,S.,Petts,J.,&Bulkeley,H.(2006).BoundaryWork:Knowledge,Policy,andtheUrban

Environment.24(5),633-643.https://doi.org/10.1068/c0606j

OxfordDictionary.(2020)Chameleon.InOxfordDictionary.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/chameleon

149

Peeters,P.,Higham,J.,Cohen,S.,Eijgelaar,E.,&Gössling,S.(2019).Desirabletourismtransport

futures.JournalofSustainableTourism,27(2),173-188.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1477785

Peeters,P.(2019a).Minderenduurzamervliegen?[Toflylessandmoresustainable?].Paper

presentedattheDAG-Symposium'Devluchtnaarvoren',Noordwijk,Netherlands.

Peeters,P.(2019b).ParlementenWetenschap:FactsheetVliegbelasting,gedragenalternatieven.

#2019Z12788[ParliamentandScience:factsheetaviationtax,behaviourandalternatives].

TheHague,Netherlands:HouseofRepresentatives,DeJongeAkademie,KNAW,NWO,TNO,

VSNU.

Peeters,P.,&Melkert,J.(2018).ParlementenWetenschap:FactsheetToekomstverduurzaming

luchtvaart.#2018Z11731[ParliamentandScience:Factsheetfuturesustainabledevelopment

aviation].TheHague,Netherlands:HouseofRepresentatives,DeJongeAkademie,KNAW,

NWO,VSNU.

Peeters,P.(2017).Tourism’simpactonclimatechangeanditsmitigationchallenges.Howcantour-

ismbecome‘climaticallysustainable’?[Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation].TUDelft.

Peeters,P.,Higham,J.,Kutzner,D.,Cohen,S.,&Gössling,S.(2016).Aretechnologymythsstalling

aviationclimatepolicy?TransportationResearchPartD:TransportandEnvironment,44,30-

42.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.004

Peeters,P.,&Eijglaar,E.(2014).Tourism’sclimatemitigationdilemma:Flyingbetweenrichandpoor

countries,TourismManagement,40,15-26.


Peters,H.P.(2008).Scientistsaspublicexperts.InM.Bucchi&B.Trench(Eds.),Routledge

HandbookofPublicCommunicationofScienceandTechnology(pp.131-146).Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039242

Pikkemaat,B.,Peters,M.,&Bichler,B.F.(2019).Innovationresearchintourism.Researchstreams

andactionsforthefuture.JournalofHospitalityandTourismManagement,41,184-196.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.10.007

Pinkse,J.,&Kolk,A.(2010).ChallengesandTrade-offsinCorporateInnovationforClimateChange.

BusinessStrategyandtheEnvironment,19,261-272.https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.677

Rayner,S.(2006).Whatdrivesenvironmentalpolicy?GlobalEnvironmentalChange,16(1),4-6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.11.003

150

Razumova,M.,Ibáñez,J.L.,&Maquieira-Palmer,J.R.(2015).Driversofenvironmentalinnovationin

Majorcanhotels.JournalofSustainableTourism,23(10),1529-1549.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1062016

Reijn,G.(2017,November28).Methetvliegtuiggaanwe'Parijs'zekerniethalen[Withtheairplane

wewillnotachieve'Paris'forsure].Volkskrant,p.27.

Reiswerk.(2015a).OnderzoeksagendaReiswerk.[ResearchagendaReiswerk].

https://www.reiswerk.nl/over-reiswerk/reiswerk-inspiratielab/trends-en-

ontwikkelingen/onderzoek-naar-de-toekomst/promotieonderzoek

Reiswerk.(2015b,November19).EmployabilityEvent.Soest

Ren,C.,Jóhannesson,G.T.,&VanderDuim,V.R.(2012).HowANTworks.InR.VanderDuim,C.Ren,

&G.T.Jóhannesson(Eds.),Actornetworktheoryandtourism.Ordering,materialityandmul-

tiplicity(pp.13–25).Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203122976

Ren,C.(2011).NON-humanagency,radicalontologyandtourismrealities.AnnalsofTourismRe-

search,38(3),858–881.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.12.007

Rli.(2016).Beyondmainports.TheHague,Netherlands:CouncilfortheEnvironmentand

Infrastructure(Rli).

Rodriguez-Sanchez,I.,Williams,A.M.,&Brotons,M.(2019).Theinnovationjourneyofnew-to-

tourismentrepreneurs.CurrentIssuesinTourism,22(8),877-904.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1334763

RSG.(2019).RoyalSchipholGroup2018AnnualReport.RoyalSchipholGroup.

https://2018.annualreportschiphol.com/

Sampaio,A.R.,Thomas,R.,&Font,X.(2012).Smallbusinessmanagementandenvironmentalen-

gagement.JournalofSustainableTourism,20(2),179-193.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.602193

Scherer,A.G.,&Palazzo,G.(2011).TheNewPoliticalRoleofBusinessinaGlobalizedWorld:ARe-

viewofaNewPerspectiveonCSRanditsImplicationsfortheFirm,Governance,andDemoc-

racy.JournalofManagementStudies,48(4),899-931.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

6486.2010.00950.x

Schreurs,W.(2020).50xNederlandseReisbranche.Eenkleinegeschiedenis.(50xDutchtravelindu-

stry.Alittlehistory).

https://www.anvr.nl/publicatie/50x_Ned_reiswereld_Een_kleine_geschiedenis.pdf

151

Scott,D.,Gössling,S.,Hall,M.,&Peeters,P.(2016a).Cantourismbepartofthedecarbonizedglobal

economy?Thecostsandrisksofalternatecarbonreductionpathways.JournalofSustainable

Tourism,24(1),52-72.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1107080

Scott,D.,Hall,M.,&Gössling,S.(2016b).AreviewoftheIPCCFifthAssessmentandimplicationsfor

tourismsectorclimateresilienceanddecarbonization.JournalofSustainableTourism,24(1),

8-30.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1062021

Scott,D.,Hall,C.M.,&Gössling,S.(2016c).AreportontheParisClimateChangeAgreementandits

implicationsfortourism:whywewillalwayshaveParis.JournalofSustainableTourism,

24(7),933-948.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1187623

Shani,A.,&Arad,B.(2015).Thereisalwaystimeforrationalskepticism:replytoHalletal.

TourismManagement,47,348-351.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.013

Shani,A.,&Arad,B.(2014).Climatechangeandtourism:timeforenvironmentalskepticism.Tourism

Management,44,82-85.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.02.014

Sharpley,R.(2020).Tourism,sustainabledevelopmentandthetheoreticaldivide:20yearson.Jour-

nalofSustainableTourism,29(11),1932-1946.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1779732

SIA.(2017,November28).OverSIA[AboutSIA]http://www.regieorgaan-sia.nl?Over+SIA

Smerecnik,K.R.,&Andersen,P.A.(2011).ThediffusionofenvironmentalsustainabilityinNorth

Americanhotelsandskiresorts.JournalofSustainableTourism,19(2),171-196.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.517316

Smith,L.,Rees,P.,&Murray,N.(2016).Turningentrepreneursintointrapreneurs:ThomasCook,a

casestudy.TourismManagement,56,191-204.


Smith,A.,VoβJ.,&Grin,J.(2010).Innovationstudiesandsustainabilitytransitions:Theallureofthe

multi-levelperspectiveanditschallenges.ResearchPolicy,39,435–448.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023

Soete,L.(2013).Isinnovationalwaysgood?InJ.Fagerberg,B.R.Martin,&E.S.Andersen(Eds.),

Innovationstudies—Evolutionandfuturechallenges(pp.134–144).OxfordUniversity

Press.https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686346.001.0001

Steffen,W.,Persson,A.,Deutsch,L.,Zalasaiewicz,J.,Williams,M.,Richardson,K.,Crumley,C.,

Crutzen,P.,Folke,C.,Gordon,L.,Molina,M.,Ramanathan,V.,Rockström,J.,Scheffer,M.,

152

Schnellnhuber,H.J.,&Svedin,U.(2011).TheAnthropocene:FromGobalChangetoPlanetary

Stewardship.AMBIO,40,739-761.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x

Stil,H.(2017,16-11-2017).Alleenremopvliegenhelptmilieu[Onlybreakonflyinghelps

environment].Parool,p.2.

Strand,R.,Saltelli,A.,Giampietro,M.,Rommetveit,K.,&Funtowicz,S.(2016).Newnarrativesfor

innovation.JournalofCleanerProduction.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.194

Tajeddini,K.(2010).Effectofcustomerorientationandentrepreneurialorientationoninnovative-

ness:EvidencefromthehotelindustryinSwitzerland.TourismManagement,31,221-231.


Tasci,A.D.A.Wei,W.,&Mildman,A.(2020).Usesandmisusesofthecasestudymethod.Annalsof

TourismResearch,82.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102815

Teixeira,S.J.&deMatosFerreira,J.J.(2018).Abibliometricstudyofregionalcompetitivenessand

tourisminnovation.InternationalJournalofTourismPolicy,8(3),214-243.

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTP.2018.10015677

Tjolle,V.(2016,April26).CarboncalculatorbignewsintheNetherlands.Travelmole.

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2021856

Tortella,B.D.,&Tirado,D.(2011).Hotelwaterconsumptionataseasonalmasstouristdestination.

ThecaseoftheislandofMallorca.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement,92,2568-2579.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.024

TUDelft.(2017).TourismandtravelmakeParistargetsunachievable.

https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2017/tu-delft/tourism-and-travel-make-paris-targets-

unachievable/

TUIGroup(2020).Pressrelease.https://www.tuigroup.com/en-en/media/press-

releases/2020/2020-09-30-further-prerequisite-for-second-stabilisation-package--tui-ag-

german-federal-government-additional-stabilisation-package

TUIGroup.(2019).Annualreport2019.https://www.tuigroup.com/en-en/investors/annual-

reports/special-annual-report-19Accessed27.11.20.

TUIGroup(2018).TUIGroupstrategy.http://annualreport2018.tuigroup.com/business-model-and-

strategyAccessed27.11.20.

153

UNWTO,UNEP,&WMO(2008).Climatechangeandtourism:Respondingtoglobalchallenges.

UNWTO.https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284412341

VanAssche,K.,Beunen,R.,Duineveld,M.,&Gruzbacher,M.(2020).Rethinkingstrategyinenviron-

mentalplanning.JournalofEnvironmentalPolicy&Planning,22(5),695-708.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1768834

VanAssche,K.,Beunen,R.,Duineveld,M.(2014).EvolutionaryGovernanceTheory.AnIntroduction.

Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00984-1

vanDale.(2019).Schiphollen.InVanDaleonlinedictionary.https://www.vandale.nl

VanderDuim,V.R.,Ren,C.,&Jóhannesson,G.T.(2017).ANT:Adecadeofinterferingwithtourism.

AnnalsofTourismResearch,64,139–149.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.03.006

VanderDuim,V.R.,Ren,C.,&Jóhannesson,G.T.(2013).Ordering,materiality,andmultiplicity:En-

actingactor-net-worktheoryintourism.TouristStudies,13(1),3–20.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797613476397

VanderDuim,V.R.(2007).TOURISMSCAPES.AnActor-NetworkPerspective.AnnalsofTourismRe-

search,34(4),961-976.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.05.008

vanNieuwenhuizen-Wijbenga,C.(2019).Klimaatbeleidvoorluchtvaart.#31936-585[Climatepolicy

foraviation].HouseofRepresentativesoftheNetherlands

vanRaan,L.(2017).Onderzoekwaaruitblijktdatdegroeiendeluchtvaarthethalenvan

klimaatdoelstellingenonmogelijkmaakt.#2017Z15536[Researchthatdemonstratesaviation

growthtoobstructachievementofclimategoals].HouseofRepresentativesofthe

Netherlands

Verbong,G.P.J.,Schot,J.,&Kanger,L.(2016).Therolesofusersinshapingtransitionstonewenergy

systems.NatureEnergy,1(5),1-7.https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.54

Vogelij,J.C.(2015).Effectivestrategymaking:Co-designingscenariosasatoolforeffectivestrategic

planning.[Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation].TUDelft.

VanWijk,J.(2009).Movingbeyondheroesandwinners.Institutionalentrepreneurshipintheout-

boundtouroperationsfieldintheNetherlands,1980-2005.[Unpublisheddoctoraldisserta-

tion].VUAmsterdam.

VVD,CDA,D66,&CU.(2017).ConfidenceintheFuture.2017–2021CoalitionAgreement.

GovernmentoftheNetherlands.

154

Weingart,P.(1999).Scientificexpertiseandpoliticalaccountability:paradoxesofscienceinpolitics.

ScienceandPublicPolicy,26(3),151-161.https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782437

Weingart,P.,Engels,A.,&Pansegrau,P.(2000).Risksofcommunication:discoursesonclimate

changeinscience,politics,andthemassmedia.Publicunderstandingofscience,9(3),261-

283.https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/304

Whittlesea,E.R.,&Owen,A.(2012).Towardsalowcarbonfuture–thedevelopmentandapplication

ofREAPTourism,adestinationfootprintandscenariotool.JournalofSustainableTourism,

20(6),845-865.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.680699

WorldTourismOrganization(2004).TheTravelIndustry’sbusinessmodelisbroken:what’snext?

Discussionpaper.WTO.https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284407040

Xiao,H.,&Smith,L.J.(2006).Casestudiesintourismresearch:Astate-of-the-artanalysis.Tourism

Management,27,738-749.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.11.002

Yin,R.K.(2018).Casestudyresearch.Designandmethods.Sage.

Yin,R.K.(2009).Casestudyresearch.Designandmethods.Sage.

Zhang,C.X.,Kimbu,A.N.,Lin,P.,&Ngoasong,M.Z.(2020).Guanxiinfluencesonwomenintrapre-

neurship.TourismManagement,81,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104137

155

Summary

Thisthesisexaminestheproprietyofinnovationasaconceptforthecoordinationofnovelty

andchange.Innovationisgenerallyframedpositivelyandoftennarroweddowntocommer-

cialisedinvention.Thisinterpretationislargelytakenforgranted:explanationsforthisopti-

mismarerarelyoffered.Thisunquestionedbeliefininnovationmademecurious.Idecided

toexaminetheconceptanditsrepresentationsfromupcloseandturnedtoanindustrythat

has alwaysbeen very receptive to external shocks: theDutch travel industry. Prior to the

currentpandemic, this industryhasshowedan increasedfascinationwith itsown (lackof)

innovation as it faced twomain challenges: increased competition from outsiders and its

owngrowingcontributiontoclimatechange.InthisindustryIencounteredsomewhatnar-

rowinnovationdiscoursesthatcentredone-commerceenterpriseasthefashionoftheday.

Tofindouthowthesediscoursesrelatetotheacademicliteratureoninnovation,Ianalysed

technological innovation literatureandresearchon innovation in tourismstudies. In these

literatures, innovation is generally interpretedas commercialised technology.While litera-

tures propagating alternative forms of innovation did scrutinise this current economic-

technologicalpurposeofinnovation,theydidnotquestiontheconceptofinnovationitself.

InthisPhDthesis I thereforestudiedtheuseandeffectsofthediscourseon innovation in

tourism.Tothisend, I turnedtodifferent theoriespremisedonpost-structuralist thought:

Actor-NetworkTheory;DiscourseTheory;andEvolutionaryGovernanceTheory.Usingthese

theories,Iconductedthreecasestudiesthattracedparticularmanifestationsofinnovation

intheDutchtravel industry:thedevelopmentofacarbonmanagementcalculatorfortour

operators (chapter 2); the impact of a PhD thesis on aviation-induced climate change on

Dutchaviationpolicy(chapter3);andthedevelopmentofaninnovationunitinalargetour-

ism organisation (chapter 4). Two notions of Evolutionary Governance Theory –material

eventsandrealityeffects–functionedasanoverarchinganalyticalframeworkthatenabled

anintegratedanalysisofthecasestudies.Materialeventsexplaininnovationasaconstruct

that emergeswhen different actors coordinate responses to a perceived change of some

kind.Realityeffects illustrate that innovationproduces contingenteffects that result from

continuouslyevolvinginterpretationsofmaterialandsocialenvironments.Withthehelpof

thisanalyticalframework, Iaddressedthefollowingresearchquestion:whatarerealityef-

fectsofinnovationintheDutchtravelindustry?

156

Chapter2-4presentthecasestudies.Chapter2investigatesthepotentialofeco-innovation

tocontributetosustainabilitytransitionsintourism,usingacasestudythattracedthede-

velopmentofacarbonmanagementcalculator(CARMACAL)forsmalltomedium-sizedtour

operators.Thechapterillustratestheevolvingideasandpracticesoftouroperatorswhohad

typicallyreliedonpathsofactionandcorrespondingargumentsthatjustifiedinertiawhenit

comestoclimatechangemitigation.Theseconventionsstartedtochangewhentheideaof

carbonlabellingwasintroducedatanindustryevent.Thistriggeredajointinterestincarbon

measurement,atleastsoitseemedatfirst.Ajointinnovationinitiativewasstarted:thetour

operatorsparticipatedinasubsidisedprojectthatcreatedCARMACAL,apieceofsoftware

thatmadeuniformcarbonmeasurementpossible.CARMACAL,however,wasbasedondif-

ferentandcontradicting ideasaboutcarbonmanagement.Disputesaboutthese ideasand

theirrepresentativessoonarose,andCARMACAL–envisionedasawaytoaddressthecar-

bon footprint of tour packages – remained a passive tool, subjugated to the established

businessroutinesitwassupposedtotransform.

Chapter3evaluatestheimpactofaPhDthesisonaviation-inducedclimatechangeonDutch

aviationpolicy.Thispolicydomain–shapedbytheheavilyinstitutionalisedexpansionpoli-

ticsofnationalairportSchipholandKLMRoyalDutchAirlines–hadhistoricallytreatedavia-

tion-induced climate changeas an internationalpolicy issue.Opposingactors, suchas the

environmentalmovement,hadnever founda realisticor impactfulway toexert influence

untilthePhDthesishelpedtoreintroducetheobjectofaviation-inducedclimatechangeto

thisdecades-oldnationalpolicypathway.Newactors–citizenactiongroups,environmental

NGOs– subsequentlyentered thedebate. Innovation comprised theenvironmentalpolicy

strugglethatsubsequentlyunfoldedandtheadditionalknowledgeobjectsthatweredrawn

intothediscussion,notablytheobjectof ‘technological innovation’.Sofar, thepromiseof

future technologies has proved particularly effective in blocking alternative policy options

and this environmental policy struggle continuesuntil todaywithno changeof the status

quoinsight.

Chapter4investigatestheproductiveroleofinnovationinorganisationsbytracingthede-

velopmentofan innovationunit inTUI,a large touroperator.Thechapter illustrateshow

TUI’sefficiency-drivencorporateenvironmenttypicallycompelsmanagersandstafftofocus

onoperationsandshort-termresults,ratherthanprobingtheirimplicitknowledgeaboutthe

157

company’sageingclienteleandthelimitationsofitsintegratedtourismconcept.Thecollec-

tiveattempttodeveloptheaforementionedinnovationunitchangedthissituation.Itmade

people discuss innovation, accentuating TUI’s structural weaknesses that, until that mo-

ment, had been ‘known unknowns’ – blind spots thatmanagers and staffwere generally

awareofbutcouldnotdirectlyaddress.Thechaptershowshowtheconceptofinnovation

itself, through its use in organisational practices, can trigger novelties. Different forms of

organisationaldiscontentthatquestionedtheorganisation’sconcurrentstrategyanditsfu-

turebecamemoreexplicitandfunctionedasareservoirofproductiveargumentsthatena-

bled strategisingactors tomobilise support for theiragendasandactions. In theend, this

resultedinaversionoftheinnovationunitthatbolsteredTUI’sconcurrentstrategyandwith

thatthepositionofitsproponents:theTUImanagement.

Chapter5presentstheconclusions,discussion,andimplicationsofthisresearch.Addressing

the research question, I first illustrate the reality effects of innovation as collections of

emergent, conflicting practices and communications that generate their own support and

resistance.Astheconclusionhighlightsthepoliticaldimensionofinnovation,Ithendiscuss

innovationaspoliticsvis-à-visthereviewedliterature.InthisdiscussionIshedlightontwo

importantelementsof innovation’spoliticaldimension: theparadoxof innovationandthe

role of technology innovation as a discursive object. The paradox of innovation highlights

that attempts to create novelty can end up reinforcing the status quo. Promises of new

technologiescanprovidetemporarycertaintiesinthefaceofuncertaintyandreinforcethe

positionsofthoseinpower.Indiscussingtheimplications,Ithereforeintroducethenotion

of‘chameleonism’.Chameleonismmanifestswheneverhegemonicstrategisingactors–like

their reptilian equivalent – change colour but do not their shape. They proclaim commit-

ment to transformationsbut -wittinglyorunwittingly – actor communicate inways that

contributetotherigiditiesthatlimitthekindofchangedeemednecessary.Iconcludewith

proposingdirectionsthatcanhelpresearchersandpractitionersinbetterunderstandingand

dealingwiththesetrickycreatures.

159

Samenvatting

Ishetconceptinnovatiewelgeschiktvoorhetorganiserenvannieuwigheidenverandering?

Innovatie – doorgaans geïnterpreteerd als het succesvol vermarkten van uitvindingen –

wordtoverhetalgemeengezienalsietspositiefs.Verklaringenvoorditoptimismezijnech-

terschaars.Ditmaaktemijnieuwsgierig.Ikbeslootdaaromhetgebruikvanhetconceptin-

novatievandichtbijtebestuderen.Ikrichttemehierbijopeensectordiealtijdzeervatbaar

is geweest voor schokken van buitenaf: deNederlandse reisbranche. Voorafgaand aan de

coronapandemiestonddezesectorvoortweebelangrijkeuitdagingen:toenemendeconcur-

rentievanbuitenstaandersendegroeiendebijdragevantoerismeaanklimaatverandering.

Tegelijkertijdwasmenbinnendezesector intoenemendemategefascineerdgeraaktdoor

(heteigengebrekaan)innovatie.Inhetinnovatiediscoursdatikindezesectoraantrofwerd

innovatie min of meer gelijkgesteld aan e-commerce. Een vergelijkbaar technisch-

economischframeisookterugtevindenindegangbaretechnologischeinnovatieliteratuur

enindetoerismeliteratuuroverinnovatie.Indiversespin-offliteratuurwordtditdominante

economisch doel van innovatie wel bekritiseerd. Vervolgens worden echter alternatieve

vormenvan innovatiegepromoot.Het concept innovatie zelfwordt indeze literatuurniet

terdiscussiegesteld.

In dit proefschrift onderzocht ik daaromhet gebruik en de effecten van het innovatiedis-

coursbinnentoerisme.Metbehulpvanverschillendetheorieëngebaseerdoppoststructura-

listischgedachtengoed–actor-netwerktheorie;discourstheorie;enevolutionairegovernan-

ce theorie – bestudeerde ik een drietal specifieke innovatie-casussen in de Nederlandse

reisbranche:deontwikkelingvaneenCO2-voetafdrukcalculatorvoortouroperators(hoofd-

stuk2);deimpactvaneenproefschriftoverdeklimaateffectenvanluchtvaartophetNeder-

landseluchtvaartbeleid(hoofdstuk3);endeontwikkelingvaneeninnovatieafdelingbinnen

eengrotetoerismeorganisatie(hoofdstuk4).Tweebegrippenuitevolutionairegovernance

theorie–materiëlevoorvallenenwerkelijkheidseffecten–vormdenhettheoretischekader

voordeanalysevandezecasestudies.Materiëlevoorvallenverklareninnovatiealsuitingen

enpraktijkendieopduikenzodraverschillendeactorenproberengecoördineerdtereageren

opveranderingendiezijwaarnemeninhunomgeving.Werkelijkheidseffectenlatendebe-

trekkelijkheidvanditproceszien:‘innovatie’omvatenveroorzaaktmateriëleendiscursieve

effecten die voortkomen uit voortdurend evoluerende interpretaties van demateriële en

160

socialeomgevingvanactoren.Dezeeffectenzijndusmoeilijk tevoorzien.Deeffectenvan

innovatieeninnovatiezelfzijndaaromvaakongrijpbaarenmoeilijktevoorspellen.Metbe-

hulpvanditkaderrichtteikmijopdevolgendeonderzoeksvraag:watzijnrealiteitseffecten

vaninnovatieindeNederlandseuitgaandereisbranche?

Hoofdstuk2-4presenterendecasestudies.Hoofdstuk2onderzoekthetpotentieelvaneco-

innovatie ombij te dragen aan duurzaamheidstransities in toerisme,met behulp van een

casestudie die de ontwikkeling van eenCO2-voetafdrukcalculator (CARMACAL) voor kleine

enmiddelgrotetouroperatorsvolgt.Hethoofdstukillustreertdeveranderendeopvattingen

enpraktijkenvantouroperatorsdiegewendzijnompadentebewandelenenargumentente

gebruikendiepassiviteitophetgebiedvanklimaatmitigatierechtvaardigen.Aandezepassi-

viteitleekeeneindtekomentoeneensprekertijdenseenvakbeurshetideevancarboncer-

tificatie introduceerde. Dit leidde tot een gedeelde interesse in het meten van de CO2-

voetafdruk van pakketreizen. Een samenwerking ontstond: de touroperators namen deel

aaneengesubsidieerdprojectvoordeontwikkelingvanCARMACAL: softwarediehetuni-

formmeten van de CO2-voetafdrukmogelijkmaakt. CARMACALwas echter gebaseerd op

tegenstrijdige opvattingen over CO2-management. Na afloop van het project staken me-

ningsverschillenoverdezeopvattingendekopopenCARMACALbleefeenpassiefstuktech-

nologie,ondergeschiktaanbedrijfsroutinesdieheteigenlijkhadmoetenveranderen.

Hoofdstuk3evalueertdeimpactvaneenproefschriftoverdeklimaateffectenvandelucht-

vaart op hetNederlandse luchtvaartbeleid. Binnendit nationale beleidsdomein – gedomi-

neerddoordegeïnstitutionaliseerdeuitbreidingspolitiekvannationaleluchthavenSchiphol

enKLMRoyalDutchAirlines–werdendeklimaateffectenvandeluchtvaartaltijdgezienals

eeninternationaleaangelegenheid.Tegenstandersvangroei,zoalsdemilieubeweging,mis-

tenaltijdeenrealistischeofeffectievemanierominvloeduit teoefenentotdathetproef-

schriftklimaatveranderingherintroduceerdeinhetnationalebeleidsdomeinenhiermeede

uitbreidingspolitiek van Schiphol en KLM ter discussie stelde. Nieuwe actoren,waaronder

actievoerendeburgersenmilieuorganisaties,mengdenzichvervolgensinhetdebat.Innova-

tiewasonderdeel vandepolitieke clashdie volgdeendenieuwekennisobjectendiehier

vervolgensbijbetrokkenwerden,metnamehetobject‘technologischeinnovatie’.Debelof-

tevantoekomstigeluchtvaarttechnologieënblijkttotopdedagvanvandaageeneffectieve

161

manieromalternatievebeleidsoptiesvoordeluchtvaart,waaronderstrategischekrimp,van

tafeltehouden.

Hoofdstuk4onderzoektdeproductieverolvaninnovatie inorganisaties.Hetvolgtdeont-

wikkelingvaneeninnovatieafdelingbinnenTUI,eengrotetouroperator.Hetbeschrijfthoe

de efficiency-gedreven werkomgeving van deze multinational managers en medewerkers

voortbrengtdie zichvooral richtenopoperationelezakenenkorte-termijn succes.Kansen

omgebruiktemakenvandeimplicietekennisindeorganisatieoverTUI’svergrijzendeklan-

tenkringendebeperkingenvanhetgeïntegreerdeverdienmodelgaanzoverloren.Degeza-

menlijkepogingomdezeinnovatieafdelingteontwikkelenveranderdedit.Erkwamenopen

discussiesover innovatiewaarinTUI’sstructurelezwakteswerdenbenoemd.Dezezwaktes

waren totopdatmoment slechtsblinde vlekken.Menwas zich vanhunbestaanbewust,

maarhadergeendirecteinvloedop.Hethoofdstuklaatdaarmeezienhoehetconceptin-

novatiezelf,simpelwegdoorgebruikttewordeninorganisatiepraktijken,kanleidentotver-

andering. Innovatiediscussiesmaakten verschillende vormen van ontevredenheid expliciet

enzoontstondeenreservoirvanproductieveargumenten.Actorenuitopmeerinvloedbin-

nendeorganisatiegebruiktendezeargumentenomsteuntewinnenvoorhunagenda’sen

acties.UiteindelijkleiddedittoteenversievandeinnovatieafdelingdieTUI’shuidigestrate-

gieversterkteendaarmeedepositievanhaarvoorstanders:hetTUI-management.

Hoofdstuk5presenteertde conclusie, discussie en consequenties vandit onderzoek.Ant-

woordgevendopdeonderzoeksvraag,illustreerikindithoofdstukeerstdewerkelijkheids-

effecten van innovatie alsontluikende,onderling tegenstrijdige, uitingenenpraktijkendie

met elkaar verbonden zijn en die hun eigen steun enweerstand genereren. Omdat deze

conclusiedepolitiekedimensievaninnovatiebenadrukt,gaikindediscussieinopinnovatie

alspolitiekenvergelijkikditperspectiefmetdebesprokenliteratuur.Tweeaspectenkomen

indezediscussieaanbod:deparadoxvaninnovatieenderolvantechnologischeinnovatie

alsdiscursiefobject.Deparadoxvan innovatiebenadruktdatpogingenom ietsnieuws te

creëren kunnen leiden tot het tegenovergestelde: een versterking van de status quo. De

beloftes van nieuwe (toekomstige) technologieën kunnen tijdelijke zekerheden bieden in

situatieswaarinmengeconfronteerdwordtmetonzekerheid.Ditversterktdepositiesvan

degevestigdeorde.

162

Ingaandopdeconsequentiesvanditonderzoek,introduceerikdaaromtenslottehetbegrip

kameleonisme.Erissprakevankameleonismewanneeractorenbehorendtotdegevestigde

ordenetalseenkameleonwelvankleurmaarnietvanvormveranderen.Zijbewerenvoor

veranderingtezijnentransformatiesteondersteunen.Echter–bewustdanwelonbewust–

handelenencommunicerenzijopmanierendiedestatusquoversterken.Degewenstever-

anderingraaktzoverderuitzicht.Iksluitafmeteenaantalaanbevelingendieonderzoekers

enmensenuitdepraktijkkunnenhelpenomkameleonismebetertebegrijpenendezelasti-

gewezenshethoofdtebieden.

163

Acknowledgements

Thisroadhascometoanend.Thealbumisout.ButIamyettodisconnectfromtheprocess

ofitscreation.Hencefirstthedisclaimer:thelistofpeoplethankedhereisalmostcertainly

incomplete.Butherewego.

ThankyouKittyKnipscheer,MaartenKlunder,CarineHoman,ThérèsePol,BenjaminKoster,

IngervanTil,NiekdeBoer,IngedeWeerd,CeesVerburg,andSuzannaBoonforcreatingthe

space forme to hide andwrite and acceptingmy absence on scores of social occasions.

Thank you Harmke Klunder for enablingmy escapism. I am immensely grateful for those

hermeticwritingretreatsinyourforestcabin:thebulkofthisthesishasbeenimaginedand

written there.ThankyouDaanBuijtendijk, IlseBuijtendijk,andRikdeBloois foryour love

and support. And thank you Seija Aalto;Miguel BravoMadrid; Rob van Breemen;Marcel

Brokken;EkeEijgelaar;KeesKoper;MennoLens;MichaelMarchman;FerryvandeMosse-

laer;JeroenNawijn;andMichielSiebelink,forkeepingmesane.Thehangingout,thebull-

shit,thelaughs,andthebeershavealwayshelped.Sothat’sthethankyounote.Butthereis

moretosayandtherearemorepeopletothank.

Lookingbackatthewholeprocess,fiveepisodesseemtohaveshapedthisthesis.AsIreflect

ontheseepisodes,myminddriftstodistinctalbumsandsongsthatmoreorlessfunctioned

astheirsoundtracks.Albumsandsongsthat–inthespiritofHunterS.Thompson–provided

thefuelthatdrovemywritingatthetime.

EpisodeI:TheKnife(2014-2015)

Springandsummer2014,forsomeoddreason, IwasconstantlyplayingoldTheKnife rec-

ords(DeepCutsandSilentShout).Ihavealwaysappreciatedtheatmosphereoftheirsound

andvocalsandtheartisticqualitiesoftheirconcepts(songs;videos;andliveshows).Apos-

sibility todoaPhDstudying theDutch travel industrycirculated.OndrejMitasandSebas-

tiaanStraatman(unwittingly?)convincedmetogiveitashot.LilyaTerzievaandRicoLieen-

dorsedme.AnideathathassincedisappearedcompletelyendedupinaPhDproposalthat

gotapproved laterthatyear. Iwould liketothankRenévanderDuimforbringingastub-

borncharacterlikemeonboardasaPhDstudent,andforhiskindandpatientsupervision

overtheyears. IamgratefultoREISWERK,CELTH,andJosvanderSterrenandCornéDijk-

mansatBUasforthesupportthattheyhaveofferedme.AndIwouldliketothankJeanTee

164

forproofreadingallchaptersandforhelpingmewritestraightforwardtextsthataccommo-

datethereader.Anyshortcomingsinthisrespectaremyresponsibility.

EpisodeII:ComeOnDieYoung(2016-2018)

Iappreciatethedark,dreamyandreservedvibeofMogwai’ssecondalbum.Itsminimalist,

drum-driventracksbuildacertaintensionasthealbumprogresses.AndthenCODYjustslips

away,butthesoundandatmosphereofthemusicsomehowlingeron,likethespiritofmy

mumwhopassedawayin2018.Sheislikeadeep-rootedtruththathasaquietpresencein

my soul, sparking love and imagination. I wrote chapter 2 during those difficult times. I

wouldliketothankJorineVermeerandJuultjeBlomforthepleasantcollaborationthrough-

outthisproject.IamgratefultoReiswerkforsupportingJorine’sworkwitharesearchgrant.

AndIwouldliketothanktheBuildingExcellenceinSustainableTourismEducationNetwork

forofferingusaplatformduringtheir2016conferenceinGermany,andXavierFontforhis

veryusefulfeedbackthroughout2017.IamalsogratefultoJeroenNawijnforreviewingthe

revisedmanuscriptpriortoresubmission.Finally, Iwould liketothankRenévanderDuim

forhisunquestionedsupportandcontributionsthroughout;fromthemomentwediscussed

theroughideaofhischapterinMarch2016totheresubmissionofthemanuscriptinJanu-

ary2018.

EpisodeIII:LegendaryFreaksintheTrashofTime(2018-2020)

Legowelt’s2017releasecameinhandyduringthisepisode.Writingchapter3entaileden-

counterswithpoweranditsmanyguisesthatIfoundfascinatinganddepressingatthesame

time. The twisted and aspiring electro-punk house of LFToT provided themental parallel

universenecessarytonavigatethesecontradictions. Iplayedthatalbummoreor lessona

continuousbasiswhilewriting,particularlyduringmultiple-day retreats inHarmke’s forest

cabin.IwouldliketothankEkeEijgelaarfortheverypleasant,effective,andcomplementary

collaboration during the entire process (research design, data collection, paper writing,

submission,andrevision).Ireallyhopethatwecandomoreofthissortofstuffinthefuture.

IwanttothankXavierFontagainhereforpointingoutthepossibilitytocontributetothe

Journal of Sustainable Tourism special issue on research impact and Raymond Boland for

proofreading an early version of the manuscript. And I am particularly grateful to Paul

Peeters, who was willing to offer his PhD thesis as study object. The two lengthy ‘Paul

165

Peeters Tapes’ interview sessions in Ede early 2019 kick-started this project andwere of

tremendoushelpinidentifyingsubsequentrespondents.

EpisodeIV:Goo(2016-2021)

WhenKimGordonsingsofliberationfrommale,whitecorporateoppressiononGoo–prob-

ablymy favourite Sonic Youth album– she nailed the vibe that gradually emerged asmy

workonchapter4progressedand Iencountereddifferentpeoplewhoallworkedhard in

their pursuit of different formsof liberation. Iwould like to thank SusanneGoossens and

ArjanKersforopeningupthisworldtome.ThankyouJoostvanHeiningenforjoiningmeon

thisprojectandforallthoseentertainingdaysandreflectionsontheroad.AndIwouldlike

tothankMartijnDuineveldfortheintuitivecooperationonthisprojectandforhisinventive

contributionsthathelpedtostrengthenthechapter.

EpisodeV:YouWon’tGetWhatYouWant(2020-2021)

Ireallyneededthispowerful2018releaseoftheAmericanrockbandDaughters.Itsrelent-

lesslyhypnoticdissonancedrovethiswholethinghome.Somehow,Ihope,thesoulofthis

recordfounditswayintothefirstandlastchapterofthisthesis;thechaptersthataresup-

posed tobringaPhD thesis togetherand that show– in thewordsofDaughter’s vocalist

AlexisMarshall–thatthereareoceansbeyondthewaves.Iwouldliketothankthefollowing

peoplehere:RobVanBreemenandMichielSiebelinkforjointlyreinvigoratingourqriopro-

jectoverthesummerandspringof20/21andcreateourownbrandofdissonantnoise.Ed-

wardHuijbens for offeringme amonasticwork environment on theWageningen campus

duringsemi-lockdowntimes.GwendolynvandenBergforthepleasantcollaborationbackin

2016and2017.Unfortunately,thatstudydidnotevolveintoapaper,butpartsofthedesk

research I conducted at the time informed the introduction. Erdinç Çakmak for sharing a

prettyusefuldocumentabouthowtowriteagoodintroductionandsynthesisofaPhDthe-

sis.AndRenévanderDuimandMartijnDuineveldfortheirvaluableadviceandeyeforde-

tailthroughoutthe‘final’process.

Sothankallofyou.YouhavecollectivelyconstructedacreativespaceformethatIcoulduse

towritethethesisthatIwantedtowrite.Thisroadhascometoanend.Butnoidea,thought

orlinewouldhaveadvancedfromonestatetoanotherwithoutRenskeandDoris.Youren-

durance,humour,andpatiencemadethispossible,particularlyduringtoughtimes.Without

yourlove,therewouldhavebeennostorytotell;nobooktoputonthatshelf.

166

Sothat’sit.Withallofthissaidanddone,itistimetolookahead.Endings,afterall,arearti-

ficialconstructsofwriters.Mindsdon’tstopatthelastpage.Newstoriesarealwaysinthe

making.AndIamlookingforwardtotellingthem.

167

Acknowledgementsoffinancialsupport

TheresearchwasfinanciallysupportedbytheCentreofExpertiseLeisure,Tourism&Hospi-

tality(CELTH),Reiswerk,andBredaUniversityofAppliedSciences.

harald-buijtendijk elementen binnenwerk corr

Documents