See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312596602

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

cooperative in Brazil

Article in Social Enterprise Journal · January 2017

DOI: 10.1108/SEJ-12-2015-0038

CITATIONS READS
19 419

5 authors, including:

Carlos Olavo Quandt Alex Antonio Ferraresi

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR) Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
78 PUBLICATIONS 465 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 231 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Janaina Martins Ariane Machado

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR) Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR)
7 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multi-index Methodology View project

Sectorial Panorama's the Graphic Industry: The future of the sector View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Olavo Quandt on 23 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This is the accepted version of the manuscript “Social innovation practices in the regional
tourism industry: case study of a cooperative in Brazil", published in the Social Enterprise
Journal, Vol. 13 Iss: 1, pp.78 – 94, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SEJ‐12‐2015‐0038

Social Enterprise Journal – ISSN: 1750‐8614 – Online from: 2005

Subject Area: Business, Management & Strategy
Author(s):
Carlos Quandt , (Business School, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana, Curitiba, Brazil)
Alex Ferraresi , (Business School, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana, Curitiba, Brazil)
Claudineia Kudlawicz , (Business School, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana, Curitiba, Brazil)
Janaína Martins , (Business School, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana, Curitiba, Brazil)
Ariane Machado , (Business School, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana, Curitiba, Brazil)

Citation:
Carlos Quandt, Alex Ferraresi, Claudineia Kudlawicz, Janaína Martins, Ariane Machado, (2017) "Social innovation
practices in the regional tourism industry: case study of a cooperative in Brazil", Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 13
Issue: 1, pp.78‐94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SEJ‐12‐2015‐0038

Copyright: © Emerald Publishing Limited 2017. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. Licensed re‐use rights only.

Social innovation practices in the regional tourism industry:

case study of a cooperative in Brazil
Carlos Quandt, Alex Ferraresi, Claudineia Kudlawicz, Janaína Martins and Ariane Machado
Business School, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana, Curitiba, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to analyze the main elements of the process of social innovation by using a case of a
tourism cooperative created by an underprivileged community in Northeastern Brazil while assessing the
applicability of the conceptual framework proposed by Centre de Recherche sur les Innovations Sociales (CRISES) in
that context.
Design/methodology/approach – The case study was based mainly on content analysis of semi‐structured
interviews with cooperative managers and members, complemented by direct observation, analysis of documents
and data from secondary sources.
Findings – The process of social innovation in the tourism cooperative presents distinctive characteristics that are not
adequately captured by the dimensions that are proposed in the CRISES framework. Alternative frameworks may
contribute additional perspectives to complement and expand the current approach to the analysis of social
innovation in diverse contexts.
Practical implications – The study indicates the need for more appropriate territorially based metrics and
assessment models for particular configurations and settings of social innovation, such as in this case.
Originality/value – The paper contributes to a better understanding of the diversity of social innovation possibilities
and how extant analytical frameworks may be adapted and expanded to capture such diversity.
Keywords: Regional tourism, Local development, Cooperatives, Social innovation
Paper type: Case study
1. Introduction
The prevailing models of innovation and technology management are driven by the search for competitive advantage
and economic returns on investment. As Farfus and Rocha (2007) point out, such business models are unable to
meet a number of pressing social demands, and this has given rise to increased interest in the development and
diffusion of models and policies that are able to address social issues. The emergence of the literature on social
innovation, chiefly over the past decade, can be attributed to a growing dissatisfaction with the technological
emphasis on economic innovation literature and innovation policy (The Young Foundation, 2012). This dissatisfaction
has led to a focus on social innovation, both at policy and research levels. Broadly, social innovation is seen as an
effort to seek viable alternatives for the future of society as a whole (Bignetti, 2011) or innovative solutions to
human needs (Mulgan, 2006).
Social innovation has become an area of study in several academic fields and in research centers worldwide, such as
the Universities of Stanford, Harvard and Brown in the USA, The Young Foundation in the UK, the Fundação Getúlio
Vargas in Brazil and the Centre de Recherche sur les Innovations Sociales (CRISES) in Canada. The research at CRISES
analyzes the social innovation process in three aspects: territory; quality of life; and work and employment. In their
perspective, social innovation can be seen as an emergent process of search for solutions to social issues in the form
of an intervention initiated by social actors to respond to an aspiration, to meet specific needs and to offer a solution
or to take advantage of an opportunity for action (CRISES, 2010; Bouchard, 2012). CRISES develops studies on social
innovation and its connections with cooperation, solidarity and self‐management (CRISES, 2010). In the context of
cooperatives, social innovation may enable its members to take actions to surpass structural barriers and to
disseminate a sense of solidarity within the associative process. Hence, social innovation reflects a collective action
that emerges from social concerns related to individual and collective development (Miranda, 1986).
The motivation of this study was to explore the role of social innovations in a context of adverse socioeconomic
conditions, characterized by extreme poverty and inequality. The case deals with the formation of a tourism
cooperative in an underprivileged community located in a region of disputed land rights claimed by landless rural
workers. The case study of social innovation was undertaken in a settlement located in the city of Maragogi, state of
Alagoas, in the Northeast Region of Brazil. The objective of the study is to identify the main elements of the social
innovation process in that tourism cooperative, according to the five dimensions that are used by CRISES research
center, as proposed by Tardif and Harrison (2005): changes; innovative character; characteristics of the innovation;
actors involved; and process of developing the innovation.
The case is presented in the following sections of this paper: Section 2 is an overview of the literature on social
innovation and its dimensions, as well as aspects of cooperativism. Section 3 describes the method, Section 4
discusses the results and Section 5 presents the conclusions of the study.
2. Overview of the literature
2.1 Social innovation
The concept of social innovation has been discussed in the literature for several decades. Taylor (1970) related the
concept to the solution of social needs through new configurations of how things are done. For Gabor (1970), social
innovations are seen as an instrument to solve problems that are largely related to territory. Other studies emerged
from the demand for policies and practices that target the needs of individuals and society. Even though innovation
has been a key concept in management studies and economics for a long time, the addition of the adjective “social”
to create another category of innovation – and particularly its use as a concept in public policy analysis – is
morerecent. Some examples are its addition to the OECD’s Oslo Manual in 2005 and the development of several
projects and studies in Europe since the beginning of this century – such as INNOSERV (http://inno‐serv.eu),
KATARSIS (http://katarsis.ncl.ac.uk), LIPSE (www.lipse.org), Selusi (www.selusi.eu), The Theoretical, Empirical and
Policy Foundations for Building Social Innovation in Europe (TEPSIE) (www.tepsie.eu), WILCO (www.wilcoproject.eu)
and SPREAD (www.sustainable‐lifestyles.eu).
Caulier‐Grice et al. (2012, p. 18) point out the diversity of definitions of social innovation that have arisen from
evidence in different fields of research and conducted a literature review to propose a system‐level definition that
emphasizes on society:
 Social innovations are new solutions (products, services, models, markets, processes, etc.) that simultaneously
meet a social need (more effectively than existing solutions) and lead to new or improved capabilities and
relationships and better use of assets and resources. In other words, social innovations are both good for society
and enhance society’s capacity to act.
The Selusi initiative indicates that social innovation must be structurally aimed at meeting a social need (social
challenge), and also that it should fulfill the standard definition of innovation, that is, it must involve a new or
significantly improved product, process, marketing method and/or organizational model (European Commission,
2013, p. 15). According to Pol and Ville (2009, p. 15), “an innovation is termed a social innovation if the implied new
idea has the potential
to improve either the quality or the quantity of life”. The authors add a distinction between “micro” quality of life –
regarding any particular individual – and “macro” quality of life, which relates to the collective quality of life of a
group of individuals. The relevant aspects of the macro quality of life would be “the set of valuable options” that a
group of people has the opportunity to select, including factors such as material well‐being, education opportunities,
health, employment, family and community life, political freedom and stability, gender equality and the
environment. One should take into consideration not only access to these factors but also their quality. In this
context, social innovations would be those that could improve either the “macro” quality of life or the quantity of
life.
The collective aspect of social innovation is emphasized by Howaldt and Schwarz (2010) to the extent that it involves
not only the creation of technical artifacts but also chiefly the “social construction of new realities”, including the
development of institutions, behavioral change and the empowerment of specific groups of actors. They argue that
an innovation, regardless of its source, is social to the extent that:
[...]it is socially accepted and diffused widely throughout society or in certain societal sub‐areas, transformed
depending on circumstances and ultimately institutionalized as a new social practice or made routine (Howaldt
and Schwarz, 2010, p. 26).
Its widespread adoption implies that “new” does not necessarily mean “good” but it becomes “socially desirable” in
a broad sense. As such, social innovation can also be interpreted as a process of collective creation in which
members of a social group produce new rules for interaction, collaboration and conflict, while at the same time, they
acquirenewcognitive, rational and organizational skills (Crozier and Friedberg, 1993). In that sense, social innovations
generally arise outside the realms of corporate and academic research divisions.
The concept of social innovation has become the subject of research in several fields of social sciences. According to
Moulaert et al. (2005), they include four general areas of research:

(1) Management and organizational research that emphasize on improvements in social capital: This can
subsequently lead to more effective organizations in the economy, which would lead to positive effects in
terms of social innovation. Additionally, this area of research comprises social innovation in the nonprofit
sector, innovative capacity in organizations, open innovation, knowledge management, skill development,
learning and other labor and employment‐related research that emphasizes on the “human” aspects of
innovation.

(2) Interdisciplinary research concepts that seek to bridge the gap between business concerns and
social/environmental development: This includes the literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in
connection with the ability to develop and implement social innovations, as well as issues of local and
regional governance such as the creation of networks and partnerships involving actors from different
economic sectors, government and civil society.

(3) Creativity research: This examines social innovation from a perspective of Schumpeterian “champions” of
innovation. The role of creative industries in the contemporary economy could also be included in this area.

(4) Research on local and regional development projects: The regional perspective hasbeen widely applied in
several European projects, as well as in Canada, by CRISES. Research on the connection between social
economics and regional development has focused on institutional arrangements together with the strategies
 and practices of the diverse socioeconomic actors who contribute to the development of local territory.
2.2 Assessing social innovation
The different concepts and perspectives on social innovation are reflected in different approaches to analyze it. Some
models are proposed to evaluate social innovation as a solution with lasting effects, which is defined by the actions
of individuals or social groups, that may arise from an unsatisfactory social condition or with a focus on the well‐ eing
of individuals or groups (Cloutier, 2003). It generally originates from the need to meet human needs, such as an
increase in political participation, sociopolitical ability and access to resources and rights that enable people to meet
their basic needs (Novy and Leubolt, 2005). Table I summarizes the dimensions of social innovation proposed in
three current analytical frameworks (CRISES, TEPSIE and regional social innovation index [RESINDEX]), which are
described briefly below.
The first model, proposed by Tardif and Harrison (2005), was developed from a study by the CRISES in Canada. Its five
analytical dimensions are the changes, the innovative character, the innovations, the actors and the processes.
The second model, TEPSIE, began in 2012 as a project that involves six European institutions in an effort to develop
theories for the development of the field of social innovation. The model for measuring social innovation was
introduced by Bund et al. (2013), based on the model developed by National Endowment for Science, Technology
and the Arts, UK, and applied by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research of the Australian
Government. Finally, the RESINDEX relates the absorptive capacity of knowledge and social innovation to four key
regional actors: companies, non‐profit organizations, universities and technology centers. This model presents
different approaches and perspectives on social innovation: the individualistic approach, organizational approach
and regional/national approach (Unceta et al., 2016). Similar to the TEPSIE project, RESINDEX has developed an
integrated system to measure social innovation under the premise that the organizational level is the most
appropriate to measure it, together with its conditions, impact and governance. RESINDEX is divided into three
different indices: potential capacity of the innovation index, social orientation of organizations and social innovation
index. To define, explain and consolidate the concept of social innovation, this model uses its own indicators based
on organizational and regional perspectives that help to establish policies and tools to drive social innovation
(SINNERGIAK Social Innovation, 2013).
The three frameworks for evaluating social innovation differ in several aspects. The RESINDEX framework starts from
the premise that the organizational level is the most adequate to measure social innovation, its underlying
conditions, its impact and governance. The TEPSIE framework proposes to measure social innovation at the macro,
regional or national levels (Unceta et al., 2016), considering that social innovation may involve changes in power
relations that increase social and political capabilities, allowing individuals to meet their needs, and have improved
access to resources. The CRISES approach defines social innovation from a three‐pronged perspective: territorial
development, living conditions and impacts on work and employment (Tardif and Harrison, 2005). According to the
latter framework, the main goal is change and participation of all actors in the process of social innovation to meet
social interests and needs, improving quality of life (Cloutier, 2003).
Table I. Dimensions of social innovation

CRISES TEPSIE RESINDEX

1. Changes: context, economic and 1. Resources, institutional, political and 1. Knowledge acquisition
social social climate 2. Development of innovations
2. Innovative character: model, 2. Business investment activities, 3. Evaluation and impact
economy and social action collaboration and networks 4. Governance of social innovation
3. Innovations: scale, types of e‐purpose 3. Education, health, employment,
4. Actors: social, organizations, institutions housing, social capital and networks,
and intermediaries political participation and the
5. Processes: mode of coordination, means environment
and restrictions
Source: Adapted from Tardif and Harrison (2005), Bund et al. (2013) and Unceta et al. (2016)
Following the discussion of the main reference models and their characteristics, it was decided that the analysis of
this study of the social innovation process in the Brazilian Northeast tourism cooperatives would be guided by the
framework developed by Tardif and Harrison (2005), researchers at CRISES. This model was adopted, as the intrinsic
characteristics to the target cooperative of this study are similar to the solidarity economy undertaking of Quebec,
especially with regard to the logic of cooperation, solidarity and self‐management, which are the basis for the
framework proposed by CRISES.
The following section presents the dimensions that underlie the process of social innovation.
2.2.1 Dimensions of social innovation. Tardif and Harrison (2005) introduced a conceptual framework as the result of
a synthesis of several studies related to innovation and social change, in particular the research undertaken by
CRISES. The main elements of analysis and their conceptualization of social innovation are associated with five
dimensions: changes; innovative character; characteristics of the innovation; actors involved; and process of
developing the innovation, as depicted in Table II.
The dimension “changes” can be analyzed under three main angles. The first is the context on which the social
innovation process is developed. It consists of the identification of crises, ruptures, discontinuities and facts that
force people to rethink their actions and develop new solutions for times of social and economic crises, in the macro
and micro contexts. According to Tardif and Harrison (2005), the second aspect of this dimension is related to
changes in local, regional and national economic structures in the overall context of transformation. The economic
structures that are adapted or developed promote change in production, consumption and work relations. The third
angle of analysis of changes takes place in the social area, particularly the identification of problematic contexts in
social structures. The authors highlight the reconstruction of social ties and changes in social practices and relations
among the actors. The major concern is to perceive structural changes that are intrinsic to phenomena such as
marginalization and socioeconomic exclusion.
The second dimension identified by Tardif and Harrison (2005) refers to the innovative character. They point out the
central role of social action as a source of innovation in a given territory, as it originated from the motivation of the
actors to search for innovative solutions to problems they identify in their context. Rollin and Vicent (2007) also point
out that the social innovation process takes place in the search for solutions to social problems and/or needs by local
actors. To implement the solutions, an initial phase of experimentation and attempts is required. After the
maturation stage, the acquired experience generates social or economic benefits that tend to be institutionalized
and may give rise to new models.
The innovations themselves constitute the third dimension, and its aspects comprise the types of innovation, their
scale and purposes. Tardif and Harrison (2005) list five main types of social innovations: technical, sociotechnical,
social, organizational and institutional. With regard to scale, the focus is on inherently local or localized innovations.
This localized process emerges from the connection of different actors and their interactions to counteract the
effects of a crisis. Another aspect is the reconciliation of the different levels of interest – individual, collective,
general or common good.
The fourth analytical dimension refers to the actors, taking into account the diversity of actors involved in the social
innovation process. They comprise individuals, organizations, institutions and intermediaries. The social actors are
individuals who constitute civil society, cooperative movements, associations and unions. The organizations can be
companies, social economy organizations, collective organizations and beneficiaries. Institutions are understood as
the state and established norms, values and identity. Last, the intermediaries arise from the interaction among
different actors, and committees, social networks, alliances and innovation networks represent them.
Rollin and Vicent (2007) propose a different classification of the actors involved in the development and diffusion of
the social innovation process, in four categories: the principals are individuals, groups, organizations and public‐
rivate partnerships that initiate and develop the idea of social innovation. The funders are actors who provide
funding for the innovation projects and processes. The partners are those who provide support for social innovations
through credibility, distribution and promotion. Finally, the interested parties, or users, are the actors who benefit
from the development and implementation of the social innovation.
The fifth dimension refers to processes, and it involves three elements, modes of coordination, modes of
implementation and constraints. The coordination methods indicate the way in which the actors interact and
structure the process of social innovation and how they share and disseminate information, knowledge and practices
as they develop social innovations. Their interaction leads to shared meanings and the development of new rules, as
they integrate their identities, norms and values among them. The modes of social innovation, development and
implementation may encompass cooperation, partnerships, integration, negotiation and diffusion, among others.
Finally, the process of social innovation necessarily involves constraints, such as complexity, resistance and tensions,
among the actors when faced with something new and uncertainties related to dynamic social contexts.
Table II. Dimensions of social innovation

Changes Innovative character Innovations Actors Processes

Macro/micro context: Model: Scale: Social: Mode of coordination:

crisis work local cooperative/ evaluation
rupture development Types: community/ participation
discontinuity governance technical associative mobilization
structural Economy: sociotechnical movements learning
changes knowledge social civil society Modes:
Economic: mixed organizational unions partnerships
emergence social institutional Organizations: integration
adaptation Social action: Purpose: companies negotiation
labor/production/ attempts common good social economy empowerment
consumption experimentation general organizations diffusion
relations policies interest collective Constraints:
Social: programs collective organizations complexity
recomposition institutional interest recipients uncertainty
reconstruction arrangements cooperation Institutions: resistance
exclusion/ social regulation State tensions
marginalization identity commitment
practice values institutional
change norms rigidity
social relations/ Intermediaries:
gender committees
social networks/
alliances/
innovation
networks
Source: Adapted from Tardif and Harrison (2005)

2.3 Coooperativism as a form of social innovation

In addition to economic growth, human development encompasses several important dimensions, such as freedom,
justice, equity and stability. Therefore, a society cannot be seen as developed in terms of material wealth when
inequality or oppression prevents a balanced distribution of quality of life (Lopes, 2002). Cooperatives can play the
role of social entrepreneurs and innovators, generating positive impacts on local and regional development and
adding value to the territories in which they operate. Cooperativism is a type of economic organization that has its
foundations in mutual aid and the participation of its members in the organization, development and management
of economic activities. Its central principles are free and voluntary membership, democratic management, economic
participation by its members, autonomy and independence, access to education, skills and information, inter‐
ooperation and social responsibility, expressing a commitment to human values and social development (Battilani
and Schröter, 2013).
Cooperativism can be a driver of social innovation in a region by introducing principles such as mutual aid and
solidarity, supporting the development of social actions through collective participation in its ventures. It also
promotes social inclusion and introduces alternative solutions for socioeconomic problems (Oliveira and Silva, 2012).
The resulting social innovations may create new opportunities, a more balanced income distribution or better social
and organizational practices (Rollin and Vicent, 2007), the mitigation of social exclusion and improvements in quality
of life (Pol and Ville, 2009).
Studies have shown that cooperative organization can promote social inclusion, increase income and promote inter‐
cooperation and mutual aid. For example, Schönardie and Frantz (2008) concluded that the cooperative movement
brought about a process of social inclusion for family‐owned rural properties in the region under study, and that
cooperatives played an effective role in the organization of work and in reducing poverty. Lago (2009) identified
factors and elements that characterize the process of development of inter‐cooperative relationships and how they
produce the expected results.
On the other hand, associations represent a different form of solidarity and cooperation, which can also leverage
small enterprises (Ganança, 2006) and contribute to human development on the basis of trust and cooperation
among different actors and diverse patterns of social relations (Fung, 2003). Thus, the characteristics of social
innovation may take different forms, according to the different ways in which associations are constituted and the
expectations and commitments of diverse types of actors.
2.4 Tourism and local development
Tourism‐related activities may play an important role in local and regional development, yet their implementation
may lead to far‐reaching positive or negative impacts. The social impacts are diverse, ranging from changes in
individual and collective behavior to the development levels of a region (Andereck and Vogt, 2000; Gursoy and
Rutherford, 2004; Ko and Stewart, 2002; Teye et al., 2002), as it provides employment opportunities and other forms
of income (Choi and Sirakaya, 2005). Taking into consideration the different characteristics of each region, the
consequences of tourist activities on local development may vary widely. The development of tourism and its
associated social impacts may provide lasting benefits for the development of localities and improvements in the
quality of life of individuals, but negative impacts may also occur (Aguiló and Rosselló, 2005; Andereck and Vogt,
2000; Teye et al., 2002; Tosun, 2002).
In rural areas, tourism tends to have a positive effect on poverty reduction, and it is often identified as a form of
revitalization for these locations. The development of tourist activities in those areas depends on accessibility,
availability of infrastructure and, above all, the ability to attract investments. In that sense, rural areas are
disadvantaged in comparison with more developed urban areas. This disadvantage can be heightened by a lack of
coordination between rural development and tourism policies, especially in developing countries, and in such cases,
alternative forms of intervention are needed to deal with those challenges (Okech et al., 2012).
Tourism development in rural areas may begin for different reasons, including efforts to promote economic growth
and the diversification of agricultural areas, as well as attempts to diversify tourist activities in stagnant or recessive
economies (Okech et al., 2012). For instance, the study by Monge and Perales (2016) analyzed the sustainable
development of the tourist railway Tren Crucero in Ecuador, which highlights not only natural attractions along its
route but also local customs and traditions. In addition to meeting the expectations of tourists, it helps to improve
quality of life for the surrounding communities, contributing to local development (Monge and Perales, 2016).
3. Method
The case study was designed with the objective of identifying the main elements that characterize social innovation
in a regional tourism association, which is in a process of transition into a cooperative. Additionally, it should be
noted that this study is part of a larger research project that has surveyed several tourism‐related cooperatives and
associations throughout the country. This case study is focused on a rural settlement that was implemented as a
result of government policies that aim to reorganize land use in many areas of Brazil through the reallocation of
landless workers. The settlement under study – called Dandara – is located in the city of Maragogi, state of Alagoas,
in the Northeastern region of Brazil. The choice of a case study was motivated by the purpose of obtaining in‐depth
access to complex social data while taking into account the idiosyncratic aspects of the case (Mitchell, 1983). The
case of the tourism association is a settlement that presents an interesting mix of tourist‐related activities, family‐
ased agriculture and local crafts in a predominantly low‐income territory, which is suggestive of its potential for
improvement of local income and reduction of socioeconomic inequalities.
Data collection was undertaken through semi‐structured interviews with four managers of the association: the
president, vice‐president, controller and secretary. The conversations were recorded and transcribed later. The
research instrument was designed with the purpose of collecting relevant information, opinions, outlook and
motivation of the interviewees with regard to the social innovation process. It also included questions about the
history and structure of the association and its activities.
Data analysis was supported by the use of Atlas TI software, and the analytic method followed the technique of
content analysis proposed by Bardin (2010), in which relevant aspects that allow inferences and interpretation are
extracted from the content of the interviews. The social innovation categories were used to analyze the transcription
of the interviews which had been recorded and transcribed literally. The categories that represent the dimensions
“innovations”, “innovative character”, “changes” e “processes” were predetermined following the proposal by Tardif
and Harrison (2005). For the category that represents the “actors” dimension, the classification proposed by Rollin
and Vicent (2007) was used, comprising four subcategories: the individuals or groups that initiate and develop the
idea of social innovation; the funders; the partners and the users, that is, the actors who benefit from the
development and implementation of the social innovation. All the categories are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Categories related to the dimensions of social innovation

Source: The authors, following the dimensions proposed by Tardif and Harrison (2005) and Rollin and Vicent (2007)

4. Analysis of results
The changes that can be identified in the case illustrate the three aspects outlined in the “changes” dimension by
Tardif and Harrison (2005): context; economic structures; and social structures. With regard to these aspects, the
Dandara settlement displays distinct elements of change during the formation of the association and eventually the
tourism cooperative. The association emerged among the social movements of the Movimento dos Trabalhadores
Rurais Sem Terra (MST) (Landless Workers Movement) in the 1990s in the state of Alagoas. The first agrarian reform
settlements in the city of Maragogi were established in an old sugar mill (Central Barreiro) that went bankrupt. The
land distribution scheme began by settling former employees of the bankrupt plant. This first scenario is
characterized as a change of economic structure understood as “emergence” (Tardif and Harrison, 2005), as the
social actors were no longer salaried rural workers and became landowners. They faced difficulties in the adaptation
process partly because of lack of technical support in the early development of their own crops. After the first phase,
with the settlement of the former sugar mill employees, areas were demarcated for members of MST in the state of
Alagoas. The association emerged from the social movement, as a prerequisite for the consolidation of the
settlement was the creation of an association to secure investments after the workers took ownership of the area:
At that time there was already a group, a landless group, and they were not settled yet, but they had some
coordination […] Without a legalized association you cannot get resources […] At the time, after the issuance of
land titles, they founded a legalized association, and went on to get support from the bank to help people.
(Association Manager)
Hence, the association was established with the participation of two different sets of actors: the first encompassed
former workers of the sugar mill who benefited from the subsequent program of agrarian reform within the crisis in
the economic structure, and the second stage led to the constitution of the association in a context of social
reconstruction by inserting the MST actors in the territory.
After the association was established, in the context of an economic crisis, there were difficulties in organizing
production and labor relations. According to the association managers, the initial problems were related to the fact
that some settlers had failed to adapt to the new situation and sought employment outside the settlement. Later on,
they faced the problems of adding value to their products and providing adequate income for the producers,
because of the involvement of intermediaries in the commercialization process. The managers emphasize on the
inadequate remuneration of producers who sold their products for about one‐half the price that they were sold in
the market. They also pointed out another obstacles due to the complex process of issuing official invoices so that
small producers could not sell their products on a large scale. Within the context of the crisis faced by the settlers,
the development of a solution began in 2011 with the creation of the cooperative. In parallel with the activities of
the association’s, the establishment of cooperative was aimed initially at solving the difficulties with labor relations,
employment and income in the territory. The cooperative was formed by joining that settlement with others within
the territory of Maragogi, and it focused on strengthening family agriculture and sustainable regional tourism
through the specialization of each settlement. Hence, each cooperative settlement produces what it does best and
more efficiently, so the cooperative can support the production and marketing of specialized products, together with
joint efforts to exploit sustainable tourism in the area. Thus, they expect to obtain comparative advantage in relation
to other farmers’ markets in the state of Alagoas. The “innovative character” dimension proposed by Tardif and
Harrison (2005) is the only one in their model that is not quite consistent with the reality observed in this case. The
discourse of the cooperative managers indicated that the relations of production and employment are seen as the
drivers of development for the Maragogi community. Thus, the project was focused on the idea of making more
competitive products without a clear progression through the development stages of attempts, experiments and
institutionalization. On the other hand, according to Mulgan (2006), social innovation and business innovations tend
to evolve from discussions and conversations among stakeholders, not requiring model prototyping, as they are
described by Tardif and Harrison (2005) under “social actions”. With regard to the aspects “economy” and “model”,
the results indicate that the process of formation of the tourism cooperative did not display elements such as the
generation of economies of knowledge, mixed economies or social economies in the evolving models of work,
development and governance. In this case, the relationship with other actors – the state, other communities and
others – is not similar to that identified by CRISES model. In this context, other complementary criteria are needed to
characterize the tourism cooperative as a social innovation. The “innovation” dimension identified in the cooperative
can be characterized in terms of the elements that emphasize on social innovation in the areas of scale, type and
purpose. In accordance with the dimensions proposed by Tardif and Harrison (2005), social innovations that are
observed in the cooperative refer mainly to localized solutions. Initially, the cooperative that involved the residents
of the settlement marketed their products to the Maragogi market and later expanded its operations to other 13
municipalities located along the northern coast of Alagoas state.
The type of social innovation in the formation of the cooperative can be characterized as innovation with social
purpose. The initiative has brought together a diversity of social actors in that territory to develop a solution that
meets the individual needs of each resident, but above all, it meets collective needs. As the model of Tardif and
Harrison (2005), characterized as technical innovations are also involved in the process of cooperative formation.
According to the managers, this type of social innovation presents itself in an attempt to develop new solutions to
expand your markets with raw materials found in the territory. This was developed by linking products and services
from rural activities with the scope of tourism. For the realization of these activities, a space was built to receive
tourists for the tasting of cassava products, as well as for the production and sale of local crafts that had been
previously promoted by the association that was already established in the settlement:
[…] besides the flour we will work this area […] right here we have the kitchen where we offer tapioca, manioc
bread, gum cake, the delicacies of cassava, and also a tasting room […] we’ll assemble here a space, a showcase of
finished products and tables to serve the customers, when they come to visit us […] they produce there, and it is
tasted here, that’s the idea of the project (Association Managers).
In this case, the purpose of the social innovation – the formation of a cooperative – was aimed at generating jobs
and income within the cooperative territories so that the farmers could improve their quality of life, as well as the
sustainability of the place, through agroecology. The cooperative creation aimed to meet the collective needs of each
territory, ranging from the economic to the environmental context. The “actors” dimension comprises the individuals
and organizations that participated in the process of creation, development and diffusion of the social innovation in
this case. First, the local actors perceived the possibility of establishing a cooperative as a potential solution to the
social and economic needs that were observed in this and in other settlements. The initial association members are
responsible for the initial idea and its implementation, as well as users and beneficiaries of the innovation. The
cooperative members will comprise the current association members and other participants from other settlements.
Therefore, the cooperative expands the scope of action to bring in new actors who had been previously unable to
join the association.
The other type of actor includes the institutions that provided funding for the constitution of the initial association
and later for the cooperative. Initially, the federal government, through its National Institute for Colonization and
Agrarian Reform – Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (INCRA) – made land occupation possible, in
addition to the basic infrastructure for family farming. Half of the funding for the creation of the cooperative was
obtained from the State Department of Planning and Economic Development – Secretaria do Estado do
Planejamento e do Desenvolvimento Econômico – and the other half came from the National Bank for Economic and
Social Development – Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social. These resources originate from a fund
for poverty reduction, financed by taxes on products such as tobacco and alcoholic beverages. Another source of
funding is also a federal entity, the National Food Supply Company – Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento – which
buys the production of farmers that are members of the association. The agricultural products are then distributed
freely to institutions such as schools, day care centers and churches within and outside the local territory.
Last, partners are the category of actors that provide some assistance to those that are directly involved in the
process of developing the innovation (Rollin and Vicent, 2007). In the case under study, the Brazilian Service of
Support to Micro and Small Enterprises – Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio a`s Micro e Pequenas Empresas – has provided
support by providing information and courses to the members. The National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian
Reform – INCRA – provides rural extension and enforces regulations in the settlements. A federal teaching and
research institution – Instituto Federal de Alagoas – has developed studies in the area. In addition, a local small
farmers’ cooperative – Cooperativa de pequenos Agricultores Organizados de Maragogi (Coopeagro) – receives
products from local settlers and others from a broader area that covers the northern coastal region of the state.
According to Tardif and Harrison (2005), the “process” dimension of social innovation can be analyzed in three
aspects: modes of coordination, modes of implementation and constraints. The first aspect refers to the prevailing
mode of participation of the social actors in the development of the innovation. In this case, cooperation among the
actors prevailed among the actors since the beginning of the rural association through the formation of the tourism
cooperative. As indicated in the description of the dimension above, the actors involved in cooperative efforts are
not only the individual members who act directly in the process but also the supporting institutions, funders and
partners.
Cloutier (2003) points out the essential role of learning, which emerges from the interaction and cooperation among
the actors in the process of social innovation. The managers of the association highlighted the importance of this
aspect throughout the development of the association and cooperative. They have participated in courses and
workshops provided by the support institutions and the exchange of local and external knowledge and experience
among the actors. The partner institutions have promoted the participation of local members in trade fairs, courses
and other events. Finally, the constraints refer to all kinds of obstacles and limitations that the actors met during the
process of social innovation. According to the managers, the main difficulties to the development of innovative
activities are related to institutional rigidity and resistance on the part of some members. The first type of constraints
is connected with a lack of incentives in municipal, state and local policies that would target the specific activities in
the context of the association and cooperative. The resistance is observed in the reluctance of some members to
establish trust and dialog with outside institutions.
5. Concluding remarks
This study sought to identify the main elements that constitute the process of social innovation in a tourism
association/cooperative, following the conceptual framework proposed by Tardif and Harrison (2005), which
analyzes five dimensions: changes; innovative character; characteristics of the innovation; actors involved; and
process of developing the innovation. The elements that were identified in the case study are summarized in Table
III.

Table III. Dimensions of social innovation observed in the case study

Changes Innovative character Innovations Actors* Processes

Autonomy: rural Does not apply Localized scale Social: creation of Mode of coordination:
workers become small Adaptation to new association by settlers participation,
landowners contexts: from rural Organizations: cooperation, learning
Adaptation in work/ settlement to individual settlers, Modes of involvement:
production relations, association and to cooperative, other cooperation among all
new community cooperative settlements and local actors, empowerment,
Settlers unable to sell Increased variety of actors partnerships with
their goods on a larger products, new Institutions: federal, government.
scale agricultural practices state agencies, Constraints:
Some unable to adapt Integration of rural‐ development of local institutional rigidity,
and sought work based activities and identity resistance from some
outside the settlement tourist activities Funding: federal, state members, lack of
Creation of the Purposes: jobs, agencies incentives
association and its income, sustainable Partners: federal
transition to a development agencies, cooperatives
cooperative

Source: The authors, based on Tardif and Harrison (2005) and *Rollin and Vicent (2007)

The study shows that most of the dimensions proposed by Tardif and Harrison (2005) and the classification of actors
by Rollin and Vicent (2007) can be identified in this case. The development of the cooperative can be viewed as a
social innovation in the sense of a response to social problems and as a significant change for local actors. They
created a new model of collective work, developed new alternatives to generate income through new tourism‐
elated activities and products and organized themselves through new institutional arrangements that required
learning and cooperation with different actors.
Other dimensions of social innovation were not clearly identified, such as discontinuity and reconstruction in the
dimension “changes”, as the process could be better characterized as one of transition between states. With regard
to the “innovative character” dimension, the aspect of governance is not as evident, according to the respondents,
probably because of the fact that the partnerships involving government entities and the association, and their
respective roles, were not explicitly established. Additionally, the aspect of “mixed economy” of this dimension is not
well defined in the case, perhaps because the economic relations between the cooperative and other local sectors
are still at an early stage. In the “innovations” dimension, socio‐technical aspects are also absent, together with
institutional changes, as they fall outside the scope of this specific case.
In sum, the creation of the association and its transition to a cooperative can be characterized as a social innovation
in the local context, emerging as a solution for a particular set of social problems. The social actors themselves, with
the participation of external organizations and institutions, formulated responses to a changing context. For the
development and implementation of the social innovation, cooperation and shared learning have been the
predominant forms of organization and coordination of the process among the participants, funders, partners and
beneficiaries.
The characteristics of the study prevent any broader inferences and generalization beyond this specific case. Indeed,
this is part of a larger study that reveals a diversity of arrangements and patterns of interaction among actors in
tourism associations and cooperatives elsewhere in Brazil. Further research is needed to deepen the understanding
of the role of cooperation in the integration of tourism‐related activities for territorial development, particularly the
constitution of cooperatives as a means to social innovation, and as a social innovation in itself for that area.
Nevertheless, the case illustrates the transformation potential that such type of initiative may have on less
developed regions in terms of changes in quality of life and the collective construction of new opportunities.
In sum, this case study suggests the partial adaptation of one of the main analytical frameworks of social innovation
to a specific context of a cooperative of farmers and tourism that was created under singular conditions. The
limitations of the study and its potential for generalization are associated with the intrinsic limitations of case study
methodology, as well as the peculiarities of the case and the need for additional theoretical and empirical
development in this field of study in general. Further studies on social innovation in other regions would add to the
current knowledge, as well as refinements of the existing frameworks, which may be seen as complementary.
Moreover, the development of a new framework may be needed to identify more precisely the dimensions that
would be most appropriate for the analysis of the specific socioeconomic contexts such as this one. Nevertheless,
these results may contribute to our collective learning about social innovation and pave the way for further
qualitative and quantitative studies to consolidate and improve analytical models in this field.

References
Aguiló, E., and Rosselló, J. (2005), “Host community perceptions: a cluster analysis”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.
32 No. 4, pp. 925‐941.
Andereck, K.L., and Vogt, C.A. (2000), “The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism
development options”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 27‐36.
Bardin, L. (2010), Análise de conteúdo, Edições, Lisboa, p. 70.
Battilani, P. and Schröter, H. (2013), The Cooperative Business Movement, 1950 to the Present, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bignetti, L.P. (2011), “As inovações sociais: uma incursão por ideias, tendências e focos de pesquisa”, Ciências Sociais
Unisinos, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 3‐14.
Bouchard, M.J. (2012), “Social Innovation, an analytical grid for understanding the social economy: the example of
the Québec housing”, Services Business, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 47‐59.
Bund, E., Hubrich, D.‐K., Schmitz, B., Mildenberger, G. and Krlev, G. (2013), “Blueprint of social innovation metrics –
contributions to an understanding of opportunities and challenges of social innovation measurement”, A deliverable
of the project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE),
European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, European Commission, DG Research, Brussels, available at:
www.tepsie.eu/images/documents/D2.4_final.pdf
Caulier‐Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R. and Norman, W. (2012), “Defining Social Innovation”, A deliverable of the
project: the theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE), European
Commission – 7th Framework Programme, European Commission, DG Research, Brussels.
Choi, H.S.C. and Sirakaya, E. (2005), “Measuring residents’ attitude towards sustainable tourism: development of
sustainable tourism attitude scale”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 380‐394.
Cloutier, J. (2003), Qu’est‐ce que l’innovation sociale?, CRISES: Centre de Recherche Sur Les Innovations Sociales:
Cahiers du CRISES, Québec.
CRISES (2010), Rapport Annuel des activités scientifiques du CRISES 2009‐2010, Centre de Recherche sur les
Innovations Sociales, Quebec.
Crozier, M. and Friedberg, E. (1993), Die Zwänge kollektiven Handelns –U¨ ber Macht und Organisation, Hain,
Frankfurt (Main).
European Commission (2013), “Social innovation research in the European Union: approaches, findings and future
directions. Policy Review”, Directorate‐General for Research and Innovation, Socio‐economic Sciences and
Humanities, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/socialsciences/pdf/policy_reviews/social_innovation.pdf
(accessed 23 March 2015).
Farfus, D. and Rocha, M.C.S. (2007), “Inovação Social: um conceito em construção”, in Farfus, D. and Rocha, M.C.S.
(Eds), Inovações Sociais, SESI/SENAI/IEL/UNINDUS, Curitiba.
Fung, A. (2003), “Associations and democracy: between theories, hopes, and realities”, Annual Review Sociology, Vol.
9, pp. 515‐539.
Gabor, D. (1970), Innovations: Scientific, Technological, and Social, Oxford University Press, London.
Ganança, A.C. (2006), “Associativismo no Brasil: características e limites para a construção de uma nova
institucionalidade democrática participativa”, Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.
Gursoy, D. and Rutherford, D. (2004), “Host attitudes toward tourism: an improved structural modeling approach”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 495‐516.
Howaldt, J. and Schwarz, M. (2010), “Social innovation: concepts, research fields and international trends”,
Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund (Social Research Centre Dortmund), available at: www.asprea.org/imagenes/IMO
%20Trendstudie_Howaldt_englisch_Final%20ds.pdf (accessed 23 March 2015).
Ko, D.W. and Stewart, W.P. (2002), “A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 521‐530.
Lago, A. (2009), “Fatores condicionantes do desenvolvimento de relacionamentos intercooperativos no
cooperativismo agropecuário”, Tese de doutorado, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio
Grande do Sul, Brasil.
Lopes, A.S. (2002), “Globalização e Desenvolvimento Regional”, Gestão e Desenvolvimento, Vol. 11, pp. 9‐25.
Miranda, J.E. (1986), “Da Inovação Social a` Inovação Social Cooperativa: a proeminência dos valores cooperativos
como elementos aptos a` transformação sócio‐econômica‐humana”, available at:
www.egov.ufsc.br/portal/conteudo/da‐inova%C3%A7%C3%A3o‐social‐%C3%A0‐inova%C3%A7%C3%A3o‐social‐
cooperativa‐proemin%C3%AAncia‐dos‐valores‐cooperativoscomo (accessed 23 March 2015).
Mitchell, J.C. (1983), “Case and situation analysis1”, The Sociological Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 187‐211.
Monge, J.G. and Perales, R.M.Y. (2016), “El desarrollo turístico sostenible”, Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 57‐72.
Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E. and Gonzalez, S. (2005), “Towards alternative model(s) of local
 innovation”, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 No. 11, pp. 1669‐1990.
Mulgan, G. (2006), “The process of social innovation”, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, Vol. 1 No.
2, pp. 145‐162.
Novy, A., and Leubolt, B. (2005), “Participatory budgeting in porto alegre: social innovation and the dialectical
relationship of state and civil society”, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 No. 11, pp. 2023‐2036.
Okech, R., Haghiri, M. and George, B.P. (2012), “Rural tourism as a sustainable development alternative: an analysis
with special reference to Luanda, Kenya”, Cultur, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 36‐54.
Oliveira, N.D.A.D. and Silva, T.N.D. (2012), “Inovação social e tecnologias sociais sustentáveis em relacionamentos
intercooperativos: um estudo exploratório no CREDITAG –RO”, Revista de Administração da UFSM.. Vol5 No. 2, pp.
277‐295.
Pol, E. and Ville, S. (2009), “Social innovation: buzz word or enduring term?” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental
Economics (Formerly The Journal of Socio‐Economics), Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 878‐885.
Rollin, J. and Vicent, V. (2007), Acteurs et processus d’innovation sociale au Québec, Université du Québec, Québec.
Schönardie, P.A. and Frantz, W. (2008), august). “Movimento cooperativo: processo de inclusão social de agricultores
familiares”, Anais do Encontro de Pesquisadores Latino‐Americanos de Cooperativismo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil, p. 5.
SINNERGIAK Social Innovation (2013), “Regional social innovation index”, A Regional Index to Measure Social
Innovation, Basque Innovation Agency, Bilbao.
Tardif, C. and Harrison, D. (2005), Complémentarité, convergence et transversalité : la conceptualisation e
l’innovation sociale au CRISES, Centre de Recherche Sur Les Innovations Sociales: Cahiers du CRISES, Quebec.
Taylor, J.B. (1970), “Introducing social innovation”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 69‐77.
Teye, V., Sonmez, S.F. and Sirakaya, E. (2002), “Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 668‐688.
The Young Foundation (2012), “Social Innovation Overview – Part I: Defining social innovation”, A deliverable of the
project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE), European
Commission – 7th Framework Programme, European Commission, DG Research, Brussels, available at:
www.tepsie.eu/images/documents/TEPSIE.D1.1.Report.DefiningSocialInnovation.Part%201%20‐%20defining
%20social%20innovation.pdf (accessed 25 March 2015).
Tosun, C. (2002), “Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 231‐253.
Unceta, A., Castro‐Spilla, J. and Fronti, J.G. (2016), “Social innovation indicators”, The European Journal of Social
Science Research, doi: 10.1080/13511610.2015.1127137.
Further reading
Hubrich, D.K., Bund, E., Schmitz, B. and Mildenberger, G. (2012), “Comparative case study report on the state of the
social economy: a deliverable of the project: the Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Foundations for Building Social
Innovation in Europe (TEPSIE)”, European Commission–7th Framework Programme, European Commission, DG
Research, Brussels.
Maurer, A.M. (2011), “As dimensões de inovação social em empreendimentos econômicos solidários do setor de
artesanato gaúcho”, Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS.

View publication stats