Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
3.1. Introduction 61
3.2. Discoursetheoryandascience-policygapinsustainabletourismresearch 62
3.3. Casestudy:sustainabletourismresearchinDutchaviationpolicymaking 66
3.4. Discussion 79
3.5. Conclusion 82
4. TheFirm 85
4.1. Introduction 87
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
5.1. Introduction 115
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
R2 GeneralDirector Touroperator(SME) 09-03-2016
R3 SustainabilityCoordinator Touroperator 10-03-2016
R4 TravelExpert Touroperator(SME) 15-03-2016
R5 GeneralDirector Touroperator(SME) 17-03-2016
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
R10 GeneralDirector Touroperator(SME) 14-03-2016
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
R19 ProductManager Touroperator 13-05-2016
R20 ProductManager Touroperator 13-05-2016
R21 ProductManager Touroperator 24-05-2016
Study3
R22&R23 GeneralDirectors TouroperatorA+B(SMEs) 07-10-2016
R24 GeneralDirector Touroperator(SME) 21-12-2016
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
R11 Executive 19-01-2018
R12 Executive 19-01-2018
R13 Executive 06-06-2019
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
ANVR.(2012).ANVRJaarverslag2012.[AnnualReport2012].ANVR
136
ANVR.(2011).ANVRjaarverslag2011.[AnnualReport2011].ANVR
ANVR.(2010).ANVRJaarverslag2010.[AnnualReport2010].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.
JournalofSustainableTourism,22(1),69-88.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.10.007
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.
JournalofSustainableTourism,25(7),1024-1041.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.012
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
NRITMedia,CBS,NBTCHollandMarketing,&CELTH(2019).Trendreporttourism,recreation,and
leisure2019.NRITMedia
NRITMedia,CBS,NBTCHollandMarketing,&CELTH(2018).Trendreporttourism,recreation,and
leisure2018NRITMedia
NRITMedia,CBS,NBTCHollandMarketing,&CELTH(2017).Trendreporttourism,recreation,and
leisure2017.NRITMedia
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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.05.001
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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.04.005
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.013
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.