Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106

The innovative behaviour of tourism firms—Comparative

studies of Denmark and Spain
Jon Sundbo a,∗ , Francina Orfila-Sintes b , Flemming Sørensen c
a Department of Social Sciences, Roskilde University, Denmark
b Department of Business Administration, University of The Balearic Islands, Spain
c Ceus School of Business, Nykøbing F., Denmark

Received 1 November 2005; accepted 28 August 2006

Available online 31 October 2006

Abstract
Tourism firms operate in a competitive sector where innovating is often a condition for survival. This article presents a theoretical
framework for understanding tourist firms’ innovative behaviour and innovation systems in tourism. The innovativeness of tourism
firms and its determinants are investigated by analysing quantitative as well as qualitative data comparing Spain and Denmark. A
taxonomy of tourism firms is suggested and the firms’ characteristics which influence their innovativeness are presented. Additionally,
the role of innovation networks is discussed, as is the role of innovation systems. The article suggests that large size, professionalism,
but also entrepreneurship among small tourism firms are important determinants of innovation. Varied innovation networks are
another determinant as are supportive innovation systems. These determinants favour Spanish firms, which are more innovative
than Danish ones. In the final section, policy recommendations are presented.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Innovation; Network; Innovation system; Tourism

1. Introduction
Tourism firms operate in an extremely competitive
sector which is characterised by continuous transfor-
mation (Wahab and Cooper, 2001). Therefore, tourism
firms’ competitiveness depends on their innovativeness
in achieving lower costs and higher quality outputs that
meet the demand requirements of potential customers,
and which introduce new products (e.g., improved
services and products, individualisation, environmental
issues and ICT interaction). Nonetheless, research on
innovation in tourism has been limited. The research
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 46742161; fax: +45 46743081.
E-mail address: sundbo@ruc.dk (J. Sundbo).
that does exist concludes that tourism firms are in most
cases only moderately – if at all – innovative (Hjalager,
2002), examples of this being Danish tourism firms
(Jensen et al., 2001) and British coastal resorts (Shaw
and Williams, 1998). However, there is a great deal of
diversity between countries (Peréz and Llaudes, 2001)
and, for example, a number of Spanish destinations
have significantly improved and diversified their prod-
ucts (Fayos-Solá and Bueno, 2001; Peréz and Llaudes,
2001). Thus, the research leaves one with the impression
that tourism firms are, generally speaking, moderately
innovative, but with some important exceptions, which
indicates that there is potential for a higher degree of
innovativeness in tourism. However, which firms are
innovative and which are not is not known, nor is the
explanation for these differences.

0048-7333/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.004
 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
The aim of this article is to provide a more detailed
picture of the differences in the innovativeness of tourism
firms and to provide an understanding of these differ-
ences. This is done on the basis of a general discussion
of models of innovation systems. This discussion leads
to a three-level analysis: at the level of the firm, the inno-
vative behaviour and management of tourism firms will
be analysed, at the network level, the tourism firms’ co-
operation with other firms will be considered, and at the
system level, the role of innovation systems (Nelson,
1993) will be discussed. In this way, a broad array of fac-
tors are included and considered. The dominate theories
of innovation as being of general importance for differ-
ent productive sectors’ innovativeness – are included and
considered in the analysis. The analysis is based on qual-
itative and quantitative data from Spain and Denmark
mainly relating to different tourist destinations within
those countries. The data are used to generate a general
understanding of the innovative behaviour of tourism
firms. However, the data concerning the two countries
and their destinations are also applied in a compara-
tive manner so as to discuss geographical differences.
Thus, the article uses different methods (quantitative and
qualitative) as well as perspectives (geographical, soci-
ological and managerial) in order to analyse and explain
the innovative behaviour of tourism firms.
2. Innovation theory and tourism
The intention here is to study and understand tourism
firms’ innovation behaviour. This can be done by study-
ing the behaviour of the individual firm at a micro level
– an organisational approach (cf. Coriat and Weinstein,
2002). However, the innovation research tradition’s insti-
tutionalist approach has emphasised the coordination of
the behaviour of the individual firms and the external
influence as important factors too, often called inno-
vation systems (cf. Coriat and Weinstein, 2002). Both
approaches are relevant to understanding innovation in
the tourist sector and our empirical analysis of innovation
in tourism will be placed in such a general theoretical
framework. Thus we can give a broader and more general
interpretation of the results and which possible policy
consequences we can draw. We will start by discussing
which general theoretical approach and model is most
adequate. We will discuss this based on the assumption
that tourism is a service industry and thus the charac-
teristics of service innovations and service innovation
systems can be applied to tourism. We will also put this
discussion into perspective by referring to general mod-
els of systems of innovation and the arguments for and
against the different models. After this general discus-
89
sion, we will construct the levels of innovation behaviour
systems that are most adequate for our empirical
analysis.
2.1. A general theoretical framework for innovation
in tourism
Several models of innovation systems have been pre-
sented ranging from national or regional systems (e.g.
Nelson, 1993; Oinas and Malecki, 1999) to more sec-
tor specific ones (e.g. Pavitt, 1984; Miozzo and Soete,
2001; Håkansson and Ford, 2002). They have mostly
been developed from studies of manufacturing indus-
tries. Studies have demonstrated that innovation in ser-
vices follows patterns that are to some degree different
from those in manufacturing (e.g. Sundbo, 1998; SIC,
1999; Metcalfe and Miles, 2000; Andersen et al., 2000;
Gallouj, 2002; Van den Aa and Elfring, 2002; Coombs,
1999a,b; Drejer, 2004; Howells, 2004, 2006). One of
the main results shows that traditionally speaking inno-
vation in services is not technological, but consists of
a change of behaviour (e.g. Sundbo, 1998). Service is
social behaviour and the personal interaction between
the user and the service provider is the core of the def-
inition of service and, thus, the explanation of service
firms’ behaviour (cf. service management theory, e.g.
Grönroos, 1990), including their innovative behaviour.
This means that the product and the process cannot be
separated – the product is the process. On the other
hand, it has been recognised that the service industry is
increasingly dominated by technology, not least informa-
tion technology (Miles, 1993; Miozzo and Soete, 2001),
which means that a number of service innovations are
technological. The products may be technological (such
as a PDA tool that tells tourists about sights) and the
processes may also be technology dominated (such as a
PC system which has plans for serving meals for sev-
eral hundred people). Nevertheless, these facts raise a
discussion about the degree to which the models and
frameworks that are mostly oriented towards explaining
innovation in manufacturing sectors or technology based
innovation processes can be applied to service industries
such as tourism.
There are two dimensions of this discussion. The
first one is the understanding of services in relation
to manufacturing and technology. Gallouj (2002, p. 1)
introduces a continuum to describe this understanding.
At the one end of the continuum is the service-oriented
approach (e.g. Edvardsson et al., 2000) that sees services
as something specific and different from manufactur-
ing/technology, at the other end of the continuum is what
Gallouj terms a technologist approach, which equates
90 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
innovation in services with the introduction of new tech-
nology (e.g. Barras, 1990; Miozzo and Soete, 2001). In
between is an integrative approach that emphasises the
blurred boundaries between services and manufacturing
and the integration of technology with human behaviour
(e.g. Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997). The other dimen-
sion is related to the organisation–institution continuum
that for example Coriat and Weinstein (2002) discuss.
The issue here is to what degree institutional systems
understood as a coherent set of factors and/or actors (as
emphasised in Coriat and Weinstein’s discussion and, for
example, in Callon et al.’s (1992) model) exist in service
industries. On the basis of empirical studies, Sundbo and
Gallouj (2000) claim that innovation systems are weak
or non-existent in services. Pavitt (1984) and Miozzo
and Soete (2001) state, on the basis of their “technolo-
gist approach”, that there are innovation systems in the
service industry.
We will seek to choose the most adequate theoreti-
cal approach to analyse and explain the empirical results
about innovation in tourism. By adequate we mean the
approach that most correctly explains the innovation pro-
cesses in the tourism industry. The adequacy is decided
on the strength of our and other researchers’ empiri-
cal analyses of innovation in tourism and from what
we know about innovation in services in general. Based
on these criteria we will suggest a theoretical frame-
work that we will use in the development of a model for
analysing tourism firms’ innovative behaviour.
Concerning the first of the above mentioned dimen-
sions, we will take an integrative approach, which sees
innovations in tourism as behavioural and technologi-
cal. Some innovations are purely behavioural and do
not include technology, and could be called organisa-
tional innovations, however, this would not be the correct
notion as some of them are changes of organisational
structures or culture, but some are changes in individu-
als’ social behaviour. An example of the latter is a Viking
ship museum where the guides start by telling narratives
about how the Viking boats were found outside where the
museum is now located and they show the places instead
of producing written or IT-based information inside the
museum. Other innovations are real technological ones
such as introducing a web-net based ticket purchasing or
reservation system for all kinds of tourism firms. Other
innovations are a mixture, which could be called tech-
nology based. The innovation is a changed behaviour,
but the new behaviour could not be carried out with-
out new technology. An example is the change in the
behaviour of a hotel receptionist who starts treating the
customers individually (remembering their wishes con-
cerning rooms, their careers, etc.). This innovation will
increase customer satisfaction and thus the willingness
to pay a higher price, and return at a later date. This is a
case of behavioural change on behalf of the receptionist.
However, since receptionists change and cannot remem-
ber the personal data for thousands of customers, the
new behaviour is based on a common PC-system where
the personal key in the information about the customer as
soon as they get it. Innovation in tourism can thus neither
be reduced to the introduction of IT or other technology,
nor can technology by excluded. Innovation in the empir-
ical analysis thus refers to both behavioural as well as
technological innovation and will often be a mixture.
Concerning the second dimension, we will base
our understanding on the Sundbo and Gallouj (2000)
approach, which has also been observed in tourism
(Hjalager, 2000, 2002; Jensen et al., 2001; Jacob et al.,
2004; Sørensen, 2004; Mattsson et al., 2006), namely
that innovation systems are weak or even non-existent
within tourism. This situation may be explained on the
basis of a series of traditional factors of innovation,
which in services generally and in tourism in particular
are different from those known from, for example, man-
ufacturing. One factor is imitation. Service innovations
are easy to imitate (e.g. Sundbo, 1998; Boden and Miles,
2000) because they are simple, this is, among others rea-
sons, because there is no advanced technology involved.
Advanced technology is difficult to imitate as it is com-
plicated. In tourism, the ease of imitation is even more
pronounced as many innovations are hard to keep secret
due to the nature of tourism and as most tourism inno-
vations cannot be patented (Poon, 1993). Because of the
ease at which innovations can be imitated, service firms,
including tourist ones, keep the information about inno-
vations and are less inclined to participate in networks
such as those defined by Callon et al. (1992). The service
firms become more competition than network oriented
and thus believe more in their own capacity than in net-
working not to give competitors information. One might
suggest that innovations in tourism require networks
and co-operative systems. This may be argued from a
destination perspective, where tourists come to a desti-
nation and the tourist firms are mutually dependent on
developing common destination-innovations. However,
empirical investigations, at least in Denmark, conclude
that this is not the case (Hjalager, 2002; Sørensen, 2002;
Bærenholdt et al., 2004; Mattsson et al., 2006). Tourist
firms do not participate to any great extent in common
destination-innovation, and tourists do not clearly see the
destination as the place they visit.
Thus, Callon et al.’s (1992) technology–economic
network model can be used to introduce some elements
that could be included in a model of tourism innovation.
 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
However, not all aspects of their model are relevant to
the tourism industry. This is because service firms (and
tourism firms in particular; Hjalager, 2002) undertake
very little research or have relations to external research
institutions (Sundbo, 1998; Boden and Miles, 2000; SIC,
1999; Howells, 2004, 2006). They are much more mar-
ket oriented, thus this aspect of Callon et al.’s model is
applicable. This also means that service firms’ innova-
tion behaviour is very often not systematic and external
actors play a minor role. The situation may suggest that
both Pavitt’s (1984) as well as Miozzo and Soete’s (2001)
models only cover part of service innovations since they
both emphasise technological innovations. Miozzo and
Soete provide a more adequate model than Pavitt because
they have more variants of the technological innovation
system and they stress an increased use of technology
in services that also characterises parts of the tourism
industry (e.g. hotels; Lattin, 1990). Studies of general
service innovations and studies of tourism innovations
have presented examples of concrete innovations as well
as descriptions of innovation systems (Sundbo, 1998;
Haukness, 1998; SIC, 1999; Howelles and Tether, 2004;
Hjalager, 2000; Jensen et al., 2001; Mattsson et al.,
2006; Orfila-Sintes et al., 2005; Sørensen, 2004; Jacob
et al., 2004). Innovations follow many patterns and are
of many kinds – often not technological – and it is diffi-
cult to point to one category of taxonomy such as those
launched by Pavitt and Miozzo and Soete should be an
adequate description of the total tourist industry’s inno-
vation behaviour. Sundbo and Gallouj’s (2000) model
provides a broader and more open view of innovation
systems, which may be more adequate when explaining
the situation in tourism. Although they argue that innova-
tion systems are weak, they also argue that service firms
are influenced by external factors. They divide these fac-
tors into actors (cf. Callon et al., 1992) and trajectories
(cf. Dosi, 1982). A series of actors and trajectories influ-
ence the innovation process in services firms, but they
are loosely coupled and might not be termed a system.
Other factors influence the situation in tourism as
well. The skill of the labour force in the industry is
low (Jensen et al., 2001) and labour turnover is high
(Hjalager, 2002), which means that the absorptive capac-
ity of external information (research results, knowledge
about new technology, etc.) is low in the industry. Only
the largest firms have personnel with a high capability to
absorb external knowledge via the knowledge trajecto-
ries. Only they may be supposed to have the capacity
to develop more complex and advanced innovations.
Small tourism firms may have relations to many actors;
however, it is reasonable to suppose that these relations
may not open up the possibility for innovation-oriented
91
knowledge. The small firms will keep their secrets so
as not to give competitors the opportunity to imitate
their ideas. Only entrepreneurs may be supposed to be
able to procure adequate knowledge and utilise the actor
network progressively to develop many advanced inno-
vations.
The theoretical considerations outlined above must,
of course, be applied to the empirical situation of the
tourist industry to demonstrate their adequacy, which
will be done in the empirical part of the article. It is still
an open question how much the system or institutional
factors exist in tourism. It is also an open question as to
what degree increased systematisation or institutionali-
sation will lead to more innovation. In fact, we intend in
the empirical part of the article to demonstrate that the
tourist industry in Spain has become more institution-
alised (in the sense of Coriat and Weinstein, 2002), and
that this has lead to a larger degree of innovativeness.
2.2. An innovation model of three levels in the
tourist industry
On the basis of the above discussion we now turn to
presenting a three-level model that can be used to anal-
yse and understand innovation in the tourist industry.
Our three levels are inspired by Coriat and Weinstein’s
(2002) dimension of “organisation–institution”. How-
ever, our approach follows Sundbo and Gallouj’s (2000)
suggestion that service (in this case tourist) firms’ inno-
vation activities are only loosely coupled to the external
world. We therefore define the three levels being careful
to not too substantially assume that innovation systems
exist in the tourism industry. The three levels are: (1) the
level of the firm, which relates to Coriat and Weinstein’s
conception of the organisational level; (2) the level of
the network, which characterises more loosely coupled
external relations that may be important for the individ-
ual firm, but which not are so cohesive and deterministic
that they can be called an institutionalised system; (3) the
systems level, which relates to Coriat and Weinstein’s
notion of institutionalisation. In the following we will
explain these three levels in detail and discuss them in
relation to tourism. The model will form the basis for
the empirical analysis. In the conclusion, the implica-
tions of this analysis will be related to the more general
theoretical framework discussed above.
2.2.1. Innovation at the level of the firm
At the firm level, innovation has traditionally been
attributed to the imagination of individuals and to R&D
carried out within individual firms. Schumpeter (1961)
emphasised the role of imaginative individuals pro-
92 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
ducing ideas and introducing them into economic life:
the entrepreneur. However, Schumpeter (1947) later
acknowledged that innovations were primarily the result
of organised firm-internal activities and were the domain
of large monopolistic or oligopolistic firms, which pos-
sessed the necessary resources. Within this tradition, the
technology-push innovation theory, which was estab-
lished later, considered science and R&D the central
innovation determinants. Fischer (1999) can be con-
sidered as developing Schumpeter’s claims (Coombs
et al., 1987). Alternatively, demand has been consid-
ered the pull-factor that has driven firms’ innovativeness
(Schmookler, 1966). Innovation has lately been con-
sidered a market and strategy driven activity (e.g. von
Hippel, 1988, 2005; Sundbo, 2001)
These perspectives on innovation have survived in
more or less modified forms and they have also influ-
enced the considerations about innovativeness in tourism
firms. As such, entrepreneurship in tourism has been
studied (Morrison et al., 1999; Mattsson et al., 2006).
However, entrepreneurship, understood in terms of the
establishment of new firms on the basis of an inno-
vation, is, compared with other business sectors, rela-
tively unusual in tourism (Hancock and Bager, 2004).
This lack of entrepreneurs in tourism firms has been
related to these firms’ limited innovativeness (Shaw and
Williams, 1994). Nevertheless, innovative tourism firms
with entrepreneurial characteristics have been observed
by other studies (Ateljevic and Doorne, 2000). Further-
more, larger tourism firms and in particular chain firms
have generally been emphasised as being the main inno-
vators in tourism (Hjalager, 2002). Innovativeness as the
domain of mainly large firms has, as such, also been
considered relevant in tourism: chains or business con-
glomerates provide greater knowledge about procedu-
ral and managerial innovations, technology, and other
intangibles such as brand image and business reputation
(Tremblay, 1998) which favour innovation in these firms
(Morrison et al., 1999).
Tourism firms have been considered as constitut-
ing a sector that is not itself involved in the stage of
research (i.e., knowledge generation) for innovation as
other organisations, such as suppliers, are responsible
for research, and their activities facilitate the subse-
quent innovation processes in tourism firms (Hjalager,
2002). It has also been observed that service firms some-
times innovate in ways other than manufacturing firms
on which innovation theories have traditionally been
based. Innovation in services is more employee and
customer based. The innovations are mostly incremen-
tal and based on practical experiences (Sundbo, 1998;
Coombs, 1999a,b; Boden and Miles, 1999; Metcalfe and
Miles, 2000; Andersen et al., 2000; Gallouj, 2002). Ser-
vice firms have traditionally not been as innovative as
manufacturing firms, though they have become more
innovative in the last decade (SIC, 1999). The sparse
studies of innovation in tourism have shown that tourism
firms’ innovative behaviour is in some ways similar to
service firms’ behaviour although tourism firms have
been seen to be generally even less innovative (Hjalager,
2002; Jensen et al., 2001).
Orfila-Sintes et al. (2005) have analysed the inno-
vative behaviour of hotels. Departing from the inter-
sectorial differences that innovation presents, they first
delimit innovation in service sectors. Then, the particu-
larities of the hotels lead to a more concrete measure of
the innovation in the hotel industry. The empirical results
arising from the data on the Balearic hotel industry indi-
cate an innovative behaviour that may be described as
a diffusion process that is determined by internal char-
acteristics such as the size, the star category, the chain,
the management, the tour operators’ distribution and the
differentiation strategy.
Thus, traditional views on innovativeness have been
considered relevant for tourism firms too, though these
have so far mostly been superficial considerations. At
the same time, it has been indicated that tourism firms
do not necessarily innovate in exactly the same manner
as firms in manufacturing industries. Finally, the above
indicates that there are differences between whether and
how different tourism firms innovate. All of these aspects
will be considered in the empirical analysis, and differ-
ent innovation determinants within tourism firms will be
considered in greater depth.
2.2.2. Innovation at the network level
In more recent innovation theory, it has been argued
that networks are an important factor for innovation.
Such networks correspond to ‘something in the mid-
dle’ of the organisation–institution dimension of Coriat
and Weinstein. Networks consist of formal and infor-
mal relations among firms involved in the transfer of
material and/or immaterial resources. They support inno-
vations as they facilitate the transfer of information (Dyer
and Singh, 1998), learning (Fischer, 1999) and the co-
ordination of production and product development activ-
ities (Holmen et al., 2004). The structures of the networks
are argued to be important for their innovative perfor-
mance: dense and strong networks sustain stability, the
transfer of ‘deeper’ specialist knowledge and incremen-
tal innovations, i.e. gradual changes of existing products
and services, whereas less dense and weaker networks
allow for more dynamism, the transfer of broad and
general information and radical changes, i.e. the intro-
 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
duction of new products and services (Håkansson and
Ford, 2002; Rowley et al., 2000). Under most indus-
trial circumstances, a combination of the two types of
networks is necessary to ensure the innovativeness of
firms (Rowley et al., 2000). In a spatial context, such
innovation networks have been supposed to exist within
agglomerations (industrial districts, innovative milieu,
etc.) where they support the transfer of mainly specialist
tacit knowledge through face-to-face contacts sustained
by the spatial proximity between firms (e.g. Maskell and
Malmberg, 1999; Coe and Townsend, 1998). However,
such local networks are acknowledged to favour incre-
mental innovations mainly (Capello, 1999; Grabher,
1993) and only in combination with non-local networks
providing firms in agglomerations with external informa-
tion and learning benefits, helping them to ‘stay tuned’
with what is going on in the surrounding world (e.g.
Oinas and Malecki, 1999), can the full range of network
benefits be achieved (Sørensen, 2004).
In tourism, such networks may be both non-local and
highly localised within tourist destinations (Milne and
Ateljevic, 2001; Tremblay, 1998) and may, as such, com-
bine the benefits of local and global networks. At the
destination, such networks may be comprised of local
relations among firms in the same branch of tourism,
e.g. hotels (i.e. competitive relations); of relations among
complementary firms, e.g. hotels and other tourism firms
(i.e. complementary relations); and of relations with
providers of inputs (i.e. input relations). Non-local net-
works, on the other hand, consist of chain relations;
of relations among firms on destinations and their dis-
tributors, e.g. tour operators (i.e. distribution relations);
and of relations with providers of inputs. Such different
relations may provide different benefits depending on
their structures and the actors involved (Tremblay, 1998;
Sørensen, 2004). However, there has been a debate as to
what degree local networks exist or non-local networks
prevail among tourism firms (Sørensen, 2004), but this
and their innovative benefits have received little empiri-
cal analysis.
2.2.3. Innovation at the system level
Whereas innovation network theory focuses on rela-
tions among firms, the innovation systems theories draws
into consideration a wider system supposedly affect-
ing firms’ innovativeness and thus compares to Coriat
and Weinstein’s institutionalisation. As such, the inno-
vation system theories have the purpose of identifying
all of the factors that influence innovation processes
(Edquist, 1997, p. 17) including “all parts and aspects
of the economic structure and the institutional setup
affecting learning as well as searching and exploring”
93
(Lundvall, 1992, p. 12), e.g. firms, universities, research
institutes, government agencies and policies, financial
institutions, trade-unions, technical associations, etc. as
well as broader social and cultural elements of soci-
ety (Carlsson et al., 2002; Lundvall, 1992). Broadly
speaking, two types of innovation system approaches –
geographical and sectoral – can be distinguished in the-
oretical terms. Two geographical approaches have been
dominant in the literature, namely that of the National
Innovation System in which focus is on the nation-state
(Nelson, 1993), and that of Regional Innovation Sys-
tems which recognises that within nation-states certain
productive regions possess specific features affecting
the innovativeness of such regions (Oinas and Malecki,
1999). The Sectoral Innovation System theory, on the
other hand, focuses on specific sectors irrespective of
their geographical extent (Edquist, 1997, p. 11). The
agents of such a sectoral innovation system share a par-
ticular knowledge base, particular technologies, inputs
and demands, learning processes, competencies, organ-
isational structures, beliefs, objectives and behaviours
(Malerba, 2002). Such national, regional and sectoral
innovation systems may vary in composition, which is
supposed to explain the differentiated innovativeness of
firms belonging to different such systems.
Tourism has been portrayed as a system which is both
geographic and sectoral (e.g. Leiper, 1990). Such system
approaches emphasise the multiplicity of actors involved
in the process of providing tourism services and their
interdependencies but do not see the system from an
innovation perspective. From an innovation system per-
spective, the tourism innovation system may be defined
as the parts and aspects of the economic structure and
the institutional set-up affecting learning and innovation
in tourism firms. These may be limited to a nation, a
region or tourist destination (cf. Prats-Planaguma and
Guia, 2004), or they may be limited to the tourism firms’
sector(s). As indicated in the former discussions, it has
been stated that innovation systems are much weaker
or non-existing in services (Sundbo and Gallouj, 2000;
Metcalfe and Miles, 2000). However, tourism has yet not
been analysed in such innovation system perspectives,
thus its relevance is unclear. This article takes a first step
by including empirical considerations of the innovation
systems in Spain and Denmark and of different destina-
tions within the two countries.
2.3. Conclusion on the theoretical part
The three-level model presents a framework that illu-
minates both ends (the firm and the innovation system
level) and the middle (the network level) of Coriat and
94 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
Weinstein’s (2002) organisation–institution dimension.
Thus, it presents a framework from which the search
for the innovativeness of tourism firms can start. How-
ever, as has also been indicated in the above, when
each of the levels is applied to the tourism industry,
more questions are raised than answers supplied. The
following empirical analysis, based on extensive data
analysis, tries to answer these questions and to illumi-
nate the relevance and the implications of the model. The
three levels of the model will be analysed individually.
However, it becomes clear during the analysis that the
different levels of the model are highly interdependent
and that an understanding of each level helps explain
the other levels. Thus, what arises from the analysis is
a complex picture of innovation in tourism which, when
related to the general theoretical discussion of innova-
tion in tourism outlined earlier in this section and to the
organisation–institution dimension, has interesting and
important policy implications. These are discussed in the
conclusion.
3. Method and data
3.1. Analysis and method
The first part of the analysis focusing on the level
of the firm will develop a taxonomy of tourist firms
according to their organisational form. By this is meant
a combination of their size, their formal organisation,
and their owner’s/manager’s approach to tourism busi-
ness. This taxonomy is based mainly on the authors’
own, but also on others’ empirical research. The tax-
onomy will be used to discuss the determinants behind
the innovative behaviour of the different categories of
tourism firms. Empirical evidence of such determinants
will be presented including quantitative survey results
as well as qualitative interview data. Empirical evidence
from the two countries, Spain and Denmark, will receive
equal attention in the analysis. By including two coun-
tries with an in some ways different pattern of tourism,
a wider variety of the background for the taxonomy and
the determinants is provided.
The analysis of networks and their role for the inno-
vativeness of tourism firms will be based mainly, though
not only, on qualitative interviews with tourism firms
in Spain and Denmark in particular. In addition to pro-
viding considerations about the importance of networks
for individual firms, this also allows for a comparative
analysis of networks of firms located in different desti-
nations within the two countries. The final discussion of
innovation systems will primarily be of a more indica-
tive nature based on the data already presented as well
as other research. From this, some indications of dif-
ferences of innovation systems in Spain and Denmark
and other countries are shown, they may be related to
the innovativeness of their firms. The conclusion will
emphasise and concretise the findings of the analysis,
and thus provide a final indication of the characteristics
of different tourism firms that determine their innovative
behaviour including considerations concerning the firm,
the network and the system levels.
3.2. Data
The empirical data include all types of tourism firms –
accommodation, restaurants, travel agencies, attractions,
transport companies, etc., however, with an over-sample
of hotels. The analysis takes the latter into considera-
tion and separates hotels from other tourism firms. The
empirical data are comprised of four surveys – two from
the Balearic Islands in Spain and two covering Denmark
as a whole – and three groups of qualitative interviews
– one from Denmark, one from Spain and one from a
group of different countries:
S1. A survey of 300 firms in all tourism industries in the
Balearic Islands in 2002/2003 (Jacob et al., 2004).
S2. A survey of a representative sample of 331 hotels
in the Balearic Islands in 2004. Compared to S1
a similar, but improved, questionnaire was applied
(Martı́nez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes, 2005).
S3. A survey of 170 firms in all tourism industries
in Denmark carried out by Gallup/The Danish
Ministry of Industry/Centre of Service Research,
Roskilde University in 1999 (Jensen et al., 2001).
S4. A survey of 98 firms in all tourism industries in
Denmark carried out by Centre of Service Research,
Roskilde University in 2001 (Jensen et al., 2001).
I1. Qualitative interviews with 35 firms in all tourism
industries in the destination of the Costa del Sol in the
province of Malaga, Spain, as well as in rural destina-
tions of the same province in 2002/2003 (Sørensen,
2004).
I2. Qualitative interviews with 18 firms in all tourism
industries as well as institutional actors in the des-
tinations of Jammerbugten, Northern Jutland, Den-
mark in 2001 (Sørensen, 2002).
I3. Qualitative interviews with 61 firms and actors in all
tourism industries in Denmark, Norway, Thailand,
France and the UK (Mattsson et al., 2006).
The different surveys and qualitative interviews all
illuminate the same aspects of interest: which are the
 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
determinants of innovation in tourism firms and which
tourism firms are the most innovative. Though the data
sources in their total are different and not fully com-
patible, the data selected and presented in the following
(forming only a smaller fraction of the totality of the data
collected in the different surveys and interviews) is com-
plementary to a degree that: (1) the survey and the quali-
tative data sustain each other (triangulation; cf. Zelditch,
1970); (2) the application of statistical and qualitative
data allows for providing explanations (through the qual-
itative data) of general tendencies (detected in the statis-
tical data) and vice versa; (3) the range of data analysed
allows for the observing of differences between dif-
ferent types of firms, destinations and countries, while
also detecting the similarities between these; and (4) the
range of data analysed allows for an examination of the
organisation–institution continuum and thus of all lev-
els of the theoretical model. However, the data and the
article are somewhat biased towards the hotel business.
This is particularly the case for the sections dealing with
innovation at the firm and at the network levels. Nonethe-
less, considerations about the validity of the findings for
other sectors of the tourism industry are added to these
sections.
Finally, the innovation-concept has been applied
slightly differently in the different surveys and quali-
tative interviews. Whereas some of the survey data has
approached innovation in its broadest sense including
product, process, organisation and market innovations
(cf. Table 3) – categories which in the survey data regard-
ing Spanish tourism firms are differentiated in techno-
logical innovation and widened service (cf. Table 2)
– the qualitative interviews have mainly focused more
narrowly on product innovations, which are again com-
parable to widened service. In that sense, the compati-
bility of the data is at first glance problematic. However,
as seen in Tables 2, 4 and 5 there is clear evidence
in the survey data that higher innovativeness regarding
widened service is accompanied by higher technolog-
ical innovativeness. Translated into product, process,
organisational and market innovations, a high degree of
innovation within one or several of these will therefore
also generally be accompanied by a high degree of inno-
vation in the others. This may be caused by the fact that
tourism firms are generally speaking either completely
non-innovative or innovative in all ways; there are few
firms which lie in between the two extremes and are inno-
vative in some ways only. However, and this confirms the
above, it is mainly a consequence of the real life lack of
distinction between products and processes in tourism
and between service and technology based innovations
– one naturally leads to the other. This limits, for the
95
purpose of this article, the definitional problems arising
from the combination of data of different origin as it is
mainly the general innovativeness which is of interest
here.
4. Differences in innovativeness among tourism
firms
The first part of the empirical analysis investigates
which tourism firms are the most innovative and seeks
to identify the determinants of this. Based on a taxonomy,
it will be considered which organisational categories
of tourism firms are the most innovative, as well as
which different industries are the most innovative. We
will compare the different categories of the taxonomy
and discuss the explanation of the categories’ different
innovativeness. Furthermore, the paper analyses what
makes some tourism firms across the taxonomic cate-
gories more innovative than others. Thus, this part of the
analysis will discuss the following three questions:
1. Which category of tourism firms is the most innova-
tive?
2. Can particularly innovative firms that operate across
the categories be identified?
3. Are there differences in innovativeness between dif-
ferent tourism industries?
4.1. A taxonomy of tourism firms according to their
innovativeness
The first question concerns which categories of
tourism firms are the most innovative. To answer this
question, the tourism firms need to be placed in a tax-
onomy and, thus, some criteria with which to categorise
tourism firms are needed. As discussed theoretically, size
has typically been considered to be related to innovative-
ness in service industries and this has also been claimed
to be the case in tourism. The importance of size is also
evident in all the surveys. Size may be measured by
the number of employees, number of beds, turnover and
other indicators. The surveys have measured size in terms
of the number of employees or in numbers of beds. The
latter, or turnover, might be slightly better than the first
because it is not influenced by productivity increases.
However, the results are similar whatever indicator is
used (Tables 1 and 2).
Thus, in all the surveys, size is clearly related to inno-
vativeness of hotels whatever measures of size and inno-
vativeness are applied. Therefore, size can be used as one
dimension from which to create a taxonomy. However,
according to the qualitative interviews from the province
96 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106

Table 1 tive is not primarily to protect their family life, but to be

Size (no. of employees) and innovativeness in all tourism industries dynamic and create business. Both such types of firms,
Spain 2000 Denmark 1999 small family/life-style firms and small entrepreneurial
No. of Innovation No. of Large degree of
firms, were clearly identified in the empirical studies
employees intensitya employees innovativenessb undertaken in Malaga and the latter was clearly a more
innovative type of firm than the former (Sørensen, 2004).
<3 26
3–9 30
Yet another distinction partly related to size is relevant
<50 8.34 10–49 48 for the taxonomy. In the above mentioned qualitative
50–249 12.16 >48 75 interviews, large independent firms were seen in cer-
300> 18.09 tain ways to be distinguished from business units that
N = Spain 300; Denmark 170. Source: Jacob et al. (2004) and Jensen were part of a corporation (or of tightly coupled chains):
et al. (2001). e.g., the step from large individual firms to corporations
a Number of innovations per firm within a 3-year period.
involves a giant leap in size, and business units of cor-
b Percentage of firms that within the last 2 years has introduced an
porations have less independence to innovate on their
innovation.
own as decision processes are more or less centralised
(Sørensen, 2004). Such different organisational forms,
of Malaga, though large firms are also here seen to be as well as other characteristics (considered later), may
more innovative than small firms, it is evident that size is influence their innovativeness.
not the only dimension that needs taking into consider- The mentioned, qualitative and quantitative observa-
ation (Sørensen, 2004). First, among the smaller firms, tions lead to the suggestion of a taxonomy of tourism
an important distinction between more and less innova- firms operating with three categories: tourism corpora-
tive firms is evident. Most smaller firms are life-style tions, tourism enterprises and tourism shops (Fig. 1).
based, meaning that the business activities are an inte- These are not only characterised by their size but also
grated part of the owners’ private life and a fundamental by other characteristics of the firms which in the tax-
life-style that involves working as well as family life. onomy are condensed under the term “organisational
Most people do not want too much turbulence in their form”, including the structure – is it complex and bureau-
family lives, thus they are rather conservative in their cratic or simple and ad hoc, and the culture – is it a more
business style and do not want to innovate too much. “scientific” culture as in large industrial organisations
However, another category of small firms is inhabited (cf. Taylor, 1911) or is it very “practical” as in small craft
by very development, and innovation, oriented persons. and artisanal firms. Also, the question of whether the firm
The businesses of these persons, known in the literature has several branches such as a hotel chain or only one
as entrepreneurs (e.g. Sexton and Landström, 2000) may branch is an element of the organisational form. Further-
be integrated with family life, however, their life perspec- more, derived from the above-mentioned observations,
the small firms – the tourism shops – are divided into
Table 2 two sub-categories: entrepreneurial shops and family-
Size (no. of beds) and innovativeness in Balearic hotels 2004a life-style based shops termed “artisanal” (cf. Sundbo
No. of hotels’ Technological Widened and Gallouj, 2000). In the following, by analysing sur-
beds innovationb servicec vey data, the relevance of the taxonomy is sustained and
8–60 79.28 31.53
more specific characteristics of the firm categories are
61–219 85.05 45.79 distinguished.
220–1743 93.81 67.26 First of all, as the taxonomy is partly based on size,
Total 86.1 48.34 and as size has already been shown, statistically, to be
related to innovativeness, the size dimension of the tax-
N = 331. Source: Martı́nez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes (2005).
a Percentage of hotels that have introduced technological innovation onomy is corroborated. Thus, tourism enterprises are
or widened service within a 2-year period. more innovative than tourism shops and tourism cor-
b Technological innovation refers to incorporation of technological porations are more innovative than tourism enterprises.
novelties or improvements, i.e. control processes (e.g. quality control This is also the case, irrespective of size as is confirmed
and environmental management); computer equipment; information in Table 3, where the innovativeness of units of the Dan-
and telecommunications technologies; kitchens; food and beverage;
ish survey is established according to whether they are
rooms; maintenance and savings of utilities; security; cleaning and
laundry service. part of a corporation or participates in different degrees
c Widened service refers to expansion of the offered services so as of chain co-operation (e.g. Best Western hotels). The
to increase added value to the stay. table shows that the corporations are the most innovative.
 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106 97

Fig. 1. Three organisational forms of tourism firms.

Table 3
Innovation and co-operation in all tourism industries
Denmark 1999

The unit is Part of corporation Franchise or license Voluntary chain

Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%)

Innovativea 67 33 46 40 59 32
Not innovative 33 67 54 60 41 68

N = 170. Source: Jensen et al. (2001).

a Has introduced at least one substantial improvement of product, process, organisation or market behaviour within a 2-year period.

Further, tourism firms participating in voluntary chains
(more or less tightly or loosely coupled co-operation
between independent enterprises) are more innovative
than enterprises or shops that do not participate in such
chains. That units in the third category of co-operation,
franchising chains, are less innovative than the others is
not surprising since franchising is a standard concept. It
is surprising that these units at all are innovative. This
underlines the fact that membership of a large organisa-
tion is a strong determinant of innovation. Additionally,
it indicates that network arrangements of different sorts
influence the innovativeness of tourism firms. The roles
of such networks are considered in detail later in the
article.
However, within the smaller tourism firms, the shops,
two sub-categories have been established. These sub-
categories can normally not be separated in statistics
because they are both small firms. However, based on
the surveys differences between all the categories of the
taxonomy (corporations, enterprises and entrepreneurial
and artisanal shops) can be detected. Table 4 shows
that also Balearic hotels in tourism corporations and

Table 4
Taxonomy and innovation in Balearic hotel industry 2004a

Taxonomy Technological innovationb Widened serviceb Bedsc Firm’s average number of beds

(A) Tourism corporation 93.67 67.09 31,932 404.20

(B) Tourism enterprise 92.77 56.63 23,440 282.41
(C.a) Entrepreneurial shop 86.17 45.74 10,982 116.83
(C.b) Artisanal shop 70.27 22.97 4,248 56.64
Total 86.06 48.48 70,602 213.30

(A) Hotels that are part of a hotel chain or of a business conglomerate with companies not operating in the lodging sector. (B) Hotels that are part
of less important chains and business conglomerate and independent hotels that are large and formally organised with training plans, graduates and
proactive attitude to IT; their star category is three or more stars. (C.a) Independent hotels that are smaller than those in tourism enterprise and
formally organised; their star category is three or less stars. (C.b) Small independent hotels that are not formally organised; their star category is
three or less stars. N = 331. Source: Martı́nez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes (2005).
a Percentage of hotel establishments innovating within a 2-year period.
b cf. Table 2.
c Total number of beds offered in each category.
98 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106

in tourism enterprises are more innovative than shops.
Additionally, the distinction between artisanal and
entrepreneurial shops based on whether they are for-
mally organised or not, i.e., with training plan, gradu-
ated employees and proactive attitude to IT, sustains the
hypothesis that within the small sized firms there are dif-
ferences according to the type of firms in terms of their
innovativeness.
The above has established a taxonomy of tourism
firms and empirically shown the relevance of the tax-
onomy. In the following section, a closer examination of
the characteristics of the firms in the different categories
of the taxonomy will be carried out so as to provide fur-
ther explanations and details of the innovative behaviour
of the tourism firms of the taxonomy.
4.2. Which firms across the categories are most
innovative?
Within the established categories, there are certain
characteristics of the tourism firms that may be of impor-
tance for their innovativeness. This will be discussed in
the following data analysis where different characteris-
tics of tourism firms will be compared with the firms’
innovativeness. First, the relationship between innova-
tiveness and a series of explanatory factors of innova-
tiveness for hotels in the Balearic Islands is presented in
Table 5 and for Danish tourism firms in Table 6.
In both tables, it is clear that the most innovative
hotels are those that use professional management instru-
ments. Innovative hotels are furthermore more positive
towards using IT. Thus, the more professionally organ-
ised hotels appear to be more innovative. Furthermore,
the production system explains the innovative behaviour
of the firms. In the case of the survey relating to the
Balearic Islands (Table 5), it can be seen that the inno-
vative hotels use tour operators more frequently than the
non-innovators. The presence of the tour operators is an
expected determinant of innovative behaviour, since they
possess expert knowledge of the demand (UN, 1982) and
have more negotiation power than the individual clients
booking their beds directly (Sørensen, 2004). This co-
operation with tour operators is one of several relevant
types of network relations which are discussed in detail
later. The production system is also relevant for the
Danish tourism firms’ innovativeness though measured
differently (Table 6). The innovative tourism firms are
characterised by their production system being mostly

Table 5
Innovativeness and explanatory factors in Balearic Hotel Industry 2004a

Factors Variables Technological innovationb Widened serviceb

Yes No Yes No

Professional management Member of chain 41.75 23.91 51.88 27.49

Training plan 80.35 47.83 85.00 67.25
Academic employees 62.31 32.56 72.00 45.34
Production system Tour operators booking 76.14 73.91 86.88 65.50
Size of board < average 60.00 80.00 51.88 72.94
Size of board = average 56.49 31.11 61.25 45.29
Size of board > average 26.67 11.11 33.13 16.47
Active customers 41.40 28.26 39.38 39.77
Opened > 6 months 59.30 32.61 59.38 52.05
Organisation of innovation activities Co-operation with externals 5.66 * 8.90 *

Internal information sources 95.02 * 95.48 *

External information sources 35.94 * 42.58 *

Innovating for improved quality 97.19 * 97.44 *

Innovating for lower costs 67.37 * 71.79 *

Innovating for competing 84.21 * 85.90 *

Positive attitude to IT URL 77.19 52.17 85.00 63.16

E-mail 80.7 52.17 88.75 65.50
Booking by Internet 61.05 34.78 63.75 51.46

N = 331. Source: Martı́nez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes (2005).

a Percentage of hotel establishment innovating within a 2-year period.
b cf. Table 2.
* Not applicable.
 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106 99

Table 6
Innovativeness and explanatory factors in Danish tourism in 1999
Factor Variables Innovativenessa

Yes No

Professional management—use of A business plan 58 24

management instruments Systems to measure customer satisfaction 29 17
A training plan for the employees 30 10
Production system Individualised (totally customised) products 38 68
Modulised products 47 53
Standardised products 31 69
Organisation of innovation activities A permanent innovation department 22 *

Ad hoc project groups 43 *

Use external advisors 31 *

No particular way—do not know 33 *

Attitude to IT It is important to exploit the new possibilities that IT gives 78 44

N = 170. Source: Jensen et al. (2001).

a % within each category innovating within a 2-year period (yes) or not (no)—answering that they use the instrument or do the activity defined.
* Not applicable.

modualised (standard elements that are combined indi-
vidually to the individual customer; cf. Sanchez and
Mahoney, 1996; Sundbo, 1994) and by using several
types of organisations of the innovation activities of
which ad hoc project groups is the most commonly used
type. However, 33% answer that they have no particular
way of innovating or they do not consider which way to
do it.
The innovative behaviour of the Balearic Islands’
hotels is also positively correlated to a larger board
(Table 5). Furthermore, the hotels attracting active cus-
tomers, i.e. tourists with cultural or sport interests and
not only for sun and beach interests, and hotels opening
for more than 6 months per year are also more inno-
vative. Probably, the hotels attracting active customers
innovate to meet more client requirements. The effect
of the opening period can be explained as hotels opened
for longer periods will play a greater role in the creation
of tourist products of the destination, will have more
information, and will experience lower occupancy rates
in periods of lesser demand. These hotels may be more
interested in maintaining an innovative offer-structure
that responds effectively to the seasonal nature of tourism
(e.g., the search for ways to decrease fixed costs), they
may have a greater accumulation of knowledge resources
and can introduce innovations that require more trials and
adjustments during periods of lower occupancy. Finally,
improved quality as being an important motive for inno-
vation is in accordance with the current nature of com-
petition emphasising quality issues since competition on
pricing is more difficult.
It can be supposed that all these determinants of inno-
vation vary with size, thus they are stronger the larger
the size of the tourism firms. This will fit with the con-
clusion that tourism corporations and enterprises, the
largest firms, are the most innovative (Table 4). This
is confirmed in the qualitative studies (Sørensen, 2002,
2004) where it is seen that tourism corporations and
enterprises are those that apply professional manage-
ment tools (e.g. business plans, quality control measures,
employee training, etc.) to a great extent, in addition
to which they employ graduates in management, devel-
opment and public relations departments. Furthermore,
those firms have more professionally organised innova-
tion activities, and apply complex IT systems and the
Internet. Furthermore, they are more inclined towards
innovating according to tourists’ demands and they are
– not least – also those that have access to the neces-
sary finances. All this indicates that the surveys’ most
salient explanatory factors for innovativeness are such
that are found in corporations and enterprises. Thus, type
of organisation, size, professional management, produc-
tion systems and organisation of innovation activities
seem to be interrelated explanatory factors of the inno-
vativeness in tourism firms.
However, as has been seen, among smaller firms,
entrepreneurial shops are distinguished from artisanal
shops. Again combined with the survey results, we may
find an explanation of this in the qualitative studies. Con-
trasting artisanal shops, these entrepreneurial shops, just
like larger firms, apply quality control measures, busi-
ness plans and employee training to the degree that this
100 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106

is possible in a smaller firm. At the same time, the man-
agers/owners are often academics in contrast to the typ-
ical artisanal shop where they are ‘have been all the life
in the business’ people (Sørensen, 2004). As such, these
firms possess certain of the same explanatory factors of
innovativeness as corporations and enterprises. Addi-
tionally, these firms can be considered entrepreneurial
in the sense that they are being developed around the
personal belief of their managers/owners in a business
idea that may, or may not, turn out to be a success. Thus,
they risk their savings on building a business in contrast
to the artisanal firms where a ‘steady and safe business’
is the goal.
though only artisanal and entrepreneurial shops where
identified among the interviewed campsites. Though not
statistically representative, this indicates a more gen-
eral applicability of the taxonomy of tourism businesses
in general. Thus, it is suggested that business-structural
characteristics of different sectors of the tourism indus-
try determine the differences in the overall innovative
behaviour of the different sectors in both the Danish and
the Spanish tourism industries. This issue is discussed
further in the section concerning the role of innovation
systems.
5. External networks in tourism innovation

4.3. Differences in innovativeness between tourist It has already been indicated that certain types of co-
industries operation with units external to the tourism firms, and
thus networks, are of relevance for the innovativeness of
The innovativeness of different tourism industries tourism firms. For example, those firms that are mem-
is measured in the Spanish data (Table 7). Hotels are bers of chains have been seen to be more innovative
observed to be the most innovative, next come leisure than those which are not, and those that co-operate with
activities (attractions, etc.) and restaurants. Transport tour operators are more innovative than those that do not
and car rental firms are the least innovative. (Tables 3 and 5). The following discussion will be dedi-
This demonstrates that there are differences between cated to establishing a more detailed insight into the role
tourism industries. In the Danish data (Jensen et al., of the innovation networks related to the taxonomy of
2001), hotels and restaurants were found to be the least different types of tourism firms.
innovation oriented industries while tour operators and
travel agencies were the most innovation oriented. This 5.1. Networking in three regions
is different from the Spanish survey results. However,
in the qualitative interviews (Danish and Spanish) other The following analysis is mainly based on qualitative
types of firms than hotels were observed to fit into the tax- interviews undertaken in Malaga, Spain, and Jammer-
onomy. As such attractions that can be characterised as bugten, Denmark. In analysing the role of the tourism
shops (entrepreneurial or artisanal) or as enterprises were firms’ networks, three aspects of the networks are inter-
identified and these different types of attractions’ inno- esting: (1) the benefits of different types of network
vative characteristics are comparable to those of the sim- relations; (2) different firms’ networks; and (3) the geo-
ilar categories of hotels. The same counts for campsites graphical differences of the firms’ networks. Concerning
the first, the empirical findings from the province of
Malaga (Sørensen, 2004) indicate that local networks
Table 7
Innovativeness of different tourism industries
among firms from similar branches, for example among
hotels, are dense (almost all firms participate in such), but
Spain 2000 of a loose character and provide firms with broad general
Tourist Percentage Innovation Innovations information. Other types of local relations are, however,
industry of firms intensitya percentageb not seen to provide any innovation benefits at all. In the
Hotels 46.66 13.85 63.10 case of relations among complementary firms, they are
Leisure 15.00 9.38 13.75 either non-existent or of a very loose character, and the
Transport 3.00 8.67 2.50 complementary tourism firms see each other as being
Restaurants 18.34 6.82 12.20 too diverse to co-operate more closely and to learn from
Travel agencies 11.67 5.17 5.90
Car rental 5.33 4.94 2.60
each other. Local relations with providers of inputs do
not provide innovative benefits of importance either, as
Total 100.00 10.20 100.00
they concern regular inputs that are not related to product
Source: Jacob et al. (2004). developments. The destinations are, in this way, places
a Average number of innovations per firm within a 3-year period.
b Percentage of total innovations carried out in each sector.
of loose networks, dynamism and distribution of gen-
eral information, but only so among firms within the
 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
same industry. On the other hand, non-local network
relations are seen to provide greater differences in inno-
vation benefits. Non-local relations with distributors,
mainly tour operators, are of varying strengths, whereas
chain relations are typically stronger though they are also
of varying strengths providing varied innovation bene-
fits. Finally, non-local relations with providers of inputs
share characteristics with the local ones. The impor-
tant exceptions are stronger relations with producers
of specialised inputs, which support product develop-
ments. In these relations, innovations initially made out-
side tourism are further developed and adjusted to the
needs of the tourism firms through an interchange of
specialist knowledge, ideas and needs. All in all (and
contrary to general assumptions of agglomeration litera-
ture), tourism firms possess loose local networks that
mainly sustain dynamism and the transfer of general
information, whereas stronger networks that sustain the
transfer of ‘deeper’ specialist knowledge are a non-local
network phenomenon. Still, the combination of local and
non-local networks has the potential to supply tourism
firms with a combination of important network innova-
tion benefits.
The next observation is that different firms’ networks,
and thus their benefits, vary. Not surprisingly, larger
firms, i.e. corporations and enterprises, possess larger
networks than the smaller shops and, just as in those
aspects already mentioned, have a more professional
approach to utilising and benefiting from the networks
(cf. Jensen et al., 2001; Sørensen, 2004). These networks
are also of a more varied character involving local and
non-local relations to a varied collection of firms, thus
providing more varied benefits. However, in the case
of corporations, it is seen that the centralisation of net-
working within the central unit of the corporation limits
the size of local networks to varying degrees and, thus,
the benefits of such. Irrespective of this, corporations
and enterprises achieve more innovation network bene-
fits than shops. Thus, network benefits also relate to size
and the other innovation variables described earlier, such
as professionalism. However, an important exception
from the network size–innovation relation is observed
as entrepreneurial shops which have small networks turn
out to be highly innovative. Whereas for artisanal shops,
local relations are mainly latent and represent unused
opportunities, they are for the entrepreneurial shops val-
ued as a possibility of learning and co-operatively devel-
oping products. Entrepreneurial shops therefore take a
more active approach to the networks, in particular local
ones, in using and developing them (Sørensen, 2004).
Though this may partly explain the higher innovative-
ness of the entrepreneurial shops, it is, however, also
101
apparent that the characteristics of these firms, described
earlier, provide mechanisms that take over where the
benefits of their small networks are lacking. So, while
networks may in important ways support tourism firms’
innovativeness, neither the networks nor their benefits
and consequences are independent of the characteristics
of the tourism firms.
Last, the geographical differences of networks are
evident. The tourism firms of Jammerbugten in Den-
mark have hardly established local networks and there-
fore barely benefit from such (Sørensen, 2002). Sim-
ilar research carried out on other Danish destinations
(Roskilde (Framke and Sørensen, 2002) and Bornholm
(Nilsson, 2002)) indicates that this lack of local networks
may be a widespread phenomenon in Danish destinations
(see also Bærenholdt et al., 2004). On the other hand,
in Costa del Sol, local competitive networks are well
developed and functioning. In between these extremes
are the rural destinations of Malaga where local com-
petitive networks exist without being as well developed
and without providing benefits to the same degree as
on the Costa del Sol (Sørensen, 2004). The reasons for
these differences are several: the firms of the rural des-
tinations of Malaga and of Jammerbugten are primarily
shops in contrast to the Costa del Sol. Additionally, in
the case of the Costa del Sol, an extreme spatial con-
centration of firms has facilitated the establishment of
local networks. Finally, the role of the destinations in
the minds of the managers/owners of destinations seems
relevant. In the case of the Costa del Sol, a sense of a
common belonging and commitment to the destination
is evident whereas it is not in Jammerbugten. This may
be related to the origin of the destinations. In the case
of Jammerbugten, this destination is a recent political
construct rather than a historically developed destina-
tion and its geographical borders seem to be relevant
only for political purposes and not for local firms. Thus,
while local authorities encourage the establishment of
networks within this destination, local firms do not. A
higher innovativeness of larger and of Spanish firms may
therefore partly be related to their participation in more
developed and diverse networks.
5.2. Networking in different tourism industries
As has been illustrated in the above, there are dif-
ferences between networks of firms located in differ-
ent destinations. Furthermore, according to the findings
of one of the Danish surveys, Danish tourism firms’
employ networks in their innovative activities to dif-
ferent degrees (Table 8). The most externally oriented
industries are tourist information offices, attractions and
102 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
Table 8
External relations in innovation of tourism industriesa
Denmark 1999
Tourist information 100
Attractions 92
Travel agencies 85
Transport 44
Accommodation 31
Restaurants 0
N = 98. Source: Jensen et al. (2001).
a % of firms that answer that they have participated in external net-
works in development of innovations.
travel agencies. They are either dominated by enter-
prises (attractions) or corporations (travel agencies) or
are forced to network (tourist information offices). The
traditional tourist industries, restaurants and accommo-
dation (hotels, pensions, youth hostels, camping sites),
are those that use networks the least when innovating.
However, in Denmark, these industries are dominated
by shops, which may be interpreted as being mostly arti-
sanal. By this it is indicated that different types of firms
belonging to the taxonomy possess similar networks irre-
spective of which segment of the tourism industry they
belong to. Thus, the results of the above network anal-
ysis are indicated to be valid for the tourism industry
in general. However, there are still minor differences.
These are evident in the qualitative studies where it is
observed how attractions in particular are less oriented
towards local networks. This is a result of the diversity
within destinations of the attractions and the lack of sim-
ilar attractions within the destinations.
6. Tourism innovation systems
So far, the article has dealt with innovation at the firm
and at the inter-firm levels. The following section will
consider the existence of wider innovation systems in
tourism. Thus, the discussion focuses on how regional,
national and sectoral innovation systems are relevant in
tourism, and how they may affect the innovativeness of
tourism firms. At the regional, or destination level, dif-
ferences in the composition of the firms, their spatial
concentration and their relation to institutional actors
are obvious. All of these factors seem to influence the
functioning of the regional tourism innovation system.
It is observed how firms of the rural region of Malaga
perceive themselves to be on the margin of the informa-
tion flows, which are more concentrated in the Costa del
Sol, just as are educational establishments and institu-
tional actors. This combined with the low spatial concen-
tration and the existence of many tourism shops justify a
perception of the rural destinations’ regional innovation
systems as less developed and less beneficial than is the
case of the Costa del Sol (Sørensen, 2004). The regional
tourism innovation system of Jammerbugten follows a
similar pattern to that of the rural destinations of Malaga
(Sørensen, 2002).
Another important element, related to this and to the
spatially concentrated character of the Costa del Sol,
seems to be that of collective learning through which
information becomes a public good (Capello, 1999).
Whereas processes of collective learning are not evident
in the other destinations, it is significant in the Costa
del Sol. This also seems related to a somehow culturally
based social openness characterising all the destinations
in Malaga (Sørensen, 2004), but which is not evident in
Jammerbugten where tourism firms seem to ‘mind their
own business’ (Sørensen, 2002).
A further element of the regional as well as of the
national tourism innovation system seems to be differ-
ences in public/private planning measures. These have in
the Costa del Sol involved coastal, beach, urban, traffic
and sustainable development plans (Garcı́a et al., 2004;
Barke and Towner, 1996; Barke and France, 1996). Span-
ish public policies are in general designed to support the
restructuring and diversification of the traditional mass
tourism destinations while sustaining the development of
new products such as rural or cultural tourism (Baidal,
2004). In Denmark, by contrast, tourism ‘planning’ has
mainly focused on initiatives to brand the same offer in
new manners and on offering new types of packages of
the already existing offer rather than on actually devel-
oping or renewing it. In this way, tourism planning in
Spain sustains a tourism innovation system focused on
product innovation to a higher degree than in Denmark.
Irrespective of the planning measures, the national
tourism innovation system seems less beneficial in Den-
mark: tourism education (higher and lower), research,
support industries and institutional attention towards
tourism appear less developed in Denmark. This may
be directly related to other elements of the system such
as the lower spatial concentration of the tourism firms
and the lower national economic importance of tourism
compared to Spain. Such limits of the Danish tourism
innovation system can partly explain a general lower
level of innovativeness of the tourism firms. Further-
more, at the regional as well as at the national level, the
composition of the sector (the concentration and types
of firms) varies: Danish tourism is more dominated by
shops and less by corporations and enterprises.
An important aspect is demand. As described ear-
lier, demands are of importance for the corporations
and enterprises on the Costa del Sol, which innovate
 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
according to perceptions of the demands which is in
contrast with the entrepreneurial shops where, to higher
degree, personal beliefs direct innovations (Sørensen,
2004). Furthermore, as described, different firms, pri-
marily corporations and enterprises compared to shops,
have different needs for and access to finance, technolo-
gies, information, etc. and they act according to different
values, professionalism and within varied innovation
networks. All this indicates that even firms in the same
business, such as hotels, may not be seen as participants
in the same sectoral innovation system. This is even more
so for different firms, e.g. attractions and hotels. Thus, a
perception of tourism as one sectoral innovation system
may not be a plausible one, as different tourism firms
do not operate with the same knowledge base; do not
utilise particular technologies, inputs and demands; and
do not possess similar beliefs, objectives and behaviours.
Instead, the tourism innovation system can be understood
as being comprised of a variety of sectoral innovation
systems.
It is, as such, evident that different destinations and
countries are characterised by different tourism innova-
tion systems influencing the innovativeness of tourism
firms. These characteristics of different innovation sys-
tems are, however, also partly due to the characteristics of
the firms operating within the systems, which also affect
the character of the networks as has been seen. This has
also been demonstrated by Mattsson et al. (2006) who
show how entrepreneurship creates local innovation sys-
tems. However, two entrepreneurship roles are required,
the initiator – called scene maker – and one who main-
tains the system – called the scene taker. A condition for
success in system creation is that the scene taker creates
local networks which include firms and institutions from
different industries and public authorities. The system
creation can be explained by the existence of individual
entrepreneurs and public support systems. Thus, an inti-
mate relation between firms, networks and innovation
systems is evident.
7. Conclusions and policy perspectives
This article has discussed the innovative behaviours
of tourism firms and the determinants of the innova-
tiveness. Tourism firms’ innovation behaviour is related
to size: the larger the firm, the more innovative it is.
However, this is also related to the type of firm. A tax-
onomy of tourism firms has been established according
to their organisational form and has been demonstrated
to be able to explain the innovative behaviour of tourism
firms. Tourism corporations are the most innovative fol-
lowed by tourism enterprises and tourism shops that are
103
the least innovative firms. However, among the tourism
shops, entrepreneurial shops have been distinguished as
a particular innovative type of small firm. Apart from size
and organisational form, other differences among the cat-
egories have been detected of which professionalism can
explain a large part of the variation in innovativeness.
The more professional the tourism firms are in terms of
applying business and training plans, quality control sys-
tems, academic employees, IT, etc., the more innovative
it is.
The value of networks has also been demonstrated.
The most innovative tourism firms, i.e. corporations
and enterprises participate more in local as well as
non-local networks, thus achieving larger and more
varied innovation network benefits than shops. How-
ever, entrepreneurial shops have a more active approach
towards networks than artisanal shops. Nevertheless,
tourism firms can be highly innovative even when they
possess very limited networks as the case of Spanish
entrepreneurial shops has shown. It can further be con-
cluded that innovation systems at regional (or destina-
tion) and national levels influence the innovativeness of
tourism firms. However, the tourism innovation system
may also be perceived not to be one coherent system but
instead a variety of systems, when viewed from a sectoral
innovation system approach, due to the high diversity of
tourism firms.
Among tourism firms, hotels, restaurants and trans-
port have been seen to be the most innovative. There
are, however, national differences between the innova-
tiveness of tourism firms in Denmark and Spain with
the Spanish firms being the more innovative. This can be
explained by the fact that tourism shops in Spain seem to
be more entrepreneurial while those in Denmark seem to
be more artisanal. Further, shops seem more dominant in
Denmark than in Spain, where larger and more innova-
tive corporations and enterprises are more common. The
national differences may further be explained by the fact
that Spanish tourism firms, partly related to the charac-
ter of the Spanish firms, are more network oriented and,
in particular, participate in more developed local net-
works. Furthermore, the Spanish innovation systems are
more innovation-procuring than the Danish ones. This is
partly due to the character of the firms involved in Span-
ish tourism, but can also be explained by a more offensive
tourism policy emphasising change of the whole tourism
concept, and a market stressing innovation. Thus, Span-
ish tourism has taken a planned strategic turn which
has created a focus on innovation and procured new
entrepreneurship.
The many determinants of innovation identified in
the article are intrinsically interrelated: larger size or
104 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
entrepreneurship, professionalism of varying types,
networks and favourable innovation systems are all
interdependent and interrelated determinants of the
innovativeness of tourism firms.
These conclusions indicate that innovation effort is
increased and becomes more successful if a more insti-
tutionalised innovation system (cf. Coriat and Weinstein,
2002) is developed. The comparison between Denmark
and Spain demonstrates that the tourist industry in Spain
is more innovative than the Danish one and has more
system character. The Spanish lead cannot be explained
as result of a national culture or a national innovation
system. It is caused by development of specific factors
within the tourist industry. These factors are a combina-
tion of the existence of larger corporations within Span-
ish tourist industry and a political strategy for renewing
Spanish tourism (from low class sun-and-beach to high-
class culture tourism). The latter have among others
implied a more widespread training and education sys-
tem, which has increased professionalism, which again
is connected with a larger innovation-orientation among
managers and employees. We have even observed that
formation of networks, which may be seen as a germ of
innovation systems, increases when innovation increases
because the firms need external actors and knowledge
trajectories in their innovation process (cf. Sundbo and
Gallouj, 2000). Larger firms can afford to employ peo-
ple with more education, which improve their innovation
capacity. Thus, differences in innovativeness between
tourist industries in different geographical areas such as
nations or regions may not be explained by technological
systems or supplier determination, but by social factors
such as managerial professionalism, good organisation
and a clear policy.
The latter also means that governments and other
political authorities can make a difference by creating
a proper strategy and policy for increase of innovation in
tourism (as also demonstrated in Mattsson et al., 2006).
We may on the basis of the above conclusions make some
suggestions for an innovation policy in tourism. The pol-
icy makers should emphasise education and increasing
managerial professionalism in the industry. One may fur-
ther suggest that tourist firms should be encouraged to
introduce more technology, particularly IT (e.g. Web-
sites), and social research on customer behaviour and
reactions should be supported. Still, tourist products are
mostly behavioural and dependent on user needs and
reaction, however, IT has increasingly become a means
in the interaction with the customer and may even be a
self-service instrument (cf. Fuglsang and Sundbo, 2006).
Important is that all the political effort should be wrapped
in a strategy with a clear goal thus the tourist firms know
in which direction to develop their innovations thus they
all support each other in a common development. The
innovation system in tourism should emphasise the last
part of the technology–economic network (cf. Callon et
al., 1992), namely the commercial development–market
relation. As elsewhere in the service sector, the inno-
vation system would be most efficient if it is strategy-
based and market/customer-oriented – without for-
getting the technological possibilities (cf. Sundbo,
2001).
Finally, while the general assumption that innovation
increases with firm size has been confirmed in the arti-
cle, it has also been shown how a certain type of small
tourism firm, the entrepreneurial shop, is highly inno-
vative. Smaller tourism firms have often been deemed
‘non-entrepreneurial’ and non-innovative (Shaw and
Williams, 1998; Hjalager, 2002), non-networking (Bull,
1999, p. 160), and generally responsible for a lack
of innovation in tourism (Hjalager, 2002). This article
suggests that such a one-sided view may be distorted
and that more research, to understand the dynamics of
entrepreneurial shops, may be essential. Furthermore,
these findings of the article could have important plan-
ning implications. Destination building based on large-
scale tourism firms may sustain innovative and thus
competitive tourist destinations. However, going small
may not only be beautiful but can, when sustaining
entrepreneurial shop activities, result in highly innova-
tive destinations as well.
References
Andersen, B., Howells, J., Hull, R., Miles, I., Roberts, J., 2000. Knowl-
edge and Innovation in the New Service Economy. Elgar, Chel-
tenham.
Ateljevic, I., Doorne, S., 2000. Staying within the fence-lifestyle
entrepreneurship in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8 (5),
378–392.
Barras, R., 1990. Interactive innovation in financial and business ser-
vices: the vanguard of the service revolution. Research Policy 19
(3), 215–237.
Bærenholdt, J.O., Haldrup, M.P., Larsen, J., Urry, J., 2004. Performing
Tourist Places. Ashgate, UK.
Baidal, J.A.I., 2004. Tourism planning in Spain—evolution and per-
spectives. Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 31, No. 2. Elsevier
Ltd, pp. 313–333.
Barke, M., France, L., 1996. The Costa del Sol. In: Towner, N., Newton,
M.T. (Eds.), Tourism in Spain—Critical Issues. CAB International,
Oxon, UK, pp. 265–308.
Barke, M., Towner, J., 1996. Exploring the history of leisure tourism
in Spain. In: Towner, N., Newton, M.T. (Eds.), Tourism in
Spain—Critical Issues. CAB International, Oxon, pp. 3–34.
Boden, M., Miles, I., 1999. Services and the Knowledge-Based Econ-
omy. Continuum, London.
Bull, B., 1999. Encouraging tourism development through the EU
structural funds: a case study of the implementation of EU pro-
 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
grammes on Bornholm. International Journal of Tourism Research
1, 149–165.
Callon, M., Laredo, P., Rabeharisoa, V., Gonard, T., Leray, T., 1992.
The management and evaluation of technological programs and the
dynamics of techno-economic networks: the case of the AFME.
Research Policy 21 (3), 215–236.
Capello, R., 1999. Spatial transfer of knowledge in high technology
Milieux: learning versus collective learning processes. Regional
Studies 4, 353–365.
Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmen, M., Rickne, A., 2002. Innovation
systems: analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy,
vol. 31. Elsevier, pp. 233–245.
Coe, N.M., Townsend, A.R., 1998. Debunking the Myth of Localised
Agglomerations: The Development of a Regionalised Service
Economy in South-East England in Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers, vol. 3. Institute of British Geographers,
UK, pp. 385–404.
Coriat, B., Weinstein, O., 2002. Organizations, firms and institutions
in the generation of innovation. Research Policy 31 (2), 273–
290.
Coombs, R., 1999a. Innovation in services. In: Nijmegen Lectures on
Innovation Management. Nijmegen Business School, Nijmegen.
Coombs, R., 1999. Innovation in services. Nijmegen Lectures on Inno-
vation Management. Maklu, Antwerpen.
Coombs, R., Saviotti, P., Walsh, V., 1987. Economics and Technolog-
ical Change. MacMillan Education, London, UK.
Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajecto-
ries: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions
of technical change. Research Policy 2 (3), 147–162.
Drejer, I., 2004. Identifying innovation in survey of services: a Schum-
peterian perspective. Research Policy 33 (3), 551–562.
Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., 1998. The relational view: cooperative strat-
egy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage.
Academy of Management Review 1998, 660–679.
Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D., Sandén, B., 2000.
New service development and innovation in the New Economy,
Studentlitteratur. Lund.
Edquist, C., 1997. Systems of innovation approaches—their emer-
gence and characteristics. In: Edquist, C. (Ed.), Systems of
Innovation—Technologies, Institutions, and Organizations. Pinter
Publishers, London, UK, pp. 1–35.
Fayos-Solá, E., Bueno, A.P., 2001. Globalization, national tourism
policy and international organizations. In: Wahab, S., Cooper, C.
(Eds.), Tourism in the Age of Globalisation. Routledge, London,
UK, pp. 45–65.
Fischer, M.M., 1999. The innovation process and network activities of
manufacturing firms. In: Fischer, M.M., Suarez-Villa, L., Steiner,
M. (Eds.), Innovation, Networks and Localities. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Germany.
Framke, W., Sørensen, F., 2002. Netværk i produktionen af desti-
nationer: destination Roskilde. Working Paper. TRCD, Roskilde
University, Roskilde, Denmark.
Fuglsang, L., Sundbo, J., 2006. Flow and consumer relation in E-
based self-services: new provider–consumer relations. The Service
Industries Journal 26 (4), 361–379.
Gallouj, F., 2002. Innovation in the Service Economy. Elgar, Chel-
tenham.
Gallouj, F., Weinstein, O., 1997. Innovation in services. Research Pol-
icy 26 (4–5), 537–556.
Grönroos, C., 1990. Service Management and Marketing: Managing
the Moments of Truth in Service Competition. Lexington Books,
Lexington.
105
Garcı́a, G.M., Pollard, J., Rodriquez, R.D., 2004. The planning and
practice of coastal zone management in Southern Spain. In:
Bramwell, B. (Ed.), Coastal Mass Tourism—Diversification and
Sustainable Development in Southern Europe. Channel View Pub-
lications, Cleverdon, UK, pp. 200–219.
Grabher, G., 1993. The Embedded Firm: On the Socioeconomics of
Industrial Networks. Routledge, London, UK.
Håkansson, H., Ford, D., 2002. How Should Companies Interact in
Business Networks, vol. 55. Elsevier Science Inc, pp. 133–139
(Journal of Business Research).
Hancock, M., Bager, T., 2004. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
Børsen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Haukness, J., 1998. Services in innovation—innovation in services.
SI4S Final Report. STEP-Group, Oslo.
Howells, J., 2004. Innovation, consumption and services: encapsu-
lation and the combinatorial role of services. Service Industries
Journal 24 (1), 19–36.
Howells, J., 2006. Innovation and firm consumption. In: Sundbo, J.,
Gallina, A., Serin, G., Davis, J. (Eds.), Contemporary Management
of Innovation. Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Howelles, J., Tether, B., 2004. Innovation in Services: Issues at Stake
and Trends.
Hjalager, A., 2000. Tourism destinations and the concept of industrial
districts. Tourism and Hospitality Research 2 (3), 199–213.
Hjalager, A.M., 2002. Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism.
Tourism Management 23, 465–474.
Holmen, E., Pedersen, A.-C., Torvatn, T., 2004. Building relationships
for technological innovation. Journal of Business Research 58 (9),
1240–1250.
Jacob, M., Tintoré, J., Simonet, R., Aguiló, E., 2004. Pautas de Inno-
vación en el Sector Turı́stico Balear. Estudio no. 25 de Fundación
COTEC. Madrid.
Jensen, C.F., Mattsson, J., Sundbo, J., 2001. Innovationstendenser
i dansk turisme [Innovation tendencies in Danish Tourism].
Centre of Service Studies, Roskilde University, Roskilde,
www.ssc.ruc.dk/css/.
Lattin, T.W., 1990. Hotel technology: key to survival. In: Quest, M.
(Ed.), Horwath Book of Tourism. Horwath and Horwath, London,
pp. 219–224.
Leiper, N., 1990. Tourism Systems—an interdisciplinary perspective.
Occasional Papers 1990: 2. Business Studies Faculty, Palmerston
North, New Zealand.
Lundvall, B.-Å., 1992. Introduction. In: Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.),
National Systems of Innovation—Towards a Theory of Innova-
tion and Interactive Learning. Pinter Publishers, London, UK, pp.
1–22.
Malerba, F., 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production.
Research Policy, vol. 31. Elsevier, pp. 247–264.
Maskell, P., Malmberg, A., 1999. Localised learning and industrial
competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 167–185.
Mattsson, J., Jensen, C.F., Sundbo, J., 2006. Innovation systems in
tourism: the role of the attractors and scene-takers. Industry and
Innovation 12 (3), 357–381.
Martı́nez-Ros, E., Orfila-Sintes, F., 2005. Employment skills and inno-
vation in the hotel industry. In: European Academy of Management
Conference, Munich, May 2005.
Miles, I., 1993. Services in the new industrial economy. Futures 25
(July–August), 653–672.
Milne, S., Ateljevic, I., 2001. Tourism, Economic Development and the
Global–Local Nexus: Theory Embracing Complexity in Tourism
Geographies, No. 4, vol. 2001. Taylor and Francis Ltd, pp.
369–393.
106 J. Sundbo et al. / Research Policy 36 (2007) 88–106
Miozzo, M., Soete, L., 2001. Internationalization of services. A techno-
logical perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
67 (7), 159–185.
Metcalfe, S., Miles, I., 2000. Innovation Systems in the Service Econ-
omy. Kluwer, Norwell Mass.
Morrison, A., Rimmington, M., Williams, C., 1999. Entrepreneurship
in the hospitality. In: Tourism and Leisure Industries. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 1999.
Nelson, R., 1993. National Innovation Systems. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Nilsson, P.Å., 2002. Tourism business networking and restructuring on
Bornholm. Working Paper No. 176. Tourism Research Centre of
Denmark, Publications from Geography, Department of Geogra-
phy and International Development Studies, Roskilde University,
Roskilde, Denmark.
Oinas, P., Malecki, E.J., 1999. Spatial innovation systems. In: Malecki,
E.J., Oinas, P. (Eds.), Making Connections. Ashgate, Aldershot,
UK, pp. 7–34.
Orfila-Sintes, F., Crespı́-Cladera, R., Martı́nez-Ros, E., 2005. Innova-
tion activity in the hotel industry: evidence from Balearic Islands.
Tourism Management 26 (6), 851–865.
Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a tax-
onomy and a theory. Research Policy 16 (6), 343–373.
Peréz, P.S., Llaudes, M.A., 2001. The effects of technological inno-
vations on the Spanish tourism sector in information and com-
munication technologies in tourism 2001. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference in Montreal, Canada, 2001, pp. 224–233.
Poon, A., 1993. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.
Prats-Planaguma, L., Guia, J., 2004. The destination as a local sys-
tem of innovation. In: Petrillo, C., Swarbrooke (Eds.), Networking
and partnership in destinations and development management, Pro-
ceedings of the ATLAS Annual Conference 2004. Naples.
Rowley, T., Behrens, D., Krackhardt, D., 2000. Redundant governance
structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness
in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management
Journal 21, 369–386.
Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J., 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowl-
edge management in product and organizational design. Strategic
Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue), pp. 63–76.
Schmookler, J., 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1947. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 2. ed.
Harper & Brothers, New York.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1961. The Theory of Economic Development.
Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
Sexton, D.L., Landström, H., 2000. The Blackwell Handbook of
Entrepreneurship. Blackwell, Oxford.
Shaw, G., Williams, A.M., 1994. Critical Issues in Tourism. A Geo-
graphical Perspective. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Shaw, G., Williams, A.M., 1998. Entrepreneurship, small business
culture and tourism development. In: Ioabbides, D., Debbage, K.
(Eds.), The Economic Geography of the Tourism industry. Rout-
ledge, London, UK, pp. 235–255.
SIC, 1999. Service development, internationalisation and compe-
tences. Report No. 2, Danish Service Firms’ Innovation Activities
and Use of IT, Centre of Service Studies, Roskilde University,
Roskilde. www.ssc.ruc.dk/css/sic/published.html.
Sundbo, J., 1994. Modulization of service production. Scandinavian
Journal of Management 10 (3), 245–266.
Sundbo, J., 1998. The Organisation of Innovation in Services. Roskilde
University Press, Copenhagen.
Sundbo, J., 2001. The Strategic Management of Innovation. Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Sundbo, J., Gallouj, F., 2000. Innovation as a loosely coupled sys-
tem in services. International Journal of Service Technologies and
Management 1 (1), 15–36.
Sørensen, F., 2002. Destination Jammerbugten—networks in the pro-
duction of destinations. Working Paper. Dansk Center for Turis-
meforskning, Roskilde UniversitetsCenter, Roskilde, Denmark.
Sørensen, F., 2004. Tourism Experience Innovation Networks, FS &
Ph.D. Series no. 44/2004. Department of Social Sciences, Univer-
sity of Roskilde, Roskilde, Denmark.
Taylor, F., 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper,
New York.
Tremblay, P., 1998. The Economic Organization of Tourism in Annals
of Tourism Research, No. 4, vol. 25. Elsevier Science, UK, pp.
837–859.
United Nations (UN), 1982. Transnational Corporations and Interna-
tional Tourism. United Nations, New York.
Van den Aa, W., Elfring, T., 2002. Realizing innovation in services.
Scandinavian Journal of Management 18 (2), 155–172.
von Hippel, E., 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University
Press, New York.
von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Cam-
bridge Mass.
Wahab, S., Cooper, C. (Eds.), 2001. Tourism in the Age of Globalisa-
tion. Routledge, London, UK.
Zelditch, M.J.R., 1970. Some methodological problems of field stud-
ies. In: Denzin, N.K. (Ed.), Sociological Methods—A Sourcebook.
Butterwoth & Co. Ltd., London, UK, pp. 495–511.