Abstract. This study responds to the need for theoretical and empirical research on value co-creation in tourism. Previous research has mainly adopted a perspective centred on the collaborative relationships between tourists and service providers, i.e., has been focused on a relationship called ‘one-to-one’. According to the emerging trends in value co-creation theory, value co-creation activities, however, are more complex. The research provides empirical support to previous general conceptualisations of value-creation and brings some new insights to value co-creation involving multiple actors from a perspective called ‘many-to-one’. The research is focused on the role of the most active stakeholder in transformative tourism that represents ‘many’ actors as a whole – the social movement. The paper describes a case on a transformative tourism initiative that is a particularly rich setting for expanding value-cocreation in a network of activities’ research for a more complex understanding of value networks in the tourism sector. The case study examines extensively the role of social movements in transformative tourism development through value co-creation. The findings develop a more complex value co-creation mechanism and enable the conceptualisation of the value co-creation process by identifying drivers of collaboration, value co-creation activities, and outcomes. The research demonstrates the potential of social movements for the development of transformative tourism in value co-creation and has implications for both entrepreneurs and policymakers seeking to develop transformative tourism and leaders of a new generation of social movements aiming to transform society.
Key words: business model, collaborative relationships, social movements, transformative tourism, value co-creation.
In past decades, tourism was considered the fastest growing and most widespread industry worldwide (UN World Tourism Organization, 2018) and recognised as an important driver of regional development. However, the post-industrial economy has led to the emergence of a new mode of consumption that is overturning the consumption patterns and laws of the product-oriented market (Moustaid et al., 2022). Post-industrial service economy is opposed to a linear model of mass production and mass consumption. Surveys of trends in the tourism industry show that travellers also are shifting away from mass tourism offers. Many tourists are looking for personalised offers designed according to specific client needs. In parallel with pleasure tourism developed in the industrial era, the so-called ‘serious leisure’ became a predictor of travel intentions and flow in post-industrial tourism. According to many studies, tourists are looking for services that reflect a fundamentally changing lifestyle that manifests itself by evolution towards a more complex personality and a desire to live in a more responsible and environmentally friendly way (e.g., Skift report, 2014; Perdomo, 2016; UN World Tourism Organization, 2018). Among a variety of recent scientific observations of tourism trends, the following is worth considering in this research:
[…] The serious leisure participants are committed to selected leisure activities to an extent that can influence their lives, they change their daily lives around these activities and place these activities in the center of their lives (Isik, 2018, p. 147).
In response to new needs of customers, specific innovative types and forms of tourism are emerging and are oriented on serious leisure activities. One of the newest forms of serious leisure is an emerging sub-sector of tourism called ‘transformative tourism’ (some people use the term ‘transformational tourism’). Any travel has a greater or lesser transformative effect, but the segment of transformative tourists differs by its deliberate intention to use travel for transformation. “Transformative tourism is a new form of tourism business focused on how to use the cultural and natural resources of visited places for individual or collective transformation. Transformative tourism may be defined as an innovative form of transformative learning because getting involved in transformative travels is based on the same reasons as transformative learning – frustration with the current situation and the search for innovative solutions” (Vidickiene et al., 2020, p. 279). There is a growing interest among tourists to learn about spiritual, physical, emotional, cultural, and technological self-transformation. In parallel with the individual search for the purpose of life from and through secular pilgrimage travel, the voluntary transformation of other areas of human lifestyle became popular, including alternative agriculture and eating culture, healing, eco-housing, community building culture, etc. The new generation of tourists also seek to transform their physical and emotional qualities by participating in physically challenging outdoor activities in remote or exotic locations. This kind of transformative tourism is often called ‘heroic’ or ‘adventure’ travels.
Transformative tourism can be used as a powerful catalyst for regional development, especially in peripheral territories. Delivering transformative tourism services is a low-investment business idea as it enables the creation of new livelihoods for local people by employing unused intangible and tangible resources. Alternative social and technological practices with capacity to encourage radical changes in consumption patterns, lifestyles, and values are available in every region but in many cases they are unused as business resources. Another important role of transformative tourism development is its contribution to territorial servitisation. Territorial servitisation policies have a long-term perspective as, according to studies, regions benefit from servitisation processes via the interplay of generating employment opportunities, opening up new markets, contributing to rebuilding the competitive advantage of local businesses, enabling an efficient allocation of technology resources, etc. (Vendrell-Herrero and Wilson, 2017; Lafuente et al., 2019; Gebauer and Binz, 2019; Lombardi et al., 2022).
To fully understand and exploit the potential of transformative tourism one needs to emphasize its post-industrial character. However, the examination of transformative tourism like other “current serious leisure studies focuses predominantly on individual experiences while overlooking the broader sociocultural context” (Lee, 2020, p. 77), above the fact that the new consumer behaviour paradigm has led to changes in the business model and value creation activities (Payne et al., 2008; Vargo et al., 2008). In the 21st century, essential changes occurred in business logic that shifted the value creation process from a traditional product-oriented business model to a service-oriented business one or to a Product-Service System as a combination of product-oriented and service-oriented business models. This process, called ‘servitisation’, helps product-oriented firms introduce value-adding services into their operations (Cusumano et al., 2015). Transformative tourism is the best specimen for research of post-industrial business model innovation in the tourism sector as most transformative tourism initiatives represent a radically new tourism business model based on the servitisation concept. Entrepreneurs are shifting their business focus from designing and selling only physical products to delivering a business model of ‘products plus services’, including various tourism services. Business servitisation through Product-Service System involves many new actors in the transformative tourism sector as transformative tourism covers all possible areas of transformation (cultural, physical, and spiritual). Most providers of transformative tourism services are early adopters of new technologies and ideas. They try to use the full potential of implemented product or process innovation by adding to their main activities transformative learning and hospitality services for tourists. Currently, the most popular are tourism projects dealing with green transformation (eco-settlements, natural, regenerative, and biodynamic agriculture, slow food, agroforestry, permaculture, etc.) (Palojärvi et al., 2013; Vidickiene, 2013; Skift report, 2014; Reisinger, 2015; Zeybek and Arslan, 2015).
There is no service without co-creation (Galvagno and Dalli, 2014) but previous research has mainly adopted a perspective centred on the collaborative relationships between tourists and service providers. Inspired by the service-dominant logic researchers aim to provide an insight into value co-creation, including all steps in the value co-creation process. This study responds to the need for theoretical and empirical research on the extended value co-creation process analysis in tourism. Defining a more complex picture of value co-creation enables one to focus on the role of the new important stakeholders in the transformative tourism business model – social movements. The new generation of social movements is focused on the creation, implementation and propagation of transformative practices and represent ‘many’ different stakeholders of the transformative tourism business. An analysis of value co-creation processes through collaboration between the transformative tourism service provider and the social movement enables one to examine transformative tourism through the prism of a multiple-actor perspective. The article is structured as follows. The first section introduces transformative tourism as a new form of tourism business with a focus on its post-industrial character which encourages a shift of the value creation process from a traditional product-oriented business model to a Product-Service System. The second section provides a theoretical background on why and how the integration of transformative tourism business and activities of social development movements happens and what the role of their collaboration in value co-creation processes is. The third section describes the case study methodology which is intended to examine the role of local social movement in transformative tourism development with the aim to enable the conceptualisation of the key components of the value co-creation process. The fourth section describes the case study on the transformative tourism initiative which is a particularly rich setting for extending value co-creation process analysis in tourism research for a more complex understanding. The main findings of the case study on value co-creation activities in transformative tourism through the collaboration of a small farm involved in transformative tourism business with a social movement help provide guidelines for value co-creation management. The last section gives logical explanations for the results from the case study and discusses how to fully use the potential of the new generation of social movements for the development of transformative tourism.
Value creation is the starting point for every start-up project and an essential base to support a profitable and lasting business. A breakthrough in the thinking about value creation was developed in the 21st century as the post-industrial service economy has demonstrated a shift from an exchange paradigm to a value co-creation perspective. According to the emerging trends in value creation theory, successful value creation activities currently are led by new theoretical insights into value-chain building and analysis (Saha et al., 2020). They are oriented on a value co-creation approach based on the empirical evidence that value creation is no longer only within firms’ boundaries. The first conceptualisations of value co-creation emphasized that the customer becomes a co-creator of value. In a value chain, customers and suppliers capture value from their relationships, and the relationship is the source of value creation that affects value appropriation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000, 2004; Miguel et al., 2014; Tescari and Brito, 2016; Bharti and Agrawal, 2018). Research on value co-creation in the tourism sector has also mainly adopted a perspective centred on the collaborative relationships between tourists and service providers, i.e., has been focused on the relationship called ‘one-to-one’. However, according to emerging trends in value co-creation theory, value co-creation activities are more complex. The development of relational marketing theory opens the need to focus on networks instead of dyadic relationships by looking at many-to-many and many-to-one relationships and analysing the whole context of a complex reality (Gummesson, 2007). Value is co-created in a collaborative network when many actors integrate resources through their interactions with each other. Resources may include people, technology, organisations, and shared information. The network approach emphasizes the growing input of different actors in the value creation process and the focal point of the value co-creation strategy currently is the management of relationships between the entrepreneur and other stakeholders. “Despite thorough conceptualizations of value co-creation in the service field, empirical applications showing the relationship, and interaction phenomena from a multiple actor perspective are scarce” (Pinho et al., 2014, p. 471). Tourism research especially lacks progress on this issue.
The examination of transformative tourism through the prism of a multiple-actor perspective can provide empirical support to conceptualisations of value creation. In our opinion, transformative tourism is a particularly relevant phenomenon for expanding research for a more complex understanding of value networks. In the case of small and medium-sized enterprises that dominate in transformative tourism sectors, value co-creation is a critical issue (Buonincontri et al., 2017; Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017; France et al., 2018; Gustafsson et al., 2012; Meynhardt et al., 2016; Schwetschke and Durugbo, 2018) and most transformative tourism initiatives are involved in value co-creation with customers and other stakeholders. Transformative tourism initiatives try to exploit all four theoretically defined relationships: ‘one-to-one,’ ‘many-to-many,’ ‘many-to-one,’ and ‘one-to-many.’ The co-creation of value through all the mentioned types of relationships enables them to enjoy the resources of all stakeholders.
Our research is focused on the least studied type of relationship called ‘many-to-one.’ Empirical studies (Palojärvi et al., 2013; Vidickiene, 2013, 2021; Adalilar, 2015; Zeybek and Arslan, 2015; Perdomo, 2016; Magnaye, 2019; Roysen and Cruz, 2020) have shown that the most active actor in the transformative tourism business model that represents ‘many’ actors as a whole is a new generation of social movements because they are focused on the creation, implementation, and promotion of transformative practices. National and transnational social movements, particularly the Global ecovillage movement, La Via Campesina, Slow Food, Cittaslow, and World Food Travel Association, spend a lot of effort on the transformation of unsustainable lifestyles and business models. They indicate practical ways how tourism can be used as an educational tool by creating a range of transformative learning sites attractive to tourists that are frustrated with the current situation of their daily practices. At the same time, social movements act as a catalyst for the transformation of social, economic, political, and technological patterns of regional development.
For a better understanding of why and how the integration of business and social development movements happens, the differences between the aims and activities of social movements in the industrial and post-industrial eras should be discussed. “Many people often think of social movements as synonymous with left activism” (Tilly et al., 2019, p. 167), but the progression of social movement theory emphasizes the shift from the proletarian movements of the industrial era towards collective action for a wider array of motivations (Berberoglu, 2015; Buechler, 2016). Historically, social movements have been centred on the struggle of workers against precarious working conditions, gender inequality, sex discrimination, healthcare services, social exclusion, and the privatisation of education (Cohen and Rai, 2000). Newly emerging social movements, however, are focussed on social, ecological, and cultural innovations as a response to socio-political, economic, and environmental grievances. They are organised around agendas of inclusion and are critical of mainstream systems and policies (Weaver, 2017). Social movements of the post-industrial era do not just highlight the failure of established paradigms and conventional solutions but are involved in innovation creation and implementation by pilot projects. Grassroots innovation movements seek innovation processes that are socially inclusive towards local communities in terms of the knowledge, processes, and outcomes involved (Smith et al., 2014). The participants of new-generation social movements have an entrepreneurial spirit and want to make some positive changes in the world. At the same time, they are active participants in the transformative tourism business.
The value co-created by transformative tourism service providers through collaboration with the social movement occurs as a result of various value co-creation activities and motivation to collaborate. On the one hand, value-added grassroots social and cultural innovations are driven typically by socially or economically disadvantaged people who find practical and creative solutions using modern and indigenous knowledge to solve their localised problems (Gupta, 2020, Vilke et al., 2021). Consequently, the members of social movements are very promising clients for the transformative tourism business. The intention of participants in a social movement to acquire more knowledge on different versions of alternative solutions is a strong incentive for traveling and being a client of transformative tourism initiatives. The collaboration of transformative tourism businesses with social movements is an important success factor for attracting new clients and the will to revisit. On the other hand, empirical studies have also shown that activists of social movements are successfully involved in the transformative tourism business as guides or managers (Gedminaite-Raudone and Simonaityte, 2021; Roysen and Cruz, 2020; McGehee et al., 2014; Zeybek and Arslan, 2015). They are not just sharing the transformative practices with tourists during their visits, but also communicate and support recipients over time as they adopt and adapt the practices. All the mentioned effects that generate the ‘Product-Service System’ business model and collaboration of transformative tourism business with social movements must be considered if we want to build a cumulative feedback loop between the ideas and actions of hosts involved in a specific transformative practice, tourists, and insights of social movements focusing on world change through transformation.
The case study methodology serves to provide a framework for the evaluation and analysis of complex issues and the interest in the case study as a method for generating, and the testing theory has recently gained strength in management research (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Mariotto et al., 2014). This research applies a conceptually-related case study approach as “the case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in their real-life settings” (Crowe et al., 2011, p. 1). In our opinion, the case study approach is most suitable as all key requirements of the case analysis method (Yin, 2003) are important to the analysis of the chosen research phenomenon – value co-creation from the many-to-one perspective. First, contextuality is important to the research of value co-creation; second, there is no possibility of manipulating the behaviour of the actors under study; third, this approach helps explain the object of study by seeking answers to the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ value co-creation happens. It is also worth stating that in the case study the methods commonly used include interviews, observation of archival records, and direct observation of study participants (Yin, 1994).
The case study examines the transformative tourism initiative that is a particularly rich setting for the analysis of value co-creation processes from the many-to-one perspective. The subject of the study may potentially contribute significantly to value cocreation theory-building as it offers context-specific, empirically rich, holistic accounts covering a long period (data was collected during the period from January 2019 to July 2022). To answer the key case study questions of why and how the social movement becomes a decisive factor in value co-creation for business, the following subsidiary case study questions were asked:
Each of the 6 questions corresponds to a particular stage of the life cycle of the social movement, and they serve to compose the overall holistic picture of why and how the social movement becomes a decisive factor in value co-creation for a business.
Different research methods had been combined to collect information for the case study:
In analysing data from different periods, spaces, and people, triangulation has been used. It helped the researchers develop a comprehensive understanding of phenomena and test validity through the convergence of information from different sources.
Two actors – the social movement called “Lithuanian Natural Agriculture Network” and the “Alternative Gardening” farm are key players in researching the role of social movement in transformative tourism development by value co-creation. Firstly, both actors are introduced in this section. Secondly, four steps in the value co-creation process are presented based on the analysis of the business development processes at the “Alternative Gardening” farm. Finally, the value co-creation activities is summarised for the conceptualisation of the value co-creation mechanism in a network of activities involving multiple actors from the many-to-one perspective.
The LNAN was created in 2008 as a grass-roots social movement connecting enthusiasts of natural agriculture. The LNAN is an open organisation, and it does not have a formal structure, where members of the network are considered to be all persons interested in the principles of natural agriculture, participating in the activities of the network, forums, meetings and other various activities organised by the members of the network. Natural agriculture is different from conventional or organic farming because it is based on purely natural processes. This eco-agricultural method uses no digging and hoeing; in this way, the soil keeps its own natural structure, which ensures good air circulation, humidity, and a beneficial environment for living organisms. The founders of the social movement put a lot of effort into developing and adapting the proposed agricultural methods to the Lithuanian natural resources and climate. In the beginning, the network connected people wishing to grow vegetables and fruit using natural agricultural methods. These were owners of small family farms and other stakeholders who owned and/or used a plot of the land. Later, various non-governmental organisations, private consultants, and scientific institutions involved in agroecology, or their individual representatives, began to show interest in participating in the activities of the Network.
The number of movement participants grew rapidly as interest in eating natural and healthy vegetables and fruit became popular in Lithuania. In the opinion of movement members, it makes a significant difference if you buy products in shopping centres and markets or grow vegetables and fruit by yourself using natural agriculture methods (Vidickiene et al., 2021). Along with caring for their health and eating habits, the movement participants also aim to live in a nature-friendly and sustainable manner (Vidickiene, 2013). Members of this network are continuously searching for attractive ways how to spread knowledge about natural agriculture. The movement offers practical workshops and consultations, fests with natural agriculture products tasting, an annual event of exchanging seeds and sprouts seeds of local historical varieties, etc. (Gedminaite-Raudone and Simonaityte, 2021). The movement also encourages the network participants to sell over-production to other people. The requirements for the certification of natural agriculture products have been prepared, which define agricultural technology, mandatory characteristics of the place of cultivation, and deadlines for the sales of the harvest (products grown according to the principles of natural agriculture, except for those stored for winter, should be sold no later than a day after being harvested). Commercial activities of the network have greatly expanded the diversity of network participants. Consumers of natural farming products, sellers and producers of material resources needed for this business (for example, sellers of seeds, seedlings, grass, and hay used for mulching), and service providers needed for business (small shops located in the city, transporters, etc.) joined the network. As a result, the movement evolved into a multi-lateral collaboration network that joins very different stakeholders. According to all the mentioned characteristics the social movement brings many different people with diverse motivations together to work towards a common goal and can be classified as a representative of ‘many’ for the examination of value-cocreation activities.
The “Alternative Gardening” family farm was founded as an independent business and relies primarily on family labour. In the analysis of value-cocreation activities, it can be classified as a representative of the ‘one’. The farm was founded in 2010 when the family decided to build a house and move to live on the inherited agricultural land in the eastern part of Lithuania, Vilnius county. The land is located in a hilly area where traditional farming would be difficult, but it favours organic agriculture because in the neighbouring area there were no traditional farms that used a lot of chemical fertilizers or pesticides. The founders of this farm were interested in nature-friendly agriculture and healthy food but had little experience in chemical-free gardening. They have found that getting more knowledge on this issue could help the LNAN. They became members and actively participated in all activities organised by the social movement. As a result, the family learned a lot about natural agriculture and became an advocate for clean and healthy agriculture and a nature-friendly lifestyle. Inspired by the experiences of other movement participants, the “Alternative Gardening” farm has started to grow vegetables, fruit and berries for sale, applying the principles of natural agriculture.
The farm is an example of collaboration with a social movement. The social movement acted as a major catalyst for innovative approaches and a value co-creator during all the stages of the farm business life cycle: start-up, growth, and maturity. In the beginning, the mix of products and services was used to create value for customers making agricultural products according to their orders. The business servitisation has been inspired by the Lithuanian Natural Agriculture Network social movement. Currently, the farm applies the ‘Product-Service System’ business model that provides for the delivery of agricultural products and services. Later, the movement helped to design services attractive to tourists and the farm supplemented agricultural business with transformative tourism services. Currently, when the farm entered the maturity stage, collaboration with the movement helps with customer retention. The process in detail, including the drivers of collaboration between the farmer and the social movement, value co-creation activities, and the outcomes, are described in the following sections.
The LNAN is encouraging people to produce high-quality products not only for themselves but also for sale. However, the movement participants have experienced that the starting of natural farming is a very risky business idea. Vegetables, fruit, and berries that are grown according to the principles of natural agriculture are completely new products to the Lithuanian food market and it is difficult to find enough buyers. The quantities of production are very small and it is difficult to predict exactly when a vegetable or fruit will grow and ripen. Consequently, it is impossible to sell them via traditional channels by making contracts with supermarkets or e-commerce stores. The sale of natural farming products at farmers’ markets is also complicated as potential buyers do not believe that the products are different from regular ones. Therefore, the movement participants looked for non-traditional ways of selling. In 2011, the network started to organise its own commercial system based on a made-to-order strategy. This business model is based on the servitisation concept and requires a shift from a product-oriented farming business model to an innovative service-oriented farming one.
The movement participants tested several ordering systems with natural agriculture products and the founders of “Alternative Gardening” were active actors in the experimentation process. Like other movement participants, in the beginning, the family organised the farming activities according to the traditional product-oriented farming business model consisting of growing and selling the harvest at an anonymous market. Marketing activities have started with efforts to sell a part of the harvest in a farmers’ market. It did not take a long to see that this way was not working. The farmers also explored marketing through the farm’s website, which enabled people to order farm-grown products. However, the ordering process was very vague; the comments on the website indicated that the main obstacles were a lack of knowledge about natural agriculture products and the need to trust an unknown producer. During the discussions with other movement participants, the farmers developed an vegetable basket subscription idea. In the beginning, they asked customers in early spring to declare how many baskets of vegetables they would buy, how often, and what content and size of the baskets would be. This business model helps obtain information at the beginning of the season on how much and what vegetables need to be grown and reduces the risk of losses due to unsold production. But later it became clear that the formation of individual baskets was a very complicated and labour-intensive process. Therefore, the family decided to standardise the baskets of vegetables. The “Alternative Gardening” farm implemented an online ordering system and started providing product delivery services. In the farmers’ opinion, a combination of product-oriented and service-oriented business models in a ‘Product-Service System’ is the only way to sell products of natural agriculture because they are unknown to the mass market customer. The implementation of this innovative business model led to farm business growth and increased the long-term value of their businesses.
While a business model represents the “design or architecture of the value creation, delivery, and capture mechanisms” of a firm (Teece, 2010, p. 172), value creation through the evolution of the business model is an important issue for the LNAN. The experimentation with different versions of the business model is one of the key value creation activities as it generates higher-order value by spreading innovations in business and agriculture while increasing the number of natural agriculture farms in Lithuania.
The second important input to value creation by the collaboration of the “Alternative Gardening” farm with the Lithuanian Natural Agriculture Network was generated by the joint design of new services. In the start-up stage, the farm founder identified that an important challenge to business development was high production and marketing costs. Natural farming is very labour intensive as farms does not use machinery. The applied make-to-order business model also requires labour-intensive product delivery services and a lot of marketing efforts. After assessing the business operational costs, the farmers decided that they needed to reduce the costs significantly. The solution to the question of how to cut operating costs was found in close collaboration with participants of the LNAN. It was based on the idea of starting providing transformative tourism services at the farm as part of the social movement activities.
Since its establishment, the movement has organised and run various seminars on natural agriculture. According to the experience of the organisers, participants do not like sitting in a lecture hall but prefer training workshops because they offer the possibility of ‘learning by doing.’ However, the gardens of active lecturers are too small to develop the skills of the participants through practical actions. There is a need for more locations for gardening practices if the movement wants to organise attractive and effective courses on natural agriculture. The “Alternative Gardening” farm is the perfect location for training on natural agriculture. The collaboration started with short visits as a demonstration of a natural garden for the participants of the courses. Later, the range of educational services provided on the farm was expanded. Accommodation services have also been introduced: anyone who wants to see how vegetables, fruits, and berries are grown according to the principles of natural gardening can rent a holiday home. If tourists express a desire to contribute to natural farming through their work, they can stay in the summer house for free.
The newly introduced services can be defined as transformative tourism services because the farm became a travel destination for learning how to transform industrial agrotechnology into more permaculture. They include the following transformative learning services:
All the services have been developed through collaboration with the movement participants. Adding to natural farming transformative tourism services, the farm has succeeded in bringing several benefits to the business. In particular, they were manifested in the reduction of operational costs. First, tourism services enabled them to cut the cost of product delivery as tourists bought a lot of products after the farm tour and brought them home themselves. Another benefit deals with volunteering work, while farmers reduces the cost of work. Volunteers also help farmers avoid hard and routine agricultural procedures and they have the time for other tasks important to the farm business. In the farmers’ opinion, diversification of farming activities allows them to better manage their business risks and helps generate a higher level of income. Adding transformative tourism services to the main business brought not only financial but many non-financial benefits, including an opportunity to maintain a desirable lifestyle and promote it in the society.
The development of transformative tourism services at the “Alternative Gardening” farm has also created added value for the social movement. The participants of the LNAN especially emphasize the role of partnership in the development of agricultural advisory services with the aim to enhance innovative agriculture and its products in Lithuania. Transformative tourism initiative at the “Alternative Gardening” farm created new opportunities for people to learn about natural agriculture. The value co-creation activities focused on the design of new services increased the number of movement participants and inspired them to become advocates of natural agriculture. Collaboration in providing agricultural advisory services also resulted in modelling new joint business projects that involved a group of movement participants.
The set of designed transformative tourism services was an effective tool to increase business profitability by cost reduction, however, the farm identified a new important barrier to business growth – the lack of customer flow. The next step in collaboration with the social movement was a search for solutions on how to overcome said barrier.
The efforts for acquiring clients for transformative tourism services and new customers for natural agriculture products were another significant stage in the collaboration of the farm with the social movement. At this stage, the main driver of collaboration was the need for direct contact with people interested in natural agriculture as the farmers decided to apply a market segmentation strategy. In their opinion, the best place to reach the target audience were the events organised by the LNAN. The founders of “Alternative Gardening” focused on marketing activities during the lectures, seminars, training, and fests on natural agriculture by encouraging event participants to come to the farm for transformative experiences and natural agriculture products. Direct contact with event participants is an advantageous value co-creation mechanism because it helps:
Both mentioned aspects are especially valuable for the volunteering component in transformative tourism. Volunteers can be a huge help on the farm but not in all cases. People with an elementary knowledge of natural agriculture can get a surprising amount of work done in a small amount of time. But a volunteer having no basics of natural agriculture who arrives individually and only for a couple of hours will achieve less than the farmer could in the time spent explaining the task and making them feel welcome.
The farmers have realised that live communication with movement participants is a very important element of the farm business. Attending events organised by the LNAN help create an emotional connection and build mutual trust between the farmer and potential clients of transformative tourism services. It works as an effective acquisition marketing channel because it targets people who have heard of natural agriculture and convert them into paying clients for transformative tourism services and new customers for natural agriculture products. Moreover, the cost of this customer acquisition channel is low.
Inspired by the success of the “Alternative Gardening” farm and several other farms involved in natural agriculture, the Lithuanian Natural Agriculture Network started special marketing campaigns. Joint marketing campaigns use both online and offline customer acquisition channels. They took place on social media channels using the Facebook platform of the LNAN, or as events where network participants endorsed and supported each other by sharing their experiences. The “Alternative Gardening” farm often is the host of joint events. The marketing campaigns and other events result in more intensive interactions among movement participants and make movement activities more attractive. They help increase the number of active movement participants and amplify customer commitment to the natural agriculture value proposition.
The experience of hosting and attending the seminars and other events organised by the movement inspired the next step in the collaboration between the “Alternative Gardening” farm and the Lithuanian Natural Agriculture Network.
A customer acquisition channel is any place where businesses meet their customers for the first time. However, finding a new customer is not enough. The business should nurture them into trusted, profitable repeat business. After the growth stage, customer retention became a serious challenge to the “Alternative Gardening” farm. It is looking for creative solutions on how to retain the acquired customers for a long time and make them purchase the farm’s products and services regularly. According to relationship marketing theory, networking is a common strategy for growing a small business, but small business owners do not always think of networking in relation to customer retention. The owners of the “Alternative Gardening” farm avoided this mistake. In the farmers’ opinion, collaboration with participants of the social movement helps with customer retention, including customers of transformative tourism services and customers of natural agriculture products, because, during visits to the farm, tourists buy agricultural products. Active participation in the activities of the LNAN is the best way to retain both groups of customers by value co-creation based on loyalty, satisfaction, and experience.
The main driver to continue collaboration is the wish to get new ideas on how to improve the services of transformative tourism and delivery of natural agriculture products. From the farm’s perspective, collaboration with other movement participants on customer retention is the key to value creation in the most productive way. Good group brainstorming sessions give the opportunity to make a comparative analysis with other similar businesses and consider how the farm can operate better, faster, and cheaper. Discussions on the weaknesses and strengths of the natural agriculture business are valuable sources of ideas on how to make transformative tourism services more attractive. For example, the special shadowing technique has been designed for the training of transformative tourists on specific agricultural operations. According to this advanced teaching method, the training is organised as a process when a tourist repeats what the farmer is doing in the garden, i.e., acts like a farmer’s shadow. The original teaching method attracts more clients because it creates value for them by facilitating learning. Moreover, the innovative teaching method covers a lot of different gardening operations that are dependant on the season. Real enthusiasts of natural agriculture want to learn all the operations. As a result, the innovative transformative tourism service is making an emotional connection with potential customers of farm products and services, building customer trust, and creating long-term relationships with the clients. Increased quality of transformative tourism services helps to involve new members in the natural agriculture movement because “getting involved in transformative travels is based on the same reasons as transformative learning – frustration with the current situation and the search for something new” (Vidickiene et al., 2020, p. 279).
The discussions are creating new possibilities for movement participants to learn from each other and inspire service redesign or new service designs according to the most interesting ideas. They have already resulted in value co-creation through several joint business maintenance decisions. One especially successful was to start to jointly managing delivery services which helped save resources for involved participants of the LNAN and increased the quality of services. In the opinion of the movement’s leaders, all the mentioned collaboration activities are relevant and important to the social movement as new tools for the reorganisation of the Lithuanian food system towards more organic food supply and spreading the ideas of a healthier, cleaner, and more sustainable life in the region.
The examination of the farm business model development shows how the social movement enables the farm to enjoy the knowledge, competencies, and tangible resources of movement participants for value creation. Movement participants are actively engaged in farming processes, especially as a source of knowledge. They play different roles, and the farmers have the opportunity to more deeply recognise the aspirations, needs, inspirations, and behaviours of the following key stakeholders: producers, sellers, and customers of natural agriculture products, transformative tourists, and sellers and producers of material resources needed for this business.
The case study findings explain why and how collaboration helps the emergence and development of a transformative tourism business through the prism of the business model. The case analysis showed that the collaboration of the innovative farm with the social movement was based on intensive interaction for the development of the following business model components: 1) business model innovation, 2) design of transformative tourism services, 3) customer acquisition, and 4) customer retention. The identified business model components evolve as a step-by-step process which represents different stages of the transformative tourism business life cycle. During the stage of business model innovation, the farmers built their skills in customer service providing delivery of agricultural products and made-to-order services. The shift to the ‘Product-Service System’ business model created the conditions for the development of the service business. The second business model component has been created during the next stage of the farm’s business life cycle as the design of transformative tourism services. The collaboration of the farmers with participants of the social movement encouraged the former to start providing transformative tourism with services at the farm and made a significant contribution to value creation. The third stage of business model development was devoted to customer acquisition. The collaboration was helpful not only for the attraction of new transformative tourists. During visits to the farm, the tourists bought agricultural products and recommended them to their friends. The fourth stage of business model development was focused on customer retention. Collaboration increased the quality of services and helped build long-term relationships with customers.
The findings of the case study identify the value co-creation mechanism in collaboration between the small innovative farm and a social movement, and can be used as guidelines for transformative tourism business development by value co-creation management. The guidelines are suitable for various kinds of transformative tourism services, not only in the field of agriculture. The empirical studies (e.g., Palojärvi et al., 2013; Vidickiene, 2013; Reisinger, 2015; Zeybek and Arslan, 2015; Vilke et al., 2021) show that collaboration between the new generation of social movements and business entities that put ideas of movements into practice is evolving through similar pathways independently of the area of transformation. The value co-creation mechanism consisting of drivers of collaboration, value co-creation activities, and outcomes as value for the innovative business entity and the social movement is presented in Table 1.
| Business model components | Drivers of collaboration | Value co-creation activities | Outcomes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value for the business entity | Value for the social movement | |||
| Business model innovation | Risks of starting a new business | Acquisition and transfer of knowledge during training and seminars | Combination of product-oriented and service-oriented business models | • Spread of business model innovations • Increased number of innovative business entities |
| Design of transformative tourism services | High costs | • Common events for transformative tourists • Modelling of new joint business projects |
• Cost reduction • Diversification of activities |
• New opportunities for people to learn about product, process and business model innovations • Increased number of movement participants |
| Customer acquisition | The need for direct contact with people interested in innovative products and services | • Experience sharing • Joint marketing campaigns |
• Emotional connection with potential customers • Customer trust |
• More intensive interactions among movement participants • Increased number of active movement participants • Customer commitment to the innovative products and services |
| Customer retention | Aspiration to improve service quality | • Discussions on weaknesses and strengths of similar businesses • Joint service (re)design according to the most interesting ideas • Joint business maintenance decisions |
• Long-term relationships with customers through innovative services of transformative tourism • Joint projects for delivery and marketing of innovative products and services | • New possibilities for movement participants to learn from each other • Desirable transformations in thinking and behaviour in society, e.g., reorganization of the Lithuanian food system toward a more organic food supply |
The findings of the case study help better understand the value co-creation mechanism from the ‘many-to-one’ perspective for several types of stakeholders, including business entities, the new generation of social movements, and policymakers. Guidelines for business entities emphasises value co-creation management in different stages of innovation-oriented business development. The research findings show that value co-creation activities and outcomes are different at each stage. Using a value co-creation approach that is oriented on the ‘many-to-one’ relationship, a business model can be tailored to the specific needs of strategic management at each stage of the business life cycle. The research results also provide some guidelines from the ‘many-to-one’ perspective for the management of new-generation social movements focused on the creation and implementation of innovations by pilot projects. The case study findings explain how collaborative value creation activities help the social movement achieve the overall goal through multi-lateral collaboration network activities because the movement participants can play many roles and receive individual benefits depending on their roles in value-co-creation activities. For example, in the study case, the participants of the LNAN collaborate as transformative tourists, farmers, food customers, distributors, etc. to achieve the overall goal – the popularisation of natural agriculture in Lithuania. The findings of the case study are also informative for scholars and policymakers interested in how to promote the revitalisation of farming by territorial servitisation. All the mentioned outcomes that generate collaboration of transformative tourism business with social movements must be considered and used as tools for the development of rural and remote regions through new solutions of regional, rural, and innovation policies.
Transformative tourism is a brand new branch of the tourism industry, but it has great potential to be developed in the post-industrial environment. “Transformative tourism development policies have a long-term perspective as regions benefit by enabling an efficient allocation of intangible resources, generating employment opportunities, opening up new markets, contributing to the sustainability of local small businesses, etc.” (Vidickiene et al., 2021, p. 738). However, this type of tourism requires a different value creation mechanism than the one currently dominant. A review of transformative tourism initiatives shows that key players in the development of transformative tourism are not traveling agencies, but lifestyle entrepreneurs involved in the creation and implementation of various innovations. Most of them use the innovative business model of ‘Product Service System’ and employ value co-creation (Reisinger, 2015; Perdomo, 2016; Vidickiene et al., 2019; Vidickiene et al., 2020). Moreover, in contrast to mass tourism focused on the ‘one-to-one’ perspective, which employs collaboration with customers or other businesses, the best partners in the value co-creation activities are the social movements of a new generation as they offer a platform for the transformation of thinking and behaviour. The value co-creation theory still lacks practical guidance on how to build a value co-creation strategy from the ‘many-to-one’ perspective and managers of transformative tourism projects must use the trial-and-error method.
This article aims to fill the cognitive gap in the value-based management of the relationship between transformative tourism business and social movements. The research findings demonstrate the huge potential of the new generation of social movements for the development of transformative tourism in value co-creation. The research findings are suitable for various kinds of transformative tourism services as a conceptually-related case study approach helps capture the general value co-creation mechanism in a network of activities. The research enables the conceptualisation of the value co-creation process by identifying drivers of collaboration, value co-creation activities in a multi-lateral collaboration network, and outcomes by answering the questions of why and how a social movement becomes a decisive factor for transformative tourism development via a value co-creation process. This systematic knowledge can be used as guidelines on how to facilitate the value proposition offered by several groups of stakeholders:
Study results indicate a more complex value co-creation framework in comparison with value co-creation from the ‘one-to-one’ perspective and enable further development of the value co-creation concept in complex environments with multiple actors. Naturally, the empirical results reported herein should consider some limitations to the generalisation of the value co-creation mechanism as the research findings are based on a single case study. Research limitations from the many-to-one perspective could be addressed in future research based on multiple case studies.
ADALILAR, S. N., ALKIBAY, S. and ESER, Z. (2015), ‘Ecovillages as a Destination and a Study of Consumer Approaches to Ecovillages’, Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, pp. 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00561-4
BERBEROGLU, B. (2015), ‘Social movements and transformation in the age of globalization: Origins, dynamics, and mobilization’, International Review of Modern Sociology, 41 (1), pp. 55−77.
BHARTI, K. and AGRAWAL, R. (2018), ‘High customer involvement: an essential element for effective co-creation’, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 15 (4), pp. 431−451. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2018.090460
BUECHLER, S. M. (2016), Understanding social movements: Theories from the classical era to the present, New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315631387
BUONINCONTRI, P., MORVILLO, A., OKUMUS, F. and VAN NIEKERK, M. (2017), ‘Managing the experience co-creation process in tourism destinations: Empirical findings from Naples’, Tourism Management, 62, pp. 264−277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.04.014
CAMILLERI, J. and NEUHOFER, B. (2017), ‘Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing economy’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29 (9), pp. 2322−2340. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0492
COHEN, R. and RAI, S. M. (2000), Global social movements, London and New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone Press.
CROWE, S., CRESSWELL, K., ROBERTSON, A., HUBY, G., AVERY, A. and SHEIKH, A. (2011), ‘The case study approach’, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11 (100), pp. 1−9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
CUSUMANO, M. A., KAHL, S. J. and SUAREZ, F. F. (2015), ‘Services, industry evolution, and the competitive strategies of product firms’, Strategic Management Journal, 36 (4), pp. 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2235
EISENHARDT, K. M. and GRAEBNER, M. E. (2007), ‘Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges’, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), pp. 25−32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
FRANCE, C., GRACE, D., MERRILEES, B. and MILLER, D. (2018), ‘Customer brand co-creation behavior: Conceptualization and empirical validation’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 36 (4), pp. 334–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-10-2017-0266
GALVAGNO, M. and DALLI, D. (2014), ‘Theory of Value Co-Creation: A Systematic Literature Review’, Managing Service Quality, 24, pp. 643−683. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-09-2013-0187
GEBAUER, H. and BINZ, C. (2019), ‘Regional benefits of servitization processes: evidence from the wind-to-energy industry’, Regional Studies, 53 (3), pp. 366−375. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1479523
GEDMINAITE-RAUDONE, Z. and SIMONAITYTE, V. (2021), ‘Industrial Rural Development Paradigm Shift-Focused Social Movements’, [in:] Rural Economic Developments and Social Movements, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 212−219. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71983-8_7
GUMMESSON, E. (2007), ‘Exit services marketing-enter service marketing’, Journal of Customer Behaviour, 6 (2), pp. 113−141. https://doi.org/10.1362/147539207X223357
GUPTA, S. (2020), ‘Understanding the feasibility and value of grassroots innovation’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, pp. 941−965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00639-9
GUSTAFSSON, A., KRISTENSSON, P. and WITELL, L. (2012), ‘Customer co-creation in service innovation: A matter of communication?’ Journal of Service Management, 23 (3), pp. 311−327. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231211248426
ISIK, U. (2018), ‘How to Be a Serious Leisure Participant? (A Case Study)’, Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6 (9), pp. 146−151. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i9.3453
LAFUENTE, E., VAILLANT, Y. and VENDRELL-HERRERO, F. (2019), ‘Territorial servitization and the manufacturing renaissance in knowledge-based economies’, Regional Studies, 53 (3), pp. 313−319. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1542670
LEE, K. (2020), ‘Serious leisure is social: Things to learn from the social world perspective’, Journal of Leisure Research, 51 (1), pp. 77−87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2019.1633233
LOMBARDI, S., SANTINI, E. and VECCIOLINI, C. (2022), ‘Drivers of territorial servitization: An empirical analysis of manufacturing productivity in local value chains’, International Journal of Production Economics, 253, 108607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108607
MAGNAYE, D. C. (2019), ‘Climate Smart Agriculture Edu-tourism: A Strategy to Sustain Grassroots Pro-biodiversity Entrepreneurship in the Philippines, 203-218’, [in:] Cultural Sustainable Tourism, Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10804-5_20
MARIOTTO, F. L., ZANNI, P. P. and MORAES, G. H. S. (2014), ‘What is the use of a single-case study in management research?’ Revista de Administração de Empresas, 54, pp. 358−369. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020140402
MCGEHEE, N. G., KLINE, C. and KNOLLENBERG, W. (2014), ‘Social movements and tourism-related local action’, Annals of Tourism Research, 48, pp. 140−155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.004
MEYNHARDT, T., CHANDLER, J. D. and STRATHO, P. (2016), ‘Systemic principles of value co-creation: Synergetics of value and service ecosystems’, Journal of Business Research, 69 (8), pp. 2981–2989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.031
MIGUEL, P. L. S., BRITO, L. A. L., FERNANDES, A. L., TESCARI, F. V. C. S. and MARTINS, G. S. (2014), ‘Relational value creation and appropriation in buyer-supplier relationships’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 44 (7), pp. 559−576. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-09-2012-0291
MOUSTAID, F. E. Z., LEBZAR, B. and MOISSERON, J. Y. (2022), ‘From Conspicuous Consumption to Solidarity Consumption: Literature Review’, International Journal on Engineering, Science and Technology, 4 (1), pp. 64−72. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonest.77
PALOJÄRVI, A., PYYSIÄINEN, J. and SALORANTA, M. (eds.) (2013), Experiences with ecological technologies and practices: inspiring stories from ecovillages, Vilnius: LAEI.
PAYNE, A. F., STORBACKA, K. and FROW, P. (2008), ‘Managing the co-creation of value’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), pp. 83−96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
PERDOMO, Y. (ed.) (2016), Global Report on the Transformative Power of Tourism: A Paradigm Shift Towards a More Responsible Traveller, Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
PINHO, N., BEIRÃO, G., PATRÍCIO, L. and FISK, R. P. (2014), ‘Understanding value co-creation in complex services with many actors’, Journal of Service Management, 25 (4), pp. 470−493. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-02-2014-0055
PRAHALAD, C. K. and RAMASWAMY, V. (2000), ‘Co-opting customer competence’, Harvard Business Review, 78 (1), pp. 79−87.
PRAHALAD, C. K. and RAMASWAMY, V. (2004), ‘Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), pp. 5−14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
REISINGER, Y. (ed.) (2015), Transformational tourism: Host perspectives, Wallingford: Cabi. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780643922.0000
ROYSEN, R. and CRUZ, T. C. (2020), ‘Educating for transitions: ecovillages as transdisciplinary sustainability «classrooms»’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21 (5), pp. 977−992. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2020-0009
SAHA, V., MANI, V. and GOYAL, P. (2020), ‘Emerging trends in the literature of value co-creation: a bibliometric analysis’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27, pp. 981−1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2019-0342
SCHWETSCHKE, S. and DURUGBO, C. (2018), ‘How firms synergise: Understanding motives and management of co-creation for business-to-business services’, International Journal of Technology Management, 76 (3/4), pp. 258–284. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2018.091289
SKIFT REPORT (2014), The rise of experiential travel. Skift and Peak Adventure Travel Group, https://skift.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/skift-peak-experiential-traveler-report1.pdf [accessed on: 7.09.2022].
SMITH, A., FRESSOLI, M. and THOMAS, H. (2014), ‘Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, pp. 114−124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.025
TEECE, D. J. (2010), ‘Business models, business strategy and innovation’, Long Range Planning, 43 (2–3), pp. 172−194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
TESCARI, F. V. C. S. and BRITO, L. A. L. (2016), ‘Value creation and capture in buyer-supplier relationships: A new perspective’, RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, 56 (5), pp. 474−488. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-759020160503
TILLY, C., CASTAÑEDA, E. and WOOD, L. J. (2019), Social Movements, 1768-2018, New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429297632
UN WORLD TOURISM ORGANIZATION (2018), UNWTO Tourism Highlights, Madrid, https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284422456 [accessed on: 7.09.2022].
VARGO, S. L., MAGLIO, P. P. and AKAKA, M. A. (2008), ‘On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective’, European Management Journal, 26 (3), pp. 145−152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003
VENDRELL-HERRERO, F. and WILSON, J. R. (2017), ‘Servitization for territorial competitiveness: Taxonomy and research agenda’, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 27 (1), pp. 2−11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-02-2016-0005
VIDICKIENE, D. (ed.) (2013), Living in harmony: inspiring stories from ecovillages, Vilnius: BMK.
VIDICKIENE, D., GEDMINAITE-RAUDONE, Z. and SIMONAITYTE, V. (2019), Servitization of farming: manifestations of the business model «Product plus services» in Lithuania, Vilnius: LAEI.
VIDICKIENE, D., GEDMINAITE-RAUDONE, Z., VILKE, R., CHMIELINSKI, P. and ZOBENA, A. (2021), ‘Barriers to Start and Develop Transformative Ecotourism Business’, European Countryside, 13 (4), pp. 734−749. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2021-0039
VIDICKIENE, D., VILKE, R. and GEDMINAITE-RAUDONE, Z. (2020), ‘Transformative Tourism as an Innovative Tool for Rural Development’, European Countryside, 12 (3), pp. 277–291. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0016
VILKE, R., VIDICKIENE, D., GEDMINAITE-RAUDONE, Z., SIMONAITYTE, V. and RIBASAUSKIENE, E. (2021), Rural Economic Developments and Social Movements: A New Paradigm, Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71983-8
WEAVER, P. (2017), Transformative Change for an Inclusive Society: Insights from Social Innovations and Implications for Policy Innovation and innovation Policy, TRANSIT working paper # 9, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.
ZEYBEK, O. and ARSLAN, M. (2015), Ecovillages: The Place Where Ecotourism Turns Into Educational Tourism, Macodesu: Karadeniz Technical University.
