**5. Discussion and conclusion**

The sustainability destination label has offered Norwegian tourism destinations a context in which learning for sustainable innovation can take place. The findings of this study suggest that this learning is somewhat hampered by disrupting factors in the certification process. We have presented three barriers to learning, suggesting that learning outcomes of the process of becoming more sustainable could be more profound if knowledge sharing and learning experiences would not be disrupted. **Figure 1** shows these barriers on a timeline. Barriers to learning lie in past experiences, present practices of knowledge relevance and ideas about the future that are shaped by ambitions.

User experiences can be seen as action-personal forces that depend on the absorptive capacity and expertise of tourism actors. Knowledge integration depends on structural-organizational aspects like relationships and knowledge connections between actors. The sustainability ambitions of actors are embedded in cultural and societal aspects that characterize their environment. Barriers to learning emerge therefore on different levels and are influenced by different types of forces. One common characteristic of barriers is that they are continuously evolving. This chapter seeks to spark further conceptual and empirical debate around how tourism businesses in destinations learn for sustainability, and how this is anchored in an ongoing process. Innovation for sustainability is a road with many bumps and barriers that require reconsideration, resilience and creativity of the actors who are embarked on the journey. We applied the concept of the learning tourism destination (LTD) as a vehicle to develop an understanding of how tourism businesses learn from a sustainable certification project at the cluster or destination level. The LTD can form a useful framework and methodology for building consensus, dialog and collective learning processes among stakeholders [19]. When stakeholders are aware that they are part of a LTD, they have a better opportunity to express their concerns and provide information for the decision-making process than in destinations that are not focused on learning. In the case context of sustainably certified destinations in Norway, the LTD was not applied as a methodology for enhancing sustainability, which affected the user experiences of the different stakeholders.

*Barriers to Interorganizational Learning for Innovation: A Case Study of a Sustainable Tourism… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112555*

**Figure 1.** *Learning barriers in the sustainability process.*

Knowledge and learning come from people and their relationships with each other and their experiences. Sadd et al. [48] conclude that tourism is a late adopter of knowledge management and the ability and willingness to share knowledge appears less collaborative in nature in tourism destinations. Shared experiences, allowing for the co-creation of knowledge would then overcome the challenge of knowledge integration between different stakeholders. However, the certification project was dominated by managers (Innovation Norway, municipalities and DMOs) without much focus on co-creating knowledge about sustainability within the destinations. The certification scheme and project form the context in which the cluster must find meaning that fits their unique situation instead of adopting a one size fits all approach to sustainability. This requires that stakeholders with different perspectives and knowledge truly come together and collaboratively form a strategy – in other words, to co-create knowledge [48]. The learning regions' literature recognizes that governance should shift away from traditional administrative and regulatory functions towards enabling and facilitating knowledge exchange [9, 18]. However, enabling and facilitating knowledge is not an easy task for governmental organizations that find themselves in the middle of different networks, values and knowledge cultures. We saw that knowledge sticks often to governmental organizations and learning takes mostly place between organizations responsible for the certification.

Sustainability was understood differently between stakeholders, which makes it difficult to develop a shared vision of the concept. A common vision can be developed through certification at the business level, but we see that the certifications that are offered, are ill-fitting the type of tourism activities and tourism businesses at the destination level. Hospitality businesses often have a business-level certification that assists them on their path to sustainability. It fits their activities challenges, and possibilities. While the micro-sized experience-based companies fall out because they are too small, it is too costly for them to start the certification process, or the certification does not fit with their activities that are often a combination of different things.

It is necessary that all voices are gathered around the table and that their complex and often conflicting requirements are considered [48]. The management of the sustainability certification process dominated much of the discussion, and tourism businesses were only brought in to disseminate information in the later stages of the process. In the spirit of the learning destination, the involvement of all actors when for example discussing prioritization of sustainability issues and values will be positive. We support the conclusion of Cooper on the benefits of knowledge management for tourism innovation (2018) and in order to transform into a sustainable destination where values mean more than what is written on the wall (value statements in certification programs) stakeholders need to develop a trusting, learning and sharing culture through the collective intelligence and knowledge of the people and organizations who make up the destination.
