Capturing Change in European Food Assistance Practices: A
Transformative Social Innovation Perspective
The food system’s decreasing ability to deliver food security has led to the emergence of food assistance initiatives. Food assistance is highly contested, as some argue it is a ‘failure of the state’, while others regard food assistance to be an ‘extension of the welfare state’. Either way, research suggests that actors within food assistance are rethinking their role in the food system. In this paper, we study three food assistance initiatives, in the Netherlands, Italy and Ireland, that perform new food assistance practices while embedded in specific institutional contexts, and analyse their potential to transform the food system, drawing on Transformative Social Innovation theory. Building on transition and social innovation theory, this recently developed theory distinguishes different levels within systems, named ‘shades of change’, that are associated with societal transformation. By exploring these ‘shades’ of change in the analysis, we describe aspects of the initiatives’ novel practices, and in relation to the initiative and institutional relations their motivations and expectations. We compare the three cases and discuss how food assistance practices relate to and change (or don’t change) the food system. In particular, we elaborate on how these three food assistance initiatives contribute in various ways to local food and welfare system innovation. In doing so, we offer a novel perspective on food assistance initiatives. We argue they show dynamics that have the potential for more substantial transformation towards food security over time, by building momentum through ‘small wins’.
Key words: food assistance, social innovation, food systems, transformative dynamics, food poverty
Introduction
In recent years there has been an increase in people needing food assistance in Europe and this paper aims to provide an understanding of the transformative potential of these initiatives (Caraher and Cavicchi 2014; Lambie-Mumford and Dowler 2015). Although food security is the main goal of the food system, there are non-food related socio-economic and ecological drivers that provide a context for food systems activities (such as production, processing and packaging, retailing and distributing, and consuming), but
which also have considerable impact on food security (Ingram 2011, 420). The increasing need for food assistance in high income countries is not a matter of availability of food, but a consequence of inadequate income, due to economic downturn, unemployment and immigration (Silvasti and Riches 2014). Most people in the EU are food secure; which in Europe’s industrialised context implies ‘that people have sufficient money to purchase the food they want to eat, to meet social as well as health and nutritional norms’ (Dowler and O’Connor 2012, 3). However, there are socio-economic groups that struggle with poverty that translates into the growing normative culture of unhealthy diets, which is regarded as a major contributing factor of poor nutrition (Dowler and O’Connor 2012). Research has shown that immigrants in some high-income countries are at a greater risk of food insecurity because of their lack of familiarity with local food or cooking methods, and conversely with difficulties in obtaining the foods they traditionally eat due to scarcity or high cost. Immigrants tend to have lower incomes, and this, as well as high costs in setting up home in a new country, can contribute to this group’s increased food poverty risk (Gorton, Bullen, and Mhurchu 2010). Both food poverty and food insecurity are a result of the inability of food systems to deliver its main outcome, due to reasons both internal and external (socio-economic and ecological) to this system. In a response to the growing need for food assistance, the number of food banks in Europe has been increasing rapidly: In 2016 the Federation of European Food Banks (FEBA) consisted of 326 food banks from 23 member countries, distributing food to 6.1 million people (eurofoodbank.eu) spread over Europe, which constitutes a growth of 1.1 million recipients from 2010.
‘Food assistance’ is widely understood as referring to civil society initiatives which work in some way to provide food for people who are struggling to obtain enough food in the usual ways. This leads to immediate and urgent needs, to which this emergency food provisioning responds (Poppendieck 1994). A key issue is that this provision is distinct from formal state social protection or state-provided food welfare (Lambie-Mumford and Dowler 2014, 501). Food donations are often combined with the collection and redistribution of ‘surplus’ food – safe food that, for various reasons, is not sold through regular market channels (Garrone, Melacini, and Perego 2014). Food banks are the most widespread and best-organised food assistance system, but there are many other non-profit organisations and local initiatives that work on a similar concept (Lorenz 2012, 386). Thus, although several common features can be found, principles
and practices of giving aid vary widely between food assistance organisations (Silvasti 2015, 8). Alongside traditional ways of addressing food poverty, such as food parcels and soup kitchens, other and novel responses have been unfolding to tackle the needs of the most vulnerable groups, which includes those living in low-income households and labour migrants. Examples of novel responses to food poverty can be seen in the food assistance initiatives recently examined in the XXX study, on which this paper is based. These responses assume different forms and meanings according to geographical, institutional and socio-cultural contexts. Considering these food assistance initiatives emerge as a response to growing European food poverty, the objective of this paper is to analyse the transformative dynamics of newly emerging food assistance practices with respect to the food system by focussing on Dutch, Italian and Irish food assistance initiatives. Transformative dynamics are here conceptualised as the forces that stimulate change within a system (Haxeltine et al. 2016).
In our analysis, we operationalise these dynamics by using Transformative Social Innovation Theory which distinguishes the different levels within the system that are associated with transformative change (Avelino et al. 2014). Although food assistance is not generally associated with transformative change, as we show in the literature review which follows, the novelty of this paper lies in building on the idea that ‘small wins’ can create momentum for larger-scale change (Patterson et al. 2016; Weick 1984; de Haan and Rotmans 2011). The ‘identifying, gathering, and labelling’ of these processes of change is important as these changes go ‘largely unnoticed’ (Weick 1984, 43–44), while these ‘could have the potential to culminate into more substantial transformation over time’ (Patterson et al. 2016). In this way, the paper aims to contribute to, and fine-tune, understandings of the role food assistance plays in transforming food systems. Considering food assistance practices emerged to address failings of food systems, the question this paper therefore aims to address is: do food assistance practices have the potential to transform the food system? Or do they, as is emphasised in the literature, merely offer temporary relief?
Food assistance practices as a means to food security
Across high income countries there is a continuum of practices between welfare and charity initiatives that aim to alleviate food poverty and hunger. This was partly set in motion by two important dynamics. Firstly, severe cuts in “tax-funded social policy”
and social safety nets, arising from “neo-liberal agendas” in the 1980s, decreased and changed forms of poverty alleviation measures (Riches 2011, 770). Three decades later, welfare reforms are still ongoing, now taking the form of austerity programmes that attempt to deal with the effects of the economic crisis. This has led to a continued distancing from the notion of the welfare state and an increasing emphasis on citizens taking care of their own wellbeing. Second, neo-liberal politics have precipitated a new ‘food regime’ (McMichael, 2009). This involves more corporate-led food governance which is largely controlled by few large transnational actors that operate on a global level. As a consequence, it is becoming increasingly difficult for national governments to influence food governance within their borders (Pritchard et al. 2016, 4; Clapp 2016; Clapp 2015). Meanwhile citizen-led food assistance has taken up a more prominent role in food systems (Warshawsky 2010) moving from the purpose of responding to ‘emergency’ situations to becoming an ‘industry’ per se (Booth and Whelan 2014, 1396). Throughout the literature, there is consensus that food assistance responses to food poverty have become institutionalised (See e.g. Booth and Whelan 2014; González-Torre and Coque 2016; Kim 2015; Wells and Caraher 2014). This process of institutionalisation is further exacerbated by the lack of a universally agreed definition of food poverty (O’Connor, Farag, and Baines 2016), which hinders the formulation of policies responsive to this growing problem (Lambie-Mumford and Dowler 2014). The failure of policies to reach and respond effectively to the most vulnerable actors in our food systems, is one of the reasons that explains the emergence and increasing importance of civil society-driven food assistance initiatives (Rovati and Pesenti 2015). As the literature portrays, food assistance is a contested concept. On the one hand, critics describe food assistance practices as ‘a failure of the state’, while others see it as an ‘extension of the welfare state’ (Livingstone 2015). According to the former, the increasing importance of food assistance is a sign of failure of the state and it is not a food security pathway worth continuing (See e.g. Booth and Whelan 2014; Lang and Barling 2012; Livingstone 2015; Warshawsky 2010; Wells and Caraher 2014). Governments that refuse to acknowledge the connection between welfare reforms and poverty levels are not fulfilling their responsibilities to their citizens (McIntyre et al. 2015; Livingstone 2015, 2). The now normalised response by civil society to problems of food poverty permits the government to look away and de-politicises hunger by having civil society initiatives ‘solve’ the issue. They argue that this is actually not the
construction of a social safety net, but its “breakdown” (Riches 2002, 648). The latter acknowledge that the state has delegated responsibilities around welfare to the market and civil society, but argue that the food bank is a successful result of this reform (See e.g. Kim 2015; Santini and Cavicchi 2014; Biebricher 2015). Surplus food management is increasingly considered a tool for mitigation of food insecurity: surplus foods are unavoidably generated in current food systems; therefore, the recovery of surplus fulfils multiple objectives, on the social, (i.e. donation and help to those in need), economic (i.e., more efficient use of resources) and environmental grounds (i.e. environmental impact of food production is not in vain, less pollution from diversion of food waste from landfills or incinerators), as high priorities of the food waste hierarchy (Wiskerke 2015).
Many food poverty commentators have highlighted what Poppendieck (1998) called the “persistent dilemma” facing food assistance initiatives - namely the “deeply felt tension” between responding to immediate hunger and tackling the myriad ways in which hunger stems from social injustices. This forces food assistance initiatives to rethink their role in the face of current challenges around food poverty, such as the emergence of the “new poor” (Dowler and O’Connor 2012, 9). The new poor refers to formerly middle-upper class people who have been pushed into poverty as a result of the European economic crisis of 2008-2010 and its widening effect on inequalities. There is need for an enhanced understanding of food assistance practices in high income countries in order to rebalance the interaction between such food assistance initiatives and poverty reduction measures provided by States through their remaining welfare system.
The research presented in this paper takes a bottom-up approach in order to give an overview of the diversity and complexity of food assistance mechanisms. Governance of a food assistance initiative is shaped by the actors, networks and institutions that are present in a certain context, which has its own specific cultural, economic, social and political vectors (Kim 2015). As such, the impact of an initiative on issues of food poverty may rely on many factors, such as size, background, intentions and specific operations of local initiators and leaders (González-Torre and Coque 2016). This will be illustrated through descriptions of three food assistance initiatives in the fourth section of this paper. The vast number of food assistance initiatives all over the world do not live in a static environment; contextualising the
practices and the position of food assistance initiatives on a local level helps to understand if and what is changing.
To analyse the food assistance initiatives and their potential for transformative dynamics, we draw on Avelino et al. (2014) and use Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) theory, which distinguishes different levels and dynamics within the system that allow us to analyse transformative dynamics and potential. As food assistance is generally not associated with transformative change, the application of transformation-related theories is novel. Central to TSI theory is the understanding that societal transformation requires social innovation-initiated change at multiple levels within systems. It builds on the one hand on transition theory, and in particular that of socio-technical transitions (Rip and Kemp 1998; Geels 2002; Geels and Schot 2007; Hinrichs 2014), and on the other on the field of social innovation research (See e.g. Murray, Caulier-Grice, and Mulgan 2010; Bock 2012; Kirwan et al. 2013). While both theories are concerned with transformations, their theories of change differ greatly. Firstly, transition theory focusses on what conditions allow for niche-level (or innovative) activities to be scaled up to the more mainstream level of socio-technical regimes (Rip and Kemp 1998; Geels and Schot 2007). Central to this theory of change are the dynamics initiated by technologies. While the heuristic of transition theory is useful in understanding the patterns of transitions, we find it too rigid in terms of levels and focus on technology. Consequently, we find it less suitable to analyse food assistance dynamics.
The literature on social innovation seeks to understand processes of innovation in social relations especially with regard to governance (Bock 2012; Moulaert et al. 2013; Gerometta, Haussermann, and Longo 2005). As such it makes reference to not only ‘particular actions, but also to the mobilisation-participation processes and to the outcome of actions which lead to improvements in social relations’ (Moulaert et al. 2013, 2). While technologies can be part of these processes of change, they do not take centre stage. Rather, the focus is placed on ‘bundles of doings, organisings, framings and knowings’ of initiatives and how they seek to alter dominant system dynamics (Haxeltine et al. 2016, 30). Social innovations and the various pressures they encounter are described in other fields, such as social movement theory, institutional theory, governance theory, organisational theory and social psychology (Haxeltine et al. 2016). The first, social movement theory, is particularly interesting. While it’s predominantly
used to describe politically motivated movements as they go against dominant dynamics, it focuses on movements’ abilities to mobilise resources, their framing of issues, and their political opportunities (Benford and Snow 2000; Elzen et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2015). However, difficult in this approach is the drawing of lines between the influences different levels have on shaping practices. In combining social innovation theory and transition theory, TSI theory provides a link between innovation in social relations and an outlook on current and future dynamics related to system practices.
Within TSI theory, the different aspects within the system are operationalised as “shades of changes and innovation” (Avelino et al. 2014), meaning there are multiple levels that together make up a transformation. Societal transformation unfolds as interplay between social innovation (new social practices), system innovation (change at level of societal subsystems), game-changers (macro-developments), and narratives of change (discourses on change). Change needs to happen at all levels of the system for a societal transformation to take place (Avelino et al. 2014). See figure 1 for the working definitions of these different ‘shades’ of societal transformation as used to operationalise transformative dynamics in this paper. In particular, we focus on the four levels that make up societal transformation, since assessment of societal transformations requires a long-term perspective (Geels and Schot 2010; Olsson, Galaz, and Boonstra 2014). Therefore, we reflect on the presence of transformative dynamics in food assistance initiatives and assess how food assistance develops in relation to the food system.
Methods
In order to answer the question of whether food assistance initiatives have the potential to transform the food system, we draw on material gathered in case studies of three food assistance initiatives found in the Netherlands, Italy and Ireland. These three cases, that were all part of the EU project XXX, were selected since these initiatives perform new forms of food assistance and are all embedded in different institutional and socio-cultural contexts within Europe. The rationale behind this approach is embedded in the project’s ambition to connect local level insights to higher levels of governance related to food systems (XX). As such, the project’s focus on local initiatives that aim to address food system challenges is chosen based on the goal of informing higher level policy initiatives and have them embrace local transformative practices. This paper will
draw upon the full reports of these case studies (XX; XX; XX) and will describe the aspects relevant to the analysis of potential transformative dynamics. Exploring these three food assistance initiatives and the specific actors and institutions that shape their practices provides a detailed insight into the diversity in dynamics of food assistance found in Europe.
The qualitative analysis comprised semi-structured interviews, on-site visits and secondary data from the organisations’ reports and websites. Semi-structured interviews were chosen as the key method of data collection given their utility to exploring a range of issues in depth and in a flexible manner. The semi-structured interviews were informed by the understanding that food assistance practices are part of more complex and fragmented food systems in which diverse pathways that aim to enhance food security co-exist. In particular, we needed to obtain detailed information on specific aspects of the organisations’ work and on the motivations and expectations of the people involved in relation to food security. This included interviewing various food suppliers, board members of these initiatives and government-related actors, but excluded these initiatives’ service-users as the organisations were reluctant to provide access to these actors. Taking a bottom-up approach led to a focus on the actors’ characterisations of the food assistance initiative, their interaction with the institutional setting, their envisioned future in relation to that setting, and successes and failures. Following this, the case material was analysed and organised according to operationalised shades of societal transformations (figure 1). The results of this are described in the discussion and an overview is given in table 1. However, first we will describe the three cases of food assistance initiatives and the context within which they operate. Subsequently, we move into our analysis and discussion of the potential for these diverse food assistance initiatives to transform food systems. This will be structured in accordance with the different levels of transformative dynamics, as informed by TSI theory.
Emerging forms of food assistance
Vereniging Nederlandse Voedselbanken (Association of Dutch Food Banks)
Food banks in the Netherlands have become an established part of food systems in a relatively short time. Some Dutch food banks are going beyond food assistance alone
and explore other avenues to address food poverty indirectly, by enhancing their connection to social welfare, or exploring collaborations with locally-based social movements.
Since 1991 the Dutch Government has officially not been in favour of food aid, as they argue this does not address root causes, and instead support policies that tackle poverty and social exclusion (Timmermans 2012). However, the number of food banks in the Netherlands has seen a dramatic rise ever since their organisational start in 2002, in Rotterdam. After the economic crisis in 2007, the rate of low income households rose from 7.6% (2007) to 10% (2013) (SCP and CBS 2014). The number of food bank clients steadily grew during this period, along with the number of food banks throughout the country. In 2016, there was a decline in the overall number of low income households to 8.8% (CBS 2017). In that year, the number of locally-based food banks was 167, along with 535 distribution points, which reached 135,000 people, providing them with food for three days per week (VNV 2016). Food bank leaders explained, the growth in food banks was as a result of “a gap left by the social welfare system, which was previously filled by the church” (XX). All food banks are united under the umbrella organisation the Vereniging Nederlandse Voedselbanken (VNV, translates to Association of Dutch Food Banks) and are dedicated to the twofold objective of reducing food poverty and food waste under the motto ‘citizens for citizens’.
The governance of food banks in the Netherlands can be divided into the national level and the highly diverse local level. An umbrella organisational structure allows for locally-based food banks to have an equal say in decisions made at the national level, leading to two main advantages. First, this has manifested in a rather flexible governance model that allows local food bank leaders to tailor their practices to their surroundings, to available resources and to particular needs. Secondly, sourced food is now distributed equitably between food banks and does not solely depend on geographical location. Driven by ideas around circular economies, the board of the VNV is persuading many actors in the food sector to donate surplus foods by “offering a win-win situation” (XX): not only does the food bank gain through surplus food donation, the food industry itself also gains financially in saving the associated costs of food waste (e.g. disposal) and the opportunity to demonstrate greater corporate social responsibility. To further strengthen this, the VNV is pursuing food safety certification
on all operational levels, to assure the industry the food bank will handle their surplus foods properly. Moreover, by exploring options of food waste revalorisationi on the
national level, such as making soup from the peak surplus food, the VNV is ensuring their food packages are comprised of long lasting and healthier foods. Similarly, some locally based food banks are establishing connections and collaborations with urban agriculture initiatives to complement their food packages. Food bank leaders are well aware of the often-poor nutritional content of the food packages (Neter et al. 2014) and aim to improve that through these new food flows.
People are referred to the food bank by many different institutions that have a connection to the food bank. Most clients appeal for a food package after their social worker has urged them to, but others are directed to the food bank by their local church or municipality, amongst others. Once someone is a client of the food bank, the VNV stipulates that a social worker must interact with that person, as they say a food package is only temporary relief, not a solution, and must be accompanied by other forms of assistance. Although the food banks only reach a minority of the food insecure in the Netherlands, they do contribute to better, more flexible, place-based targeting of the most vulnerable, such as single-parent households and immigrant families (Hebinck et al. 2015b), that often do not use all welfare resources available, as the necessary (digital) bureaucratic processes prove to be a considerable obstacle for access.
In the Netherlands, the VNV is the main advocate of the (food) poor; however, they do not engage in public debate much. In fact, the VNV emphasises they stay “a-political” and prevent “getting dragged into discussions” (XX), due to risks of a fall out with either the government or the food industry. Not engaging in public debate has so far proven beneficial for the VNV, as they manage to make efficient arrangements by communicating behind the scenes with both industry and government. This means the government continues to deny the role played by the food bank, but simultaneously acknowledges their contribution; several ministers and state secretaries have aided them indirectly and unofficially, for example by trying to find useful loopholes in food safety laws. Nonetheless, the VNV is content with the current relations they have with these government officials, and do not feel the need to publicly debate the role of the state in food poverty alleviation.
The food assistance system in Tuscany
In Italy, the 2007 and 2008 financial crisis precipitated an increase in poverty, with 4.6 million people living in absolute poverty in 2015, the highest level since 2005 (ISTAT 2017). Severe material deprivation – the inability to afford some items considered by most people to be desirable or even necessary to life an adequate life (Eurostat 2017) – is hitting 11.9% of the population (against the average of 7.8% in EU-28). In the absence of clear responses from the State, charitable organisations have been trying to contain this growth of poverty, which has led to a “normalisation” of food aid (Caritas 2014), especially among the so-called ‘new poor’ (Dowler and O’Connor 2012). The national context partly shapes possibilities for the local level, therefore we will briefly explore food assistance practices at the national level. Following this, we focus on several food assistance practices of initiatives that are present in Tuscany.
Italian food assistance provision is managed by non-profit organisations and social enterprises, often faith-based and strongly reliant on voluntary work. Food is supplied via many sources, ranging from surplus food recovery and donations from food industry and retailers, or publicly subsidised through the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD). Resulting practices, the degree of government involvement, funding, regulatory controls, voluntary sector participation and reliance on surpluses and donations are variable and context-specific, thus making the food aid system highly fragmented. Given the informal nature and the irregular character of many services, a complete picture of the initiatives of food poverty assistance is hard to achieve (Tomei and Caterino 2013).
The food aid system in Italy entails first (i.e. the local food pick-up locations) and second level entities (i.e. where food collected and is stored in bulk) (Baglioni, De Pieri, and Tallarico 2016). A second level entity in the chain is the Italian food bank and much resembles a warehouse (Fondazione Banco Alimentare Onlus, FBAO). The FBAO is a non-profit organisation that for over twenty-five years has been engaged in the daily recovery of surplus edible food, aimed at tackling food poverty, through a dense network of relationships that has allowed the saving and redistribution of food which is otherwise destined for destruction (www.bancoalimentare.it/it). Connected to the Food Bank Foundation (FBAO) are twenty-one regional food banks. The FBAO has distinguished itself for its ability to consolidate and structure the relationships between private firms and charitable organisations: private enterprises that transfer their surplus
to the FBAO are able to reduce costs associated with disposal and get tax benefits while improving their public image. Meanwhile, non-profit organisations that have an agreement with the FBAO benefit from a stable supply of food, through a permanent and safe channel. Beyond FEAD resources, another important source of food is the National Food Drive Dayii. First level entities establish a direct link with recipients and
are represented by a large set of non-profit organisations, both secular and faith-based, with their own specific history, professional profile and cultural references. Among the latter, Caritas is a key actor of food assistance throughout Italy, including Tuscany. The main food assistance practices can be divided into four main categories: i) distribution of meals in the form of parcels provided at fixed locations, distribution of meals at fixed locations and by mobile units; ii) soup kitchens, open at lunch, dinner or both; iii) distribution by street units of food and drink; iv) food vouchers or Emporia of Solidarity cards (Tomei and Caterino 2013).
Emporia of Solidarity have emerged in recent years as a new form of food assistance provision. Similar to social supermarkets (Holweg and Lienbacher 2011), these initiatives resemble shops with controlled access where people can do their shopping for free, through an electronic card linked to a system which assigns a certain number of points according to the need of the individual. The first two have been opened by Caritas (the first in 2008 in Tuscany) and since then around sixty Emporia have been established across the country (CSV 2015). The key feature of Emporia is the broad range of actors (i.e., Caritas, municipality, FBAO and others) involved in providing a service which none of them could have offered separately (Maino, Lodi Rizzini, and Bandera 2016). Another, essential feature is that, through their network with public actors and local suppliers, the Emporia have been more able to diversify the sources of supply, to reduce the dependency from (retail) donors and provide a broader range of products. In addition, they do not focus solely on food provision, but they offer a range of non-food related supplementary services, such as family budget courses involving retired bank employees as volunteers, or Italian classes for immigrants, complemented with a baby-sitting service. A new idea arising within Emporia is to provide the possibility for beneficiaries to work inside the Emporium itself or in associated activities (i.e. social restaurant, gardening). Many food bank operators agree that the Emporia are the best available solution to cope with some problems related to food assistance - such as stigma and limited choice in the food received with food
parcels - and that potential opportunities are yet to be discovered. It seems to overcome the perspective that recipients should be satisfied with whatever they get with food parcels, that is, that “giving something is better than nothing” (Tarasuk and Eakin 2003).
The Irish Food Cloud Hubsiii initiative
The recent worldwide financial crisis of the late 2000s impacted heavily on unemployment levels, poverty rates and the state of public finances in Ireland (Bergin et al. 2011) and saw the introduction of austerity measures and a gradual and fragile recovery. It is against this backdrop that measures to tackle food poverty have been concentrated in the community and voluntary sector rather than through state-based policy or programmes. Approximately 1 in 8 people (or 13% of the population) in Ireland currently experience food poverty, while rates are higher (up to 23%) among specific vulnerable groups, such as low-income households, lone parent families, children and those who are unemployed or disabled (Department of Social Protection 2015). Food assistance initiatives (including food banks and redistribution initiatives) are growing in number in Ireland and form a key part of the food poverty interventions underway. For many years, the Dublin Food Bank, established in 1989 by the charitable organisation Crosscare (which is affiliated to Dublin Diocese of the Catholic Church), was Ireland’s only food bank (crosscare.ie). Since 2013 a number of new food banking initiatives have emerged around the country. However, the small scale and lack of infrastructural capacity of most food-banking initiatives in Ireland has meant that many are unable to make use of the 50,000 tonnes of surplus food production generated by the food sector each year (www.food.could, 2015). Thanks to a €37.000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2011, an earlier iteration of the Food Cloud Hubs initiative was able to conduct a feasibility study on harvesting this surplus and redistributing it to the Irish charities.
Food Cloud Hubs (FCH), eventually established in 2012, functions as an intermediary between food companies and charities and as such has no direct interaction with end-receivers of food aid. FCH works by coordinating with other national agencies, using existing logistics, utilising modern information and communication technologies, and drawing on the present support for charitable actions which exists among the Irish populace. This initiative emphasises its role in reducing the
environmental impact of food waste by quantifying the amount of carbon embedded (from all stages of the food chain) in the food it redistributes. By ensuring food is consumed and not wasted, the carbon footprints of the meals FCH redistributes are not generated in vain. In addition, FCH further decreases the potential environmental impact of surplus food waste by diverting food from landfills and incinerators. The organisation’s function is described as a “bridge to help serve busy charities and businesses” by addressing the large volume of unused surplus food. FCH are strong advocates for more favourable policy and business conditions regarding the redistribution of food and as such suggest the need for a ‘Good Samaritan Act’. Similar to Good Samaritan food donation laws which exist in several US states, food donors’ liability for illness caused by food which they donate would be limited (Morenoff 2002). The organisation collects and stores products in Dublin, Cork and Galway cities and transports them to the charities in need of food. Most of the food moves through the main hub and head office in Dublin. Food manufacturers and retailers contact their local FCH base with details of their food surpluses which could potentially go to waste. Most well-known food retailers in Ireland and almost 100 Irish food manufacturers are engaging with the initiative in some way, ensuring a stable source of food for charitable organisations. It uses IT-technology to streamline and professionalise their redistribution logistics. This allows for the approximately 120 registered recipient charities to log in to FCH’s system and make requests from the food in stock according to their and their clients’ preferences.
The board, some of whom are highly skilled retirees who have experience in various fields adjacent to FCH’s operations, is responsible for the governance of FCH. Staff are responsible for operations at each of the three depots and they are supported by teams of volunteers. Governmental support in FCH’s remit is little as it falls between three different departments (Social protection, Environment, and Agriculture). More support is given by the local government; Cork County Council committed to giving €20.000 per year for a period of five years; Bord Bia - Ireland’s food board - has actively promoted FCH to their Origin Greeniv applicants; monies have also been
received from the the National Treasury Management Agency’s Dormant Accounts Fund. At the supranational level, FCH recently won the contract to administer the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD), which is worth €11 million over five years. FEAD is a social programme which is designed to help lift European Union
citizens out of poverty and social exclusion by addressing their most basic needs including but not limited to their need for food (Caraher 2015). However, to win this bid required FCH to expand their operations to the three hubs, leaving the organisation financially over-extended in the short term.
Food Cloud Hubs engages in novel practices in addressing food security by improving the infrastructure of the redistribution of surplus food to food assistance initiatives. It specialises in alleviating the environmental burden of food waste, but fails to address the functioning of the wider food assistance system. FCH helps charities by alleviating them of responsibilities and costs associated with feeding people, which consequently allows these charities to focus more on addressing the root causes of poverty. However, in spite of the desire to address the “underlying social causes of hunger” as part of their remit, some stakeholders expressed the view that they preferred not to address issues around the structural nature of food poverty. Others articulated the dilemma facing government and private sector interests in terms of “engaging as admitting”. In other words, engaging in support for food redistribution initiatives was acknowledgment of failure of the food system and of social support systems more generally.
Analysis and discussion of the potential to transform food systems
Food assistance unfolds differently in the three highlighted food assistance initiatives in the Netherlands, Italy and Ireland and in doing so, they each address food poverty through a distinct set of measures. Using the TSI theory, we distinguished various analytical levels within the food system to see what particular dynamics and social practices are at play in these cases. Throughout the three cases we have explored social innovations, system innovations, game changers, and narratives of change that together allow us to theorise the potential for societal transformation of these food assistance initiatives. In this section, we describe some of these dynamics, based on table 1 which illustrates a complete overview of the analysis of all three cases. The directions of these new social practices differ in many ways; they all address particular local failings of food systems that result in food waste and food poor people. While the reviewed cases show that food assistance is unable to eliminate food poverty directly, we nevertheless argue these social practices should not be so quickly disregarded as non-transformational, for several reasons. Firstly, the novelty of these food assistance
initiatives is their ability to successfully connect resources across multiple systems, such as poverty reduction schemes and food waste cycles. Secondly, the cases show how food assistance initiatives are able to address locally-specific challenges that are partly caused by global and national processes of change in a manner that is culturally appropriate. And lastly, the main goal of food assistance initiatives is not to address root causes of food poverty, as they are well aware of and have first-hand experience in dealing with the multidimensional problem of poverty. Instead, they emphasise the need to take responsibility for those in hunger and need, right now. In the following section, we describe the novelties in these food assistance practices and detail how they take effect in the different system levels. Secondly, we explore how the food assistance initiatives are shaped by these dynamics on different levels and how this is rooted in the complex nature of both food systems and poverty. We do so by going through, one by one, the different ‘shades’ of change of the TSI theory, as outlined earlier in the paper.
Social innovation
To start, we explore social innovations in the three food assistance initiatives. The emergence of social innovation, or new social practices and relations, in food assistance largely relies upon local food assistance initiatives’ leaders, i.e. board members (Elmes, Mendoza-Abarca, and Hersh 2015). As Elmes et al. (2015, 1) show, a number of food banks in the US have engaged in “ethical sense making”, meaning some have started reflecting on the impact they have on food poverty and whether it is ethical to merely offer temporary food assistance. This has led them to construct new food assistance practices that attempt to address the root causes of food poverty. Similar to their accounts, we notice a shift, although still in its infancy, in the approaches of some food banks. This is visible in Tuscany in the search for innovative solutions (e.g. Emporia) for food assistance, and in Ireland; they attempt to tailor aid to the need of the recipient and as such move beyond the limitations of more consolidated practices. In the case of the Netherlands, professionalisation to promote efficiency in redistributing food, while maintaining a governance structure that is based on reflexive learning, is driven by a number of board members at the national level that used to work in similar positions at other companies. At this local (or micro) level, certain actors have high impact on the shaping of food assistance practices, making their values, ideas and knowledge part and parcel of the fragmented and interlinked set of practices of food assistance. Likewise,
the initiative in Ireland that functions as an intermediary between food industry and the many independent small-scale charities, is focussing on streamlining the chain and maximizing distribution of surplus food to the poor. Through such new social practices and relations, food banks address certain food assistance related challenges, such as tailoring aid to the food poor and optimizing surplus food flows. As we show in the next section, some of these social innovations also connect to the systems level.
System innovation
Change at the level of system innovation becomes more complex to identify, as it is influenced by larger structures, such as institutional dynamics and societal sub-systems. The explored initiatives contribute to system change by resulting in innovations related to food waste reduction and social welfare provisioning. We argue that such ‘small wins’ can create ‘momentum for larger-scale change’ (Patterson et al. 2016), as these are examples of practices that are alternative to the ‘dominant’ food provisioning practices and as such build up pressure for dominant food systems to transform. For example, the Dutch VNV are providing improved targeting and access to existing social welfare structures by functioning as a trusted space; herewith addressing particular failings in the governmental welfare system. A second example is that of the Tuscan case, where network relations among Emporia are starting to be established, allowing redistribution of surplus, and sharing of practices and protocols. This has resulted in an increased food surplus distribution, reducing the amount of food waste. A similar trend can be seen in Ireland, where the FCH has facilitated a decrease of charities’ funds being spent on the purchase of food which can instead be directed to addressing root causes of poverty. As such the initiatives contribute in various ways to change of established and dominant routines and patterns that relate to the already institutionalised food assistance systems. Examples such as these, and others described in table 1, show that these new food assistance practices have the potential to build pressure on dominant systems by addressing the failures they produce in innovative manners. In doing so, they can stimulate change by ‘cumulating into more substantial transformation over time’ (Patterson et al. 2016).
Game-changers
all levels of a system. A number of interconnected game-changers are observed when exploring the three cases and some are recurring themes, such as the economic crisis. In all three cases the number of poor and unemployed have grown sharply during the economic downturn, and combined with decentralisation of social welfare, these processes have provided the space for food assistance initiatives to develop. Some game-changers appear more place specific; the flow of immigrants is raising question in Tuscany in particular with respect to cultural appropriateness of the food served by the food assistance initiatives. Secondly, the shifts in allocation of European FEAD funds might act as a game-changer in the case of Italy and Ireland. While this means challenges caused by the reduction of received EU funds in Tuscany, the Irish Food Cloud Hubs (FCH) initiative have recently been put in custody of the FEAD funds which will likely change food assistance dynamics at other levels. Both the Dutch and Italian food banks reported significantly higher food donations in the Summer of 2014, thanks to the Russian import ban on a range of EU agricultural products that August. This resulted in a close collaboration between food banks and national government in the Netherlands, of which the latter was actively promoting donation of surplus to food banks. A development particular to the Netherlands is the emergence of new, often urban, social movements in the Netherlands that in some way connect to or collaborate with the Dutch VNV and (differing in the type of social movement) improve targeting or the quality of food. Such developments change the ‘rules’ of societal interaction and in many cases, stretch beyond affecting food assistance alone, and can impact negatively or positively. For example, food waste has become quite a popular matter and is often a topic in media. Paradoxically, this poses a risk to food banks, as it also spurs food industry on to minimise food surplus. This is already mentioned by the Tuscan initiatives as changing their food assistance dynamics. Notable in game-changers, is their reach and impact over the three European countries. These macro-level dynamics profoundly shape, challenge and interact with food provisioning systems and consequently the food assistance practices.
Narratives of change
Connected to any social processes of change in systems are the ‘narratives of change’: underlying discourses that allow involved actors to give meaning to processes of change, which are constantly (co-)evolving thanks to changing sets of ideas, goals and
motivations. Among the three cases we see some common narratives and others that are more place-specific and emerge out of by local specificities. Firstly, visible in all three cases, is the presence of discourses around a solidarity economy. Actors in all three civil society initiated efforts describe in various ways taking part in food assistance out of solidarity for people in hunger. This comes up in different conceptualisations, as in the Netherlands it was referred to as ‘participation’ or ‘citizens for citizens’, while in the Tuscan case this was described as ‘second welfare’. They all represent a shift in ideas around what the state’s responsibility is and the role civil society, private actors and institutions should take up. Secondly, we see that the extent of political support for food assistance in Tuscany allows for food assistance actors to advocate for the poor by raising awareness on the importance of recognition of ‘the right to food’ (Caritas 2015) without the risk of being obstructed by political actors. On the contrary, food assistance is not politically supported by the Dutch and Irish governments, leading to the choice of food assistance initiatives to put notions of circular economy centre stage. In interviews, actors of both the Irish and Dutch food banks mentioned they favour upholding their current position and relation with the public sector, and perceive such a counter-narrative as risky to their food assistance practices. This has for example led to the involvement of the VNV in surplus food re-valorisation projects, in an attempt to ‘save’ more food and increase the nutritional content of food packages. Overall, we see that embedded in the initiatives narratives – to varying extent – is advocacy for the poor. This manifests differently, as the Irish and Dutch initiatives advocate for the poor by providing more tailored, and trusted spaces than is done by the public sector out of solidarity. In the Tuscan case this is motivated by the right to food. It signals the role food assistance initiatives can play in the debate around poverty, as in many ways, their efforts and growth have put food poverty on the agenda.
Concluding remarks
Food poverty is an issue of growing importance in rich, industrialised countries and is increasingly being addressed by food assistance initiatives that emerged out of civil society efforts. This paper has explored new food assistance practices in the Netherlands, Italy and Ireland and analysed the different approaches in light of Transformative Social Innovation theory, aiming to review the transformative dynamics of different food assistance initiatives in Europe. The analysis has shown that the three
food assistance initiatives cannot be seen in isolation from the more complex food system, as they interact with other systems and practices which are part of that landscape. Especially in light of the ‘persistent dilemma’ of having to either respond to immediate hunger or tackling the more systemic, root causes of food poverty, we argue it does not do these initiatives justice to simply disregard their potential as sources for transformative change. We see that these food assistance initiatives show dynamics that have the potential to ‘create momentum for larger-scale change … and cumulate into more substantial transformation over time’ (Patterson et al. 2016). They do so by changing ‘narratives of change’ around food poverty and contributing with social and system innovations, potentially leading to game-changers in food assistance. The emerging food assistance practices aim, in different ways and contexts, to address the growing uncertainty and instability by reshaping food assistance in several ways: by addressing their governance mechanisms; by streamlining food surplus recovery and making redistribution more efficient; by better targeting food aid and improving the quality and healthiness of the food served; and facilitating improved access to social services where possible. Despite numerous challenges, we see that food assistance initiatives can potentially contribute to and interact with other elements of systems that go beyond solely food poverty alleviation. This also leads to directions for further research: there is a clear need to rethink food assistance in the broader sense, as there are signs of surplus food redistribution initiatives that are moving away from the limitations of more traditional forms of food assistance. Possible avenues for inquiry would be the role of narratives such as ‘the right to food’ from ‘inside’ the food bank and the new relations that are a result of the increasing intertwining of social movements with forms of food assistance practices.
References
XX.
Avelino, Flor, Julia Wittmayer, Alex Haxeltine, René Kemp, Tim O’Riordan, Paul Weaver, Derk Loorbach, et al. 2014. Game Changers and Transformative Social Innovation. The Case of the Economic Crisis and the New Economy. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.
Baglioni, S., B. De Pieri, and T. Tallarico. 2016. “Surplus Food Recovery and Food Aid: The Pivotal Role of Non-Profit Organisations. Insights From Italy and Germany.” VOLUNTAS:
Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1): 611–639.
Bergin, Adele, John Fitzgerald, Ide Kearney, and Cormac O ’Sullivan. 2011. “The Irish Fiscal Crisis.” National Institute Economic Review 217 (1): 47–59.
Biebricher, Thomas. 2015. “Neoliberalism and Democracy.” Constellations 22 (2): 255–266. Bock, Bettina. 2012. “Social Innovation and Sustainability; How to Disentangle the Buzzword and
Its Application in the Field of Agriculture and Rural Development.” Studies in Agricultural Economics (Budapest) 114 (2): 57–63.
Booth, Sue, and Jillian Whelan. 2014. “Hungry for Change: The Food Banking Industry in Australia.” British Food Journal 116 (9): 1392–1404.
Caraher, Martin, and Alessio Cavicchi. 2014. “Old Crises on New Plates or Old Plates for a New Crises? Food Banks and Food Insecurity.” British Food Journal 116 (9). Emerald.
Caraher, Martin. 2015. “The European Union Food Distribution Programme for the Most Deprived Persons of the Community, 1987–2013: From Agricultural Policy to Social Inclusion Policy?” Health Policy 119 (7): 932–940.
Caritas. 2014. False Partenze. Rapporto 2014 Sulla Povertà E L’esclusione Sociale in Italia. Caritas. 2015. Poverty and Inequalities on the Rise. Crisis Monitoring Report 2015. Rome.
http://www.caritas.eu/sites/default/files/caritascrisisreport_2015_en_final.pdf. XX.
CBS. 2017. “Meer Huishoudens Langduring Onder Lage-Inkomensgrens in 2015.” https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2017/06/meer-huishoudens-langdurig-onder-lage-inkomensgrens-in-2015.
CBS. 2017. “Meer Huishoudens Langduring Onder Lage-Inkomensgrens in 2015.” https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2017/06/meer-huishoudens-langdurig-onder-lage-inkomensgrens-in-2015.
Clapp, Jennifer. 2015. “Distant Agricultural Landscapes.” Sustainability Science 10: 305–316. Clapp, Jennifer. 2016. Food. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
CSV. 2015. “Lotta Allo Spreco E Contrasto Alle Nuove Povertà.”
http://www.csvnet.it/component/phocadownload/category/76-lotta-allo-spreco-e-contrasto-alle-nuove-poverta.
de Haan, J., and Jan Rotmans. 2011. “Patterns in Transitions: Understanding Complex Chains of Change.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (1): 90–102.
Department of Social Protection. 2015. Survey of Income and Living Conditions in Ireland 2014. Dublin.
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditions2014/. Dowler, Elizabeth, and Deirdre O’Connor. 2012. “Rights-Based Approaches to Addressing Food
Poverty and Food Insecurity in Ireland and UK.” Social Science and Medicine 74 (1): 44–51. Elmes, Michael. B., Karla Mendoza-Abarca, and Robert Hersh. 2015. “Food Banking, Ethical
Sensemaking, and Social Innovation in an Era of Growing Hunger in the United States.” Journal of Management Inquiry.
Elzen, Boelie, Frank W. Geels, Cees Leeuwis, and Barbara Van Mierlo. 2011. “Normative
Contestation in Transitions ‘in the Making’: Animal Welfare Concerns and System Innovation in Pig Husbandry.” Research Policy 40 (2). Elsevier B.V.: 263–275.
Eurostat. 2017. “Eurostat Database. Income and Living Condition.” http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/data.
Garrone, Paola, Marco Melacini, and Alessandro Perego. 2014. “Surplus Food Recovery and Donation in Italy: The Upstream Process.” British Food Journal 116 (9): 1460–1477. Geels, Frank W, and Johan Schot. 2007. “Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways.”
Research Policy 36 (3): 399–417.
Geels, Frank, and J. Schot. 2010. “Reflections.” Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Chang, 93–101.
Geels, Frank. 2002. “Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective and a Case-Study.” Research Policy 31 (8–9): 1257–1274. Gerometta, Julia, Hartmut Haussermann, and Giulia Longo. 2005. “Social Innovation and Civil
Society in Urban Governance: Strategies for an Inclusive City.” Urban Studies 42 (11): 2007– 2021b.
González-Torre, Pilar L., and Jorge Coque. 2016. “How Is a Food Bank Managed? Different Profiles in Spain.” Agriculture and Human Values 33 (1): 89 – 100.
Gorton, Delvina, Chris R. Bullen, and Cliona Ni Mhurchu. 2010. “Environmental Influences on Food Security in High-Income Countries.” Nutrition Reviews.
Haxeltine, By Alex, Michael Søgaard Jørgensen, Bonno Pel, Adina Dumitru, Flor Avelino, Tom Bauler, Isabel Lema Blanco, et al. 2016. “On the Agency and Dynamics of Transformative Social Innovation,” no. 613169.
XX. XX. XX.
Hinrichs, C Clare. 2014. “Transitions to Sustainability: A Change in Thinking about Food Systems Change?” Agriculture and Human Values 31 (1): 143–155.
Holweg, C, and E Lienbacher. 2011. “Social Marketing Innovation: New Thinking in Retailing.” Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing 23 (4): 307–326.
Ingram, John. 2011. “A Food Systems Approach to Researching Food Security and Its Interactions with Global Environmental Change.” Food Security 3 (4): 417–431.
ISTAT. 2017. Rapporto Annuale 2017. La Situazione Del Paese.
Kim, Sunhee. 2015. “Exploring the Endogenous Governance Model for Alleviating Food Insecurity: Comparative Analysis of Food Bank Systems in Korea and the USA.” International Journal of Social Welfare 24 (2): 145–158.
Kirwan, James, Brian Ilbery, Damian Maye, and Joy Carey. 2013. “Grassroots Social Innovations and Food Localisation: An Investigation of the Local Food Programme in England.” Global
Environmental Change 23 (5): 830–837.
Lambie-Mumford, Hannah, and Elizabeth Dowler. 2014. “Rising Use of ‘food Aid’ in the United Kingdom.” British Food Journal 116 (9): 1418–1425.
Lambie-Mumford, Hannah, and Elizabeth Dowler. 2015. “Hunger, Food Charity and Social Policy – Challenges Faced by the Emerging Evidence Base.” Social Policy and Society 14 (3): 497– 506.
Lang, Tim, and David Barling. 2012. “Food Security and Food Sustainability: Reformulating the Debate.” The Geographical Journal 178 (4): 313–326.
Livingstone, Nicola. 2015. “The Hunger Games: Food Poverty and Politics in the UK.” Capital & Class 39 (2): 188–195.
Lorenz, Stephan. 2012. “Socio-Ecological Consequences of Charitable Food Assistance in the Affluent Society: The German ‘Tafel.’” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 32 (7/8): 386–400.
Maino, F., C. Lodi Rizzini, and L. Bandera. 2016. Povertà Alimentare in Italia: Le Risposte Del Secondo Welfare. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Maino, Franca, Chiara Lodi Rizzini, and Lorenzo Bandera. 2016. Povertà Alimentare in Italia: Le Risposte Del Secondo Welfare.
McIntyre, Lynn, Danielle Tougas, Krista Rondeau, and Catherine L. Mah. 2015. “‘In’-Sights about Food Banks from a Critical Interpretive Synthesis of the Academic Literature.” Agriculture and Human Values 116 (9).
McMichael, Philip. 2009. “A Food Regime Genealogy.” Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1): 139– 169.
Morenoff, DL. 2002. “Lost Food and Liability: The Good Samaritan Food Donation Law Story.” Food Drug Law Journal 57 (1).
Moulaert, Frank, Diana MacCallum, Abid Mehmood, and Abdelillah Hamdouch. 2013. “The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research.” In . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Murray, Robin, Julie Caulier-Grice, and Geoff Mulgan. 2010. The Open Book of Social Innovation. NESTA. http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_open_book_of_social_innovation.pdf. Neter, Judith E., S. Coosje Dijkstra, Marjolein Visser, and Ingeborg A. Brouwer. 2014. “Food
Insecurity among Dutch Food Bank Recipients: A Cross-Sectional Study.” BMJ Open 4 (5). O’Connor, Niamh, Karim Farag, and Richard Baines. 2016. “What Is Food Poverty? A Conceptual
Framework.” British Food Journal 118 (2): 429–449.
Olsson, Per, Victor Galaz, and Wiebren J Boonstra. 2014. “Sustainability Transformations: A Resilience Perspective.” Ecology and Society 19 (4): 1.
Patterson, James, Karsten Schulz, Joost Vervoort, Sandra Van Der Hel, Mahendra Sethi, and Aliyu Barau. 2016. “Exploring the Governance and Politics of Transformations towards
Sustainability.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. Elsevier B.V., 1–16. Poppendieck, Janet. 1994. “Dilemmas of Emergency Food: A Guide for the Perplexed.” Agriculture
Poppendieck, Janet. 1998. Sweet Charity? Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement. New York: Viking Penguin.
Pritchard, Bill, Jane Dixon, Elizabeth Hull, and Chetan Choithani. 2016. “‘Stepping Back and Moving in’: The Role of the State in the Contemporary Food Regime” 6150 (April): 0–18. Riches, Graham. 2002. “Food Banks and Food Security: Welfare Reform, Human Rights and Social
Policy. Lessons from Canada?” Social Policy & Administration 36 (6): 648–663.
Riches, Graham. 2011. “Thinking and Acting Outside the Charitable Food Box: Hunger and the Right to Food in Rich Societies.” Development in Practice 21 (4–5): 768–775.
Rip, Arie, and René Kemp. 1998. “Technological Change.” In Human Choice and Climate Change, edited by S Rayner and E L Malone, II:327–399. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
Rovati, Giancarlo, and Luca. Pesenti. 2015. Food Poverty, Food Bank : Aiuti Alimentari E Inclusione Sociale. Vita e pensiero.
Santini, Cristina, and Alessio Cavicchi. 2014. “The Adaptive Change of the Italian Food Bank Foundation: A Case Study.” British Food Journal 116 (9): 1446–1459.
SCP, and CBS. 2014. Armoede Signalement 2014. Den Haag.
https://www.scp.nl/Publicaties/Alle_publicaties/Publicaties_2014/Armoedesignalement_2014. Silvasti, Tiina, and Graham Riches. 2014. “Hunger and Food Charity in Rich Societies: What Hope for the Right to Food?” In First World Hunger Revisited: Food Charity Or the Right to Food?, edited by Graham Riches and Tiina Silvasti, Second edi. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Silvasti, Tiina. 2015. “Food Aid – Normalising the Abnormal in Finland.” Social Policy and Society 14 (3): 471–482.
Smith, Adrian, Mariano Fressoli, Dinesh Abrol, Elisa Arond, and Adrian Ely. 2015. Grassroots Innovation Movements. London and New York: Earthscan.
Tarasuk, Valerie, and Joan M Eakin. 2003. “Charitable Food Assistance as Symbolic Gesture: An Ethnographic Study of Food Banks in Ontario.” Social Science & Medicine 56 (7): 1505–1515. Timmermans, Frans C.G.M. 2012. Fiche 4: Verordening Fonds Voor Hulp Aan Minstbedeelden in
de EU. The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Tomei, Gabriele, and Luca Caterino. 2013. Un’indagine Sulla Povertà Alimentare - 2° Rapporto Sull’esclusione Sociale in Toscana. Anno 2013. Pisa.
VNV. 2016. Feiten En Cijfers Voedselbanken Nederland. Houten.
http://voedselbankennederland.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/feiten-en-cijfers-VBNL-per-31-12-2016.pdf.
Warshawsky, Daniel Novik. 2010. “New Power Relations Served Here: The Growth of Food Banking in Chicago.” Geoforum 41 (5): 763–775.
Weick, Karl E. 1984. “Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems.” American Psychologist 39 (1): 40–49.
Wells, Rebecca, and Martin Caraher. 2014. “UK Print Media Coverage of the Food Bank Phenomenon: From Food Welfare to Food Charity?” British Food Journal 116 (9): 1426– 1445.
Resilient Urban Food Systems, edited by Henk de Zeeuw and Pay Drechsel, 1–25. London: Routledge.
i Food waste revalorization is creating something of value out of food waste. This can entail making processed foods, like soups, out of surplus vegetables.
ii Food http://www.stockholmresilience.org/contact-us/staff/2017-02-02-sogaard-jorgensen.htmlDrives, organized in November all over Italy, represent the moment of greatest visibility for the FBAO:
thousands of volunteers (belonging to a variety of religious and nonreligious organizations) that stand at the entrance of retailers’ stores asking citizens, while they do their everyday shopping, to donate some food products for redistribution to people in need. Ever since its foundation the FBAO has aimed at going beyond mere “assistance” and this event plays a role in raising awareness on food poverty, amongst those who are volunteering and the citizens that donate.
iii During the conducting of this research in spring and summer 2016, this initiative was known as Bia Food Initiative. In October 2016, it was rebranded and launched as Food Cloud Hubs.
iv Origin Green is a scheme to certify the sustainability of food production practices. Manufacturers set targets in a number of areas and work towards these. A target might be ‘reduce food waste’ and by engaging with BFI, this target can easily be met, providing producers with opportunities to ‘tick the boxes’ relating to both social and environmental issues.
