Revista Española de Sociología (RES) 2019 © Federación Española de Sociología doi:10.22325/fes/res.2019.26 Artículos / Articles Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy / Cooperativas de consumo solidario: un análisis de las redes alimentarias alternativas en Italia *Davide Arcidiacono Department of Sociology (UNICATT), Università degli Studi di Catania, Italy / Italia dlarcid@unict.it Lara Maestripieri Institut de Govern i Politiques Publiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain / España lara.maestripieri@polimi.it Recibido / Received: 27/11/2017 Aceptado / Accepted: 18/12/2018 ABSTRACT RESUMEN The marketisation of food and the rise of mass re- La mercantilización del sector de la comida y la cre- tailers have created an unbalanced supply chain ciente importancia de los minoristas de masas han where, above all, small producers and customers creado una cadena de suministro desequilibrada are weaker. In contrast to this scenario, in the last donde, sobre todo, los pequeños productores y los twenty years agriculture and food markets have consumidores son más débiles. En contra de este become an increasingly relevant space for the ex- escenario, en los últimos veinte años la agricultura perimentation of innovative social practice in order y los mercados de proximidad se han ido situan- to fix this anomaly and try to rebalance the distribu- do como espacios relevantes de experimentación tion of value in the whole supply chain. Solidarity de prácticas sociales innovadoras con el objetivo Purchasing Groups (SPGs) are one of these inno- de solucionar esta anomalía y de reequilibrar la vations and they could represent one of the most distribución del valor en el conjunto de cadena de relevant tools to combat the buying power of mass suministro. Las cooperativas de consumo solidario retailers. However, the analysis in the paper shows forman parte de estas experiencias innovadoras y that SPGs are social innovations that only partially pueden representar una de las medidas más rele- achieve this goal of reducing the economic margin- vantes para contrastar el poder de negociación de alisation of their suppliers by setting up an alterna- los minoristas de masa. No obstante, el análisis tive distribution channel. en este artículo muestra como las cooperativas de consumo solidario son innovaciones sociales que sólo consiguen parcialmente el objetivo de reducir la marginalización económica de sus proveedores al crear una cadena de suministro alternativa. Keywords: political consumerism, solidarity Palabras clave: consumismo político, coope- purchasing groups, buying power, social innova- rativas de consumo solidario, poder adquisitivo, tion, marginalisation. innovación social, marginalización. *Autor para correspondencia / Corresponding author: Davide Arcidiacono. Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e Sociali-Università degli Studi di Catania. Via Vittorio Emanuele 8, 95131 Catania. Sugerencia de cita / Suggested citation: Arcidiacono, D., Maestripieri, L. (2019). Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy. Revista Española de Sociología, 28 (3, supl. 1), 15-34. (Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2019.26) RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 15 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy INTRODUCTION moting a new retail “bio-diversity” alternative to the supposed one-way system represented by mass The need for social innovation in the domain retailers. The movement is sustained by an activa- of agriculture and food is sound. There is a grow- tion of consumers at the individual and collective ing interest on the part of scholars and activists level, theoretically defined as “political consumer- who are mobilising around food, both in northern ism” (Micheletti, 2003). Consumers choose prod- and southern countries, asking for more equity and ucts based largely on ethical-political consider- transparency along the supply chain. The reason ations and, through their choices and behaviours, lies in the progressive marketisation of food and try to renegotiate the spaces that consumers hold primary goods delivery following the success of in the current value chain. mass retailers. This puts in question fair access This paper analyses the potential role that Soli- to goods which are basic for life (The Foundational darity Purchasing Groups (SPGs)2 —as a relevant Economy Collective, 2018). example of social innovations inspired by political In the industrial era, the expansion of large consumerism— can have in disrupting pre-exist- retailers in the food market was often associated ing socio-economic dynamics that might determine with several socio-economic narratives that could the marginalisation of suppliers in the food chain. be represented as “flattering promises” for cus- Alternative food networks (Murdoch et al., 2000) tomers and producers. Large retailers would im- —­to which SPGs belong— are configuring as a prove the efficiency of the supply chain, ensuring new form of civil economy (Bruni and Zamagni, a good profitability for food producers and more 2007; Lyson, 2005) which is based on the self- benefits for consumers in terms of more various, organisation of consumers and producers who col- healthier and cheaper goods. However, several laborate in the food supply chain with a strong ethi- studies have shown that the buying power of the cal concern. In experiences like SPGs, consumers major retailers (Dobson, 2005; Dobson and Inderst, and producers make choices that are oriented from 2007; Foros and Kind, 2008), rather than increas- specific values and ethics, i. e. the sustainability ing the efficiency of the supply chain, has led to a of production, the respect of local traditions or the deterioration in the relationship between producers compliance with labour standards. Consistent with and distributors, with significant regressive ef- the frame of political consumerism, consumers’ in- fects on consumers (i. e. reduced control of food terests in SPGs are organised in a collective way, sources, risk of fraud and adulteration, even higher capable of proposing ambitious transformations prices § par 5). Such dynamics have promoted the and of promoting projects for systemic change. emergence of processes of “resistance” (De Certau, The scope of the paper is to exploit the con- 1988) or “reconnection” to the “foundational value cept of social innovation to analyse the impact of of the food markets” (Bowman et al., 2014: 58)1. SPGs in reducing the economic marginalisation of New trends have started to emerge in order to their suppliers. Therefore, the goals of the analysis re-organise agro-food practices. There is a greater are: i) assessing the impact of SPGs in the Italian tendency to downsize store formats, trying to re- food supply chain; ii) assessing SPGs’ capacity to trieve a relational dimension with the customers, increase the economic margins of producers and to but also to develop new formats of short supply foster their social participation. In particular, the chains, emphasising the need for restoring and paper focuses on evaluating how much social inno- protecting an entrepreneurial pluralism and pro- vation was experienced by the Italian SPGs in terms of reducing the marginalisation of small suppliers, 1  These scholars argued that some specific needs and products (i. e. food, energy, water, electricity, transporta- tion, health) represent the “infrastructure of everyday life” 2 The English name of solidarity purchasing groups re- (p. 25), crucial for well being and for social reproduction prises the Italian name of gruppi di acquisto solidale, process. Their provision nowadays was compromised by usually shortened to the acronym GAS. In order to make the privatisation of public utilities or by the olipolistic role it comprehensible to English readers in the article we of big player of retail strongly supported by financial actors. will use the acronym SPGs across the text. RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 16 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy and whether they represent a viable alternative to Moulaert et al. (2009) maintained that the the buying power and hegemony exercised by mass concept allows focus on local scale and on the retailers in the food supply chain. role of local communities, with greater attention to the integration of people who are deprived or marginalised or penalised by the current produc- THE THEORETICAL DEBATE ON SOCIAL INNOVATION tion system. Socially innovative solutions are based AND ITS ROLE IN THE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE on new governance of the local development pro- FOOD NETWORKS cesses, changing relations and power in strategic decision-making. The concept of social innovation (SI) is an The food supply chain represents, nowadays, increasingly successful one, which has been one of the major areas of “experimentation” for SI widely used in the past to analyse several issues (Moulaert et al., 2013; Eggers and McMillan, 2013; in social sciences. However, it carries the risk of Loconto, 2014) and SPGs represent one of the most becoming a buzzword, rather than an analytical interesting examples within the laboratory of alter- concept, due to its widespread use in the recent native food networks. Solidarity purchasing groups sociological debate (Ziegler, 2017), and due to the have several characteristics that are typically at- ambiguity of the term for which there is no true tributed to SIs for the “novelty” of the proposed shared and universally accepted definition (de model and how it changes governance within the Bruin, 2012). food supply chain, both for the size of openness that Zapf (1991) linked the concept with the mod- characterises the system as well as its vocation to ernisation theory, as a bridge between structural the local dimension. Process is based on voicing, and action-centred approaches to the analysis of that is giving voice to actors —like consumers— social change. Some other definitions, such as that who are usually considered powerless compared to promoted by Stiglitz (2011) or Nesta (2008), stress big economic actors, such as corporations or mass above all the dimension of “novelty” of these ex- retailers3. periences. Social innovations tackle human needs The main aim of the SPGs movement is to pro- that are in some way not solved by the current mote new forms of relationship between consumers market system and public action is directly based and producers. This spontaneous and bottom-up on them. They appear to be more efficient and organisation of consumers, mainly operating at an sustainable, and capable of creating widespread informal level, decide to meet directly with local value in society as a whole, rather than favouring producers to buy the wholesale food they need us- enrichment and value appraisal by a few (BEPA, ing solidarity and ethical concerns as the main cri- 2010). Other definitions, however, refer to the con- terion of choice. The advantages of this short cycle cept of “openness” that characterises these forms allow the group not only to save money, but also of innovation in which citizen-consumers actively to ascertain more easily the ethos of producers, participate in the construction of these solutions, defending the local production from the increasing according to a logic that destroys every hierarchy buying power of the large retailers. The operation is and brokering in the processes of relationship based on proximity. The SPGs require the coordina- (Franz et al., 2012). These innovations promote a tion of households who live near to each other for new social economy based on the intensive use of shipping and distribution of food, so groups’ activi- distributed networks to sustain and manage rela- ties occur at town level (in the smallest localities) tionships, helped by broadband, mobile and other or at neighbourhood level (in the biggest cities). means of communication; blurred boundaries be- tween production and consumption; an emphasis 3 The concept of voicing derives from a long-standing on collaboration and on repeated interactions, debate in sociology and economics, since the publica- care, and maintenance rather than one-off con- tion of Hirschman (1970) “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Re- sumption; and a strong role for values and mis- sponses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States”. sions (Mulgan et al., 2010). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 17 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy The local relevance of the SPGs phenomenon is an suppliers. In the second, we investigate how those important factor, not only because it confirms the actions impact on the economic marginalisation of interest in a shrinking supply chain, as a strategy current, past and potential suppliers of SPGs. The for better value for money, but because it releas- article uses empirical materials stemming from the es relational content to household consumption, EU-funded project CrESSI, whose main aim was stimulating a community and mutual solidarity to investigate the underpinnings of cases of SI in (Rebughini, 2008). However, previous studies on fostering the social and economic participation of SPGs have so far generally concentrated on the po- marginalised groups in Europe. The empirical en- litical participation of these actors, as for example quiry has been based on a combination of qualita- Grasseni (2014), Forno and Graziano (2014), Guidi tive and quantitative methods, which investigated and Andretta (2015), while the interest in their eco- both sides of the relationship between consumers nomic impact on suppliers and local communities and producers. Methods included semi-structured remains marginal. In fact, the role of social innova- interviews of social innovators (consumers in SPGs) tion in tackling marginalisation is somehow taken and an online survey for beneficiaries of SI (produc- for granted and less attention has been given to ers potentially/currently in contact with SPGs). how, and how much, a concrete experience of SI by The research design utilised a mixed-method SPGs is able to reduce the risks of social exclusion research strategy (Bryman, 2012). The information of their beneficiaries. gathered from the social innovators’ interviews was Stemming from theoretical perspectives on SI, used for the development of questions proposed to the aim of this paper is to frame the SPGs experi- the SPGs suppliers, so that a complete correspon- ence as a social innovation and analyse the impact dence could be made between the content emerging on the Italian value chain. After a methodological from the semi-structured interviews and the items section in which the research project, objectives presented in the questionnaire. With particular ref- and the method adopted are presented in detail, erence to the analysis of SPGs as social innovation, the subsequent analysis reconstructs the Italian the questions directly derived from interview con- scenario through the available data and documents tent covered activities in which the person can be in order to historically and economically position involved as a beneficiary of the SI, the main benefi- SPGs experience in the specific national context. ciaries of the SI and type of benefit gained through Then, there is deeper discussion of the dimensions the participation with the SI. A focus group with a of innovation in the SPGs Italian experience, from a selected group of suppliers was also organised to critical point of view. Finally, the relationship with investigate which were the dimensions of autonomy the suppliers and its impact on the supply chain re- associated with participation in the SI and the re- configuration is examined, followed by a concluding sults have also been used to compile the autonomy paragraph summarising the main evidences. section of the questionnaire4. Defined as an instrument development ap- proach in Bryman (2012), the mixed-method strat- METHODS egy employed in CrESSI also aimed to answer dif- ferent research questions involving the different The impact on marginalisation of suppliers is populations of the project (social innovators vs. SI the least stressed aspect in the current literature beneficiaries). The role of consumers was analysed about SI. It is the main original element in the via 35 semi-structured interviews plus 35 short analysis proposed, as well as the framing of SPGs as a social innovation in order to assess their con- crete impact on the supply chain. To achieve this 4 The CrESSI research design is based on a complex theo- retical framework, called extended social grid (Nicholls goal, the analysis is divided in two main sections. and Ziegler, 2019). For reference, a complete review of In the first, we analyse the opinion of SPGs mem- the empirical material collected and the mixed-method bers on their role as social innovators and exam- strategy applied in CrESSI can be found in von Jacobi ine what type of actions they pursue in favour of et al. (2018). RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 18 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy questionnaires (part of the data collected with the with them). The material collected was analysed short questionnaire is presented in Tables I and II through a content analysis and the main sensitis- of the appendix); the unit of analysis was the SPG ing concepts (Blumer, 1954) applied in the analysis group, not the interviewee/s as member/s of SPGs. were derived from the SI theoretical debate. Inter- The range of the analysis covered the entire coun- views were analysed using Atlas-Ti, version 6. try of Italy, distributing SPG cases in an equivalent The impact on suppliers, who were considered to proportion between affluent contexts, prevailing be the main beneficiaries of social innovation were contexts and vulnerable contexts, on the basis of investigated through an online survey, which gath- an index of vulnerability calculated at NUTS3 level5. ered 2965 questionnaires. The survey population An outline of the groups interviewed can be found consisted of 925 beneficiaries and 2040 individuals in Table I of the appendix, while Table II of the ap- in a control group of suppliers with social and eco- pendix contains a resume of basic information nomic characteristics similar to SPG suppliers, but about the SPGs distinguished by the vulnerability who had never been in contact with social innova- of the context in which they are active. Although tion. The respondents comprised small family farm- the SPG groups included in the qualitative analy- ers, social cooperatives and local artisans in Italy sis were selected randomly from the Retegas SPGs who had been, are or could potentially be in contact census6, the data collection for this research does with SPGs. A list of SPG suppliers was not available not presume to be representative of the SPGs cur- given the informality that characterises this social rently active in Italy. innovation. Therefore, the analysis cannot be repre- The semi-structured interview investigated the sentative of the entire population of SPG suppliers, history of the single group, its main objective, val- nor was the control group randomly selected to be ues and activities. It also invited the respondents representative of the wider population of potential to reflect on their group as a SI, with a dashboard SPG suppliers. About 63.8 % of the sample was of 12 items that took into account the main ele- constituted of the control group, of which about ments that the theoretical debate associated with 5.2 % had never even heard of social innovation. the SI (innovation, relations, participation, change, The respondents involved in the social innovation empowerment, inclusion, diversity). Then, the in- and control group can be distinguished in terms of terviewees were asked to consider the SPG move- gender, with more women in the first group (41.3 % ment in its entirety and find evidence of the social vs. 33.4 % in control group). In terms of age, those and innovative characteristics in it. Finally, a wider in contact with social innovation were slightly section investigated the relation with the suppli- younger with a mean age of 47 years, compared to ers (who are beneficiaries, what type and frequency those in the control group who had a mean age of 49 of contacts, type of activity in which suppliers are (see Table III in appendix for further details). involved, dimensions of marginalisation associated A typology was built to analyse the economic marginalisation of SPG suppliers through a combi- 5 The index of vulnerability is formed by a combination nation of principal component analysis (PCA) and a of three different indicators: at-risk of poverty-rate following cluster analysis run on the components. (NUTS2), occupational level (NUTS3) and GDP per per- The variables included in the principal component son (NUTS3). The 35 interviews are distributed as fol- analysis were the following: educational level (8 lows: 12 interviews belong to affluent contexts, 13 to prevailing contexts and 10 to vulnerable contexts (see classes), income (18 classes), type of benefit re- Table 2 in the appendix). ceived from SPGs (no collaboration, no relevant 6 The list published on www.retegas.org is the most com- change, only a personal benefit, personal and fi- prehensive database available for assessing the num- nancial benefit), trust in SPGs, in farmers’ associa- ber of SPG groups that are currently active in Italy and it tions and in biological certification (scale from 0 to constitutes the usual data source for research on SPGs 10) and a dummy with a value of one if the person (Forno and Graziano, 2016). The population at the date of sample selection (September 2015) was composed of had never heard of SPGs (see appendix Tables V, VI 990 groups, considering only the SPGs and not their net- and VII for statistics about PCA). Using components work aggregation (about 11 networks). in the cluster analysis avoided the two main risks RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 19 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy that might affect results related to the choice of tailers (Wilkinson, 2015; EU Parliament, 2015; Ve- variables, as it standardised the variables and lázquez and Buffaria, 2017). On the one hand, large avoided multicollinearity (Punji and Stewart, 1983; producers and distributors impose the weight of Ketchen and Shook, 1996). their buying power mainly on the smallest compa- In a second step, a cluster based on a hierar- nies and local actors. On the other hand, consum- chical cluster algorithm (single-linkage) (Punj and ers are trapped within an increasingly polarised Stewart, 1983) was run on the seven components to market, in which they may opt between low-cost plot a dendrogram, which allowed us to decide which but also low-quality products and products of high- were the most efficient number of clusters that best quality, which can only be accessed by those who fitted at our data (with a cut-off value of two). Then, have high spending power. Fair relations within we ran a k-means cluster (Punj and Stewart, 1983) the agro-food chain are considered crucial for the in four groups to divide our data into the types ana- European Union, which has recently launched the lysed in the article: potential beneficiaries, discour- “Green Paper on unfair trade in the supply chain aged, promoters and neutrals. To avoid any potential between food and non-food businesses in Europe” issue with the k-means cluster, a non-random start- (EU Parliament 2015). The problem of buying ing point was specified (Punji and Stewart, 1983). power is a global issue and the European Com- This two-step procedure for cluster analysis maxi- mission has enabled the establishment of a multi- mises the validity of solutions (Ketchen and Shook, stakeholder forum “For a Better Functioning Food 1996). Further information about the final typology Supply Chain”. This centrality of the food market is given in the appendix, Table VIII. necessitates close examination of the organisation Based on the steps described so far, the analy- and coordination process within the supply chain, sis presented in the paper refers to the subsample looking also at the peculiarities of specific national of respondents who provided valid answers for the contexts. variables included in the PCA and in the cluster This is particularly true in Italy, a Mediterra- analysis (1.055). The analysis has been conducted nean country with a strong agricultural tradition using STATA v.15. Given the previously evidenced and a great interest in the food market. Italy is also limits, the study did not aim for statistical repre- a country with the largest density of small shops sentativeness of the phenomenon in Italy, nor was (one for every sixty inhabitants). However, since this its scope. The results presented in the next the financial crisis in the early nineties, there has paragraphs are only valid for the population of the been a dramatic decline of these small retailers respondents to the CrESSI survey. (from 49.8 % in 1996 to 26.5 % in 2017), while The next sections cover the empirical materi- the large retailers have expanded (Federdistribuzi- als. Section 4 uses contextual data from different one, 2017). Large retail operating in Italy showed sources to put into evidence the extent to which a growth in the density that has reached about small producers are economically marginalised in 312 square metres per 1,000 inhabitants, covering the Italian food supply chain. Section 5 uses ex- more than the 73.5 % of the food market share. tracts from the CrESSI semi-structured interviews This growth accelerated further after the end of with social innovators to investigate the activities the 1990s with the liberalisation of trade market that SPGs promote as social innovations. Finally, measures promoted by Minister Bersani (d. lgs section 6 uses data from the CrESSI data collection 114/98). to ascertain the impact of SPGs on suppliers. Despite this huge growth, the C37 index shows a highly fragmented market at a national level but FOOD MARKET TENSIONS AND THE RISE OF SPGS IN ITALY 7 C3 Index is an index that measures the concentration of a market by adding the shares held by the top three companies with the highest odds. The C3 index is pre- The global food market is experiencing deep ferred by several Italian institutions like Banca d’Italia tensions between farmers, food companies and re- and the Anti-trust Authority to monitor concentration in RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 20 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy an inhomogeneous distribution of large retailers less than 10 million euros, who serve a limited with a local monopoly in specific regions. The first number of chains (between 1 and 3) and who do three national operators hold approximately 36 % not have a leader product. Small producers are the of the national market, compared with 61 % of the most widespread actor in the Italian food market. equivalent companies in Germany and the UK, or According to the Italian Institute for the Agri- even 54 % in Spain. However, if we measure the cultural Market (ISMEA, 2018), in relation to the level of concentration at the regional level this pro- Italian value chain for agricultural products, the portion rises to almost 50 %. In some regions, such most vulnerable actors in the supply chain are pro- as Tuscany and Emilia Romagna, the first three ducers. Out of 100 euros of consumer spending on firms have a 78 % or 80 % market share. This fresh agricultural products, only 22 euros remain condition is an Italian peculiarity generated by a as added value to producers. This must cover de- specific institutional asset that attributes the trade preciation and pay salaries, resulting in a net profit sector to regional competence. In these areas, there of 6 euros against the remaining 17 euros in the is a low level of intra-type competition that limits hands of commerce, distribution and transport the potential benefits to consumers in terms of as- businesses. In the case of processed food, the net sortment and price. Furthermore, because the lead- income is equally compressed. On the same figures, ing chains often belong to the same purchasing only 1.6 euros is reserved for farmers, while the net central point, the conditions of purchase and va- remuneration for the entrepreneurs in commerce, riety are standardised without producing any wel- distribution and transport remains at 11 euros. fare benefits for consumers. A recent study by the In this scenario, the role of SPGs could become European Central Bank (2011) among six European crucial in the Italian context. Although the histori- countries, including Italy, confirmed this situation cal roots of the SPGs can be traced back to the and highlighted how a higher level of concentration nineteenth century, when purchasing groups were in central purchasing within the food and beverage promoted by working-class groups in order to ease industry excludes an automatic transfer of benefits access to basic goods for low-income classes, it for customers and rather indicates an appropria- was only after the 1980s that they started to pro- tion of value by distributors. mote ethical principles via consumption by apply- The situation doesn’t seem little better for pro- ing them in local markets. Officially, the first SPG ducers and suppliers. The Italian Anti-trust Agency in Italy was born in Fidenza in 1994. The experi- (AGCM, 2012) surveyed a representative sample of ence then began to spread to Reggio Emilia and 471 food firms. The results of the survey underlined Piacenza, but it was with the increasing popularity that in 67 % of cases distributors asked produc- of the no-global movement that they became known ers to change the economic agreements already all over the country in the 2000s. Thus, the formal defined in earlier negotiations (rarely in a written rise of the movement is quite coincident with the form), in many cases (almost 40 %) with a retroac- consolidation of the mass food retailers in the Ital- tive effect. In cases of refusal, 74 % of respondents ian market. claimed to have suffered some consequences, such The number of SPGs in Italy, according to the as cancellation from the supplier list or a deterio- BIO Bank Report (2016), continues to increase ration in the buying conditions of the next supply. significantly, even if less quickly since the recent Moreover, the supplier is required to make contri- economic crisis: from 330 in 2006 to 635 in 2010, butions to the distributor for services that are not to 877 in 2015; between 2011 and 2015 the growth really realised or not clearly accountable in almost was just 2 %. In addition, in 2015, there was a de- a third of cases. Such unfair practices are a heavy crease in terms of balance between closed groups burden for smaller suppliers who have revenues and new well-founded groups. In the previous year, 30 groups ceased their activity and only 16 new the Italian food industry. In relation to the reliability of groups were born in the following year. However, using the C3 index, we refer also to the work of Rhodes the distribution of SPGs on national territory is pro- S. A. (1995). foundly uneven, with a prevalence of these groups RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 21 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy in northern Italy, which is more affluent and urban, no longer innovative. Anchored on the same ideas, compared to the regions in the centre and south of those who agreed with the idea of being innovative the country. Despite their limited extent, the num- argued that compared to the mainstream economy ber of SPGs in the last five years grew mainly in the practices promoted by SPGs are still entirely in- the centre and in the south, rising from 24 % to novative, as people who do not belong to the sub- 29.4 %, and from 9.3 % to 12.2 %, respectively. culture of political consumerism are not aware of The regions with the largest number of SPGs remain these purchasing alternatives. Lombardy, Tuscany and Lazio. However, given their informality, figures are only indicative. It is very dif- There are people who are not aware of what an ficult to clearly estimate the number of SPGs and SPG is and that you can do your food shopping in a how many participants are involved, as there is different way. That is, I don’t know, for sure it is in- no obligation for the groups to participate in any novative in this perspective [SPG 2]. associative or formal structure, although they can voluntarily ask to be recognised as an official group The association of SPGs with a social aspect in a national coordination network (see note 10). was more immediate and, as a matter of fact, all As can be seen from Table I, it is clear that in participants were willing to agree on the capac- regions where the mass retailer market concentra- ity of SPGs to create new relations, being open to tion is stronger (i. e. it exceeds 70 %) it is much participation and improve the living conditions of more likely that the number of SPGs is higher than those who are involved. The capacity of fostering other areas, with an impact on the highest total new relations and generating networks of relevant population and a higher market share. For example, personal relations is one of the dimensions that this is the case in Lombardy, where the C3 index theoretical debate usually associates with social reaches 71 % and the number of SPGs reaches innovation (Mulgan et al., 2010). In several quali- 253, one per 39,536 inhabitants. Similar dynam- tative studies on SPGs (Rebughini, 2008; Paltrin- ics are found in other equivalent regions, such as ieri and Spillare, 2015), it emerged that the birth Tuscany, Lazio and Emilia Romagna. of SPG is sustained by the importance of the col- In conclusion, the extremely small dimensions lective purchasing process as a social activity in of agricultural companies magnifies the economic itself, in which participants exchange information marginalisation of the sector. The situation varies and even mutual help in moments of need. In fact, based on their geographical distribution in Italy. investigating in greater detail the type of relations Italian farms are characterised by their small size, fostered by groups, it emerges that significant re- low work intensity and low production revenue. lations are more likely to occur within groups and There is a strong presence of the farm household, among SPG members, being one of the motivations but this trend is more evident in certain areas of behind the activation of consumers in the groups. central and south Italy (see Table IV, appendix). However, when asked if groups have the capacity to foster the inclusion of marginalised groups only a minority of respondents agreed, despite declar- THE INNOVATIVE PRACTICES OF SPGS ing that the main purpose of the development of SPGs is to help suppliers, offering them benefits SPG members were not easily willing to call like a fair price, an end market and personal re- their activities innovative, as they associated inno- lationships with consumers. There are two reasons vation with the idea of something being new (only that explain this apparent contradiction: first, re- 17 interviewees agreed). They had two arguments: spondents were reluctant to consider their suppli- first, SPGs reprise practices that have been forgot- ers as a marginalised group and second, they did ten during the age of mass retail, but which were not involve them in their groups as members with normal in the past. Second, SPGs may have been equal roles and duties, as happens in other forms an innovation at the beginning of their develop- of alternative food networks (i. e. community sup- ment, but now they are in a mature phase and are ported agriculture). RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 22 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy Table 1. Indicators on SPGs distribution by region in relation to mass retailers. Leader SPGs % SPGs Leader* C3 Index* Market Pop/SPGsb groupsa** share** Share* Piemonte Carrefour 53 22.3 99 10.0% 44,692 Valle d’Aosta/ C3 83 40.1 5 0.5% 25,660 Vallée d’Aoste Liguria Coop 49.7 28.4 33 3.3% 47,978 Lombardia Esselunga 71.1 39.2 253 25.6% 39,536 Trentinoc Agorà 77.4 30.4 21 2.1% 50,283 Veneto Selex 50.1 31.1 86 8.7% 57,298 Friuli-Venezia Giulia Coop 61.4 29.8 17 1.7% 72,184 Emilia-Romagna Coop 74.2 41.1 88 8.9% 50,574 Toscana Coop 80.3 48 126 12.7% 29,783 Umbria Auchan 64 29.5 13 1.3% 68,828 Marche Conad 54.2 20.3 33 3.3% 46,994 Lazio Coop 76.7 29.1 90 9.1% 65,471 Abruzzo Conad 54.5 26 14 1.4% 95,112 Molise Conad 41 16.3 3 0.3% 104,449 Campania Conad 71.4 24.9 27 2.7% 217,094 Puglia Selex 56.6 38.5 27 2.7% 151,485 Basilicata Selex 55.8 22.6 4 0.4% 144,155 Calabria Conad 39.5 16.9 11 1.1% 179,694 Sicilia Auchan 42.7 19 29 2.9% 175,589 Sardegna Conad 47.9 17.5 11 1.1% 151,208 Source: Author’s calculation on data *AGCM (2012), **retegas (2015), Eurostat (2015). a Number of SPGs groups has been taken in retegas database, accessed in September 2015. This indicator gives back a relative measure of the number of SPGs groups on the total of population. The number indicates the ratio between resident b  population and the number of groups. Indicator from population at 1 January 2015 is taken from Eurostat regional database. The province of Trento and Bolzano (NUTS3) are autonomous entity of Trentino (NUTS2) and usually data are given for the separate entities (see c  Table 4). In this case, since AGCM data are given at NUTS2 level we give results at NUTS2 level. Suppliers were considered the main beneficiary tivities. If, in general, the disconnection from the of SPGs actions, but they were not considered mar- mainstream economy was perceived as a social ginalised by social innovators (16 positive answers problem by interviewees, a disconnected position out of 35 groups). Usually, marginality is not due from the mainstream economy was not considered to the suppliers’ position in the supply chain but sufficient in itself to confer a status of margin- derives from the vulnerable biographies of the alisation on their suppliers (they commented with owners/workers (i. e. health problems or disabili- prompts like “they are moaners” or “they have a ties) or the small dimensions of their economic ac- job anyway”). RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 23 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy Oh my God, I don’t know. I am not able to imag- not think that a single group’s support is deter- ine them as a marginalised group, then we are all minant in protecting producers from descent into marginalised (we laugh), that is, I don’t know, there vulnerability. It is only the coordinated actions of are producers that love to be sorry for themselves, several SPGs that can uplift the situation of a pro- but [...]. I don’t know, it doesn’t seem to me, if you do ducer and protect them against economic cycles. your job well, then you’re not marginalised [SPG 2]. This has happened in the past for certain producers who were big enough to mobilise the entire com- Secondly, relations with producers occurred munity of solidarity purchasing groups. mostly at commercial levels and only in a one-to- Coordination is difficult to achieve as there is one relationship with the product referent, with no formalised and institutionalised structure that suppliers generally excluded from groups’ decision connects groups at the local level and nationally. making. None of the groups involved producers as The mobilisation occurs informally following a pe- members. The single referent is usually the only tition from well-known producers that might acti- person directly in contact and personally known by vate a mobilisation of the dispersed groups for a the producers for each SPG. Furthermore, the power specific project, acting as the promoter of their ac- relation between consumers and producers con- tion. This functioning implies that actions that in- tinues to be asymmetrical. The bargaining power volve several groups usually respond to emergency is still in the hands of the consumer, who may opt rescues or pleas from the most popular producers to change a producer in cases where they are no (Maestripieri, 2016), contradicting the principle of longer satisfied with the product offered or simply protecting the smallest and most disconnected pro- because they are not satisfied with the person. ducers. In conclusion, SPGs members —as social innovators— were usually more prone to see the For producers, on the contrary, they improve a social dimension of their activities, compared to the lot because they sell, ehm [...] their products at a dimension of innovation. However, the type of rela- price which is much superior than the one they would tions that SPGs foster focuses on internal relations, normally sell their products and plus they can get leaving producers aside. For suppliers, although know you in a viral way [...] as you can say, by word of mouth, because we Italians, in practice, we lean on they were considered the main beneficiary of their word of mouth for everything and [...] then, that is, activity, respondents were reluctant to consider suppliers when [...] when producers become suppli- them marginalised for the very same reason (their ers of SPGs they make a jump [...] decisively positive, position in the supply chain) by which they declared until they don’t disappoint them, because when they the SPGs exist as a social innovation (disrupting the disappoint them, they are abandoned (she laughs) mainstream economic relations). Given the analy- [SPG 0]. sis and previous existent literature, the benefit of their activity seems to be more in favour of political A second contradiction emerged when inter- and social activation of consumers than to ease the viewees were asked about the marginalisation of economic integration of suppliers. The empirical re- their suppliers. In principle, they maintained that sults presented in this section allow us to postulate their activities mostly revolve in favour of produc- that SPGs are only able to intervene and disrupt the ers, especially farm households and small produc- actual power relations in supply chains to a limited ers who may suffer the worst shortcomings of being extent, as they do not really achieve their aim to in- integrated into the mainstream food supply chain tegrate actors who have a more marginal role. due to their reduced bargaining power. The SPGs price is fair as it is bargained in a horizontal re- lationship with final consumers, avoiding interme- THE INCLUSION IN THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN: diaries. In some cases, groups have also affirmed THE ROLE OF SOLIDARITY PURCHASING GROUPS they offer sustainment in case of any difficulties (i. e. a pre-financing support in case of a bad har- In relation to the situation of small farmers de- vest or any economic downturn). However, they did scribed previously, SPGs proposed themselves as a RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 24 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy possible solution to overcome the rising economic produced a clear image (Table II). On one side, so- marginalisation of producers. Their functioning cial innovators were convinced that SPG members supposedly overturns the traditional logic of eco- and suppliers benefitted equally from the activities nomic relations: from the maximisation of profit of the social innovation (29 out of 35 interviewees and reduction of the price to the definition of a fair for consumers; 30/35 for producers). On the other, price that is bargained between producers and con- beneficiaries thought that members of the groups sumers without any intermediator actor who could were those who benefitted to the greatest extent increase the price for final consumers without giv- from the activities of the social innovation, while ing a surplus benefit to the supplier. In exchange, the other groups benefitted from the social innova- producers have to fulfil certain requirements: to re- tion for only a minority of respondents. spect the shortest production chain, to favour local The low number of beneficiaries who agreed products, to sustain specific projects considered of that the SPG suppliers were one of the main ben- social relevance (i. e. integration of people at risk eficiaries of this social innovation was in line with or a conversion towards organic production of a their declarations about their personal experience. new supplier), to protect the environment and to Only 7.3 % of respondents in contact with SPGs increase the sustainability of the food supply. Once declared that their participation in the social in- they comply with ethical principles, the producers’ novation had improved their financial situation, proposed prices are accepted by the consumers while an additional 19.6 % declared that they had and SPG suppliers supposedly find an end-market received at least a personal benefit from their par- which is ethically oriented to sustain the reduction ticipation in terms of friendship, fair price or busi- of their economic marginalisation. ness relations (see Table V in appendix). In this regard, CrESSI data were a unique In analytical terms, it was useful to further source for checking the consistency of political differentiate respondents into four distinct groups statements with the practical effect of economic that distinguished them in terms of their attitudes activity. The first element investigated was who is and their perception of the benefit received from actually the beneficiary of this social innovation, by SPGs8. The first cluster (251 respondents) rep- comparing, in this regard, the opinions of the social innovators with those of beneficiaries. The compar- 8 The typology has been developed on a combination of ison between the two groups under investigation PCA and cluster analysis (see methodological para- Table 2. Who benefits from social innovation activitiesa. No. citations social innovators % agreement beneficiariesb SPGs members 29 85.1% Families of SPGs members 6 SPGs suppliers 30 36.1% Small producers 4 52.2% Beneficiary of special projects 2 19.4% Environment 3 45,1% Other 11 — No. cited beneficiaries = 85 Source: CrESSI data collection (semi-structured interviews and survey), 2016. The category proposed in the questionnaire with beneficiaries have been derived from the interviews with social innovators, in a coherent approach a  of mixed methods (von Jacobi et al., 2015). b The percentage reports the number of respondents that think that the category under investigation has benefitted to large extent from SPGs. RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 25 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy resented the “neutrals”, as they showed neither The fourth cluster (309) represented the “po- trust nor distrust towards the social innovation tential beneficiaries”. In the majority, it was a clus- (6.3). They were composed mostly of respondents ter composed of people who had never been in con- who had never been in contact with an SPG (about tact with social innovation or even had not heard 70 %). For those who had been in contact with the about it, but who still retained a trustful attitude social innovation, 48 respondents out of 77 experi- towards it (7.3). A consistent quota of this group enced no relevant change from their participation had an educational level lower than ISCED 2 (about in SPGs. They can also be distinguished because 16.5 % of respondents in this group). Together with they were mostly tertiary educated. cluster 3, they showed the lowest scores of happi- A second cluster (238 respondents) represent- ness (6.4) and political activation (4.9). ed the “promoters”, those who were enthusiastic Looking at the previous clusters, there seemed supporters of the social innovation with a high level to be evidence that participation in social innova- of trust (8.1). Among them, there was a concentra- tion had an impact on the welfare of the respon- tion of those who experienced a financial and per- dents, in terms of empowerment, trust and au- sonal benefit from their participation in the social tonomy. However, the positive impact of SPGs on innovation. It is also quite interesting to highlight welfare was not entirely confirmed by the analysis that individuals in this group were also those who of income distribution (see Figure 1). Cluster 1 and declared the highest score of perceived autonomy 2, in the majority of the cases, were concentrated in (7.9) and the lower concentration of those who the 900-1,500 euro income class, but they can be thought they could do anything to improve their life distinguished in terms of extremes. Cluster 1 had (about 5 %). They are the group with the highest a higher presence of high-paid respondents, while political activation (5.52)9. there was a consistent percentage of respondents A third cluster (257) comprised those who in cluster 2 concentrated among the low-income were “discouraged”. They showed the lowest score groups. The lower number of high-income suppliers of trust towards SPGs (3.1), which is in line with among promoters might be explained by the higher a general distrust those individuals exhibited to- presence of social cooperative workers among their wards the relevant institutions in the field, such numbers and the orientation of the groups to sup- as farmers’ associations (2.1) or organic certifi- ply by the smallest farmers. As such, there was no cation (1.5). In the majority, they were people who clear evidence that participating in SPGs improves had never been in contact with social innovation. the economic conditions of respondents. Finally, However, among them there were 36 respondents clusters 3 and 4 confirmed that the economic mar- who had no relevant change or declared having ginalisation of respondents was associated with just a personal benefit from their collaboration with distrust and a lower propensity to be politically SPGs. They can also be distinguished for the lowest ­active. score in terms of political activation (4.8) and lower The positive impact that promoters gain from awareness of their potential autonomy (6.2). the social innovation can be explained by the type and the breadth of involvement of suppliers in the activities of the groups (see Table III). In graph). Descriptive statistics can be found in the Annex, fact, those who gained the greatest benefit were Table IX. 9 The index of political activation is based on a linear also those who experienced the widest and more sum of the political actions that a person can do to varied involvement in the groups’ activities, a sustain their own political ideas. There are 8 actions type of collaboration that goes beyond the mere (inspired from the ESS survey): to vote in local elec- commercial level that is more typical of the other tions, to vote in national elections, to vote in European clusters. elections, to sign a petition, to participate to a boycott, In conclusion, SPGs have the scope to reduce to participate in a march, to participate in unrecog- nised strikes, to occupy houses or factories. The person the economic marginalisation of their suppliers scores 1 if he/she has done an action in the past, 0.5 if and improve their financial situation only for a the person would do it. limited part of the CrESSI sample (7.3 % of those RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 26 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy Figure 1. Income distribution in classes by typology of beneficiaries. Source: CrESSI survey data, 2016. Table 3. Type of activities with SPGsa - % of some/large extent. Neutrals Promoters Discouraged Potential Commercial contacts with SPGs 64% 68.91% 75% 46.43% Organised SPGs visit in my farm 34.67% 44.96% 32.50% 25% Presentation of products in SPGs assembly 36% 50.42% 35% 28.57% Participation in SPGs events (markets/fairs) 24% 31.51% 25% 14.29% Participation in SPGs assembly 17.33% 27.31% 20% 21.43% Never participated in SPGs decision making 52.05% 27.75% 52.50% 38.10% Respondents in absolute values 75 238 40 28 Source: CrESSI survey data, 2016. The category proposed in the questionnaire with beneficiaries have been derived from the interviews with social innovators, in a coherent approach a  of mixed methods (von Jacobi et al., 2015) involved in the social innovation). Those who were tent group of beneficiaries was concentrated in the deeply involved in the activity of the group were “promoters” cluster (238), there was a consistent also those who belonged to the cluster that showed quota of beneficiaries in the sample for whom their the highest political activation, and higher auton- participation in SPGs had not brought any positive omy and happiness. Furthermore, even if a consis- impact (about 40 %). RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 27 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy CONCLUSIONS ers, mostly due to SPGs inability to grow and to the limited impact that volunteering activities can The paper has analysed the role of solidarity have. The capacity of the SPGs to be contentious purchasing groups in tackling the economic mar- at the political and institutional level is a relevant ginalisation of their suppliers and the consistency of weakness that testifies to some naivety of these ex- their experience within the social innovation debate. periences in the creation of social change. It also The analysis shows shadows and lights: the op- calls for a policy innovation in the sense of favour- eration of SPGs addresses the gaps and needs of ing new paths of institutionalisation that recog- the current market system, both for producers and nise informality and small scale as a constitutive consumers, by proposing a horizontal and collabora- element of social innovations, but that favour at tive structure of the supply chain in comparison to the same time a capacity for effective seeding of the current one, which is hierarchical and vertical, change based on replication that goes beyond the and dominated by the hegemony of mass retailers. mere volunteer activity of the most active and sen- Therefore, SPGs could be considered socially innova- sible citizens. tive, according to the main features evidenced in the Social innovations set for themselves very am- existing literature, even if they only partially achieve bitious goals of filling the gaps in the market and the goal of integrating their suppliers by setting up activating disruptive processes against economic an alternative distribution channel. Even if their ef- marginalisation. The empirical results presented in fectiveness in reducing the economic marginalisa- the paper demonstrated that, in the case of Italian tion of suppliers has to be questioned, the empirical solidarity purchasing groups, this is made possible analysis confirms their capacity to foster the social by fostering the participation of suppliers in SPGs’ participation of those farmers who are more involved activities. This impacts positively on the type of in their activities, in terms of autonomy, agency and benefit that respondents are able to gain from their political activation. To ensure a wide range of ac- participation in this social innovation. However, tivities, effort and involvement are required on the asymmetries and divergences in the consumers and part of SPG members. This amounts to a personal producers’ relationship also emerge in the context of involvement which is not always possible, as SPGs alternative food networks, bearing the risk of a re- activities are mostly organised on a volunteer basis, proposition of buyer power under alternative forms. as highlighted in the previous paragraphs. One of Consequently, the role of SPGs seems to be more ef- the reasons behind the limited effectiveness of SPGs fective in signalling the problem of the marginalised lies in their inability to grow and formalise as well role of small family farmers in the mainstream food (Maestripieri, 2017). This makes it very difficult for supply chain than in tackling the problem with con- a single group to tackle the pre-existing economic crete and practical solutions. It also implies the relations given the limited purchasing power that a need for new policies that could sustain and favour small number of consumers can have. a process of alternative institutionalisation led by One of the explanations behind the limited ca- public institutions that could overcome the risk of pacity of SPGs is that they seemed to be “trapped” free markets, but at the same time is able to tackle in informality, in their small local dimension, with the risk of naivety implied by small and geographi- a low capability of scaling, and also a limited ca- cally limited social innovations. pability of engaging the entire local community, The analysis presented in the paper suffers from mainly external and institutional actors. One might the limitation of generalisation, as it is embedded suppose that their suspicion of institutionalisation in the very peculiar context of Italy. Furthermore, and traditional political actions hinders the eco- the informality that characterises social innova- nomic and social impact of their activities in the tions’ experience hinders the representativeness of communities in which they are active. The aversion the CrESSI investigation as well. At the same time, to formalising their role and a tendency towards an it represents the first steps of a potential research “individualised collective action” (Micheletti, 2003, agenda about SPGs economic and social impact on 2006) have thus implied limited effects on produc- the innovation of the food supply chain. RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 28 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dobson, P. W. (2005). Exploiting Buyer Power: Les- sons from the British Grocery Trade. Antitrust This article has been produced thanks to the Law Journal, 72, 529-562. support of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Dobson, P. W., & Inderst, R. (2007). Differential Programme for Research, Technological Develop- Buyer Power and the Waterbed Effect: Do strong ment and Demonstration (contract No. 613261 - Buyers Benefit or Harm Consumers? European project CrESSI). The information and views set out Competition Law Review, 28(7), 393-400. in this article (or book) are those of the author(s) Eggers, W. D., & McMillan, P. (2013). The Solution only and do not necessarily reflect the official opin- Revolution: How Business, Government, and ion of the European Union. For more information Social Enterprises Are Teaming Up to Solve about the project: https://goo.gl/FlquEt. Society’s Toughest Problems. Boston: Harvard The article has received funding from the Eu- Business Review. ropean Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innova- European Central Bank (2011). Structural features tion Programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie of distributive trades and their impact on pric- Grant Agreement No. 747433. es in the euro area (Occasional Paper Series No. 18). Bruxelles. REFERENCES European Parliament (2015). Unfair Trading Prac- tices in the Business-to-Business Food Supply AGCM (2012). Indagine conoscitiva sul settore del- Chain. Bruxelles. la GDO. IC43. Roma. Federidistribuzione (2017). La mappa del sistema BEPA (2010). Empowering people, driving change: distributivo in Italia. Retrieved from www.fe- Social innovation in the European Union. Brux- derdistribuzione.it. elles. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/ Forno, F., Graziano, P. R. (2014). Sustainable com- pdf/publications_pdf/social_innovation.pdf. munity movement organisations. Journal of Bio Bank (2016). Rapporto Bio Bank. Il biologico in Consumer Culture, 14(2), 139-157. Italia secondo i censimenti Bio Bank, dall’ali- Forno, F., Graziano, P. R. (2016). Il consumo critico. mentazione alla cosmesi. Retrieved from www. Una relazione solidale tra chi acquista e chi biobank.it. produce. Bologna: Il Mulino. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theo- Foros, O., Kind, H. J. (2008). Do Slotting Allowances ry? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3-10. harm retail competition? Scandinavian Journal Bowman, A., Froud, J., Sukhdev, J., Law, J., Leav- of Economics, 110(2), 367-384. er, A., Moran, M., Williams, K. (2014). The end Grasseni, C. (2014). Beyond alternative food net- of the experiment? From competition to the works. Italy’s solidarity purchasing groups. foundational economy. Manchester: Manches- London: Bloomsbury. ter University Press. Guidi, R., Andretta, M. (2015). Between resis- Bruni, L., Zamagni, S. (2007). Civil Economy. Ef- tance and resilience: How do Italian soli- ficiency, Equity and Public Happiness. Oxford: darity purchase groups change in times of Peter Lang. crisis and austerity? Partecipazione e Con- Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. flitto, 8(2), 443-477. https://doi.org/10.1285/ Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. i20356609v8i2p443. De Bruin, A. (2012). Towards Advancing Under- Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Re- standing of Social Innovation. In F. H. Werner, sponses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and J. Hochgerner, J. Howaldt (eds.), Challenge So- States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. cial Innovation. Potentials for Business, Social ISMEA (2018). Rapporto sulla competitività dell’a- Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society groalimentare italiano. Retrieved from www. (pp. 367-378). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ismea.it. De Certau, M. (1988). The practice of everyday life. Ketchen, D. J., Shook, C. L. (1996). The application Los Angeles: California University Press. of Cluster Analysis in Strategic Management RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 29 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy Research: an Analisys and Critique. Strategic Punji, G., Stewart, D. W. (1983). Cluster Analysis in Management Journal, 17, 441-458. Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions Loconto, A. M. (2014) Institutionalising social inno- for Application. Journal of Marketing Research, vation: an exploration of boundaries, EASST An- XX (May 1983), 134-148. nual Conference: Situating Solidarities: social Rebughini, P. (2008). Costruire nuovi spazi di con- challenges for science and technology studies; sumo: i gruppi di acquisto e il sogno della tra- Toru (Polonie) / Conference Proceedings. sparenza. In R. Sassatellu, L. Leonini (eds.), Il Lyson, T. A. (2005). Civic Agriculture and Commu- consumo critico. Significati, pratiche, reti. Bari: nity Problem Solving. Culture & Agriculture, 27, Laterza. 92-98. Rhodes, S. A. (1995). Market Share Inequality, the Maestripieri, L. (2017). Are Solidarity Purchasing HHI, and Other Measures of the Firm-Composi- Groups a social innovation? A study inspired tion of a Market. Review of Industrial Organiza- by social forces. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 10, tion, 10(6), 657-674. 955-982. Seyfang, J. (2009). The new economics of sustain- Micheletti, M. (2003). Political Virtue and Shop- able consumption. Seeds of change. New York: ping. Individuals, Consumerism and Collective Palgrave. Action. London: Palgrave. Stiglitz, J. E. (2011). Rethinking Macroeconomics: Moulaert, F., MacCallaum, D., Hillier, J., Vicari, S. What failed and how to repair it. Journal of the (2009). Social Innovation and Territorial Devel- European Economic Association, 9(4), 591-645. opment. Burlington: Ashgate. The Foundational Economy Collective (2018). Foun- Moulaert, F., MacCallaum, D., Mehmood, A., Ham- dational Economy. The infrastructure of every- douch, A. (2013). General introduction: the re- day life. Manchester: Manchester University turn of social innovation as a scientific concept Press. and a social practice. In F. Moulaert, D. Mac- Velázquez, B., Buffaria, B. (2017). About farmers’ Callaum, A. Mehmood, A. Hamdouch (eds.), The bargaining power within the new CAP. Agricul- International Handbook on Social Innovation. tural and Food Economics, 16(5), 2-13. Collective Action, Social Learning and Trans- Von Jacobi, N., Chiappero-Martinetti, E., Maestri- disciplinary Research. Cheltenham/Northamp- pieri, L., Giroletti, T. (2018). From asking one- ton: Edward Elgar. self questions to taking actions - collectively: Mulgan, G., Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. (2010). The How social innovation empowers people. Un- Open Book of Social Innovation. London: The published paper. Young Foundation. Von Jacobi, N., Edmiston, D., Ziegler, R. (2017). Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., Banks, J. (2000). Quality, Tackling marginalisation through social in- nature and embeddedness: some theoretical novation? Examining the EU social innovation considerations in the context of the food sector. policy agenda from a capabilities perspective. Economic Geography, 76, 107-125. Journal of Human Development and Capabili- Nesta (2008). Social Innovation: New approaches ties, 18(2), 148-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 to transforming public services (SI/ No. 18). 9452829.2016.1256277. London. Wilkinson, J. (2015). Food security and the global Nicholls, A., Ziegler, R. (2019). The Extended Social agrifood system: Ethical issues in historical Grid Model. In A. Nicholls, R. Ziegler (eds.), Cre- and sociological perspective. Global Food Se- ating (fair) economic space for social innova- curity, 7(3), 9-14. tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zapf, W. (1991). The role of innovations in modern- Paltrinieri, R., Spillare, S. (2015). Well-being Shift ization theory. International Review of Sociol- through Healthy Eating. From Organic Con- ogy, 2(3), 83-94. sumption to a Paradigm of Alternative Local Ziegler, R. (2017). Social Innovation as a Collabora- Development. Rivista Di Studi Sulla Sostenibi- tive Concept. Innovation: The European Journal lità, 2, 99-110. of Social Science Research, 30(4), 388-405. RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 30 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Lara Maestripieri holds a PhD in Sociology and Social Research. She is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Davide Arcidiacono holds a PhD in Sociology fellow at the Institute of Government and Public and Methods for Social Sciences, and is Researcher Policies (IGOP) at the Universitat Autònoma de in Economic Sociology at the University of Cata- Barcelona. Her main research interests are labour nia. He is a member of the international research transformation in the post-industrial society, in group the Foundational Economy Collective. He is particular: marginalised groups in labour markets also a member of several editorial boards of peer- (women and young people), social innovation and reviewed journals such as the Review of European emerging professions. Published articles from the Studies, Consumatori, Diritti e Mercato, POLIS and social innovation research stream appear in the In- Frontiers in Sociology. His research work focuses on ternational Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and the issues of digital transformation, consumerism, Food, Partecipazione e Conflitto and the Journal of economic regulation and work transitions. Social Entrepreneurship. APPENDIX Table 1. Few basic data about the case studies in CrESSI, by degree of vulnerability of the local context in which they operate. Total SPGs Affluent Prevailing Vulnerable Year of foundation (average) 2006 2006 2005 2009 Active members (average n. social innovators) 43 40 49 41 Number of suppliers (average n. beneficiaries) 18 21 19 13 Groups in cities (above 100,000 inhabitants) 19 8 5 6 Formal association/organisation 15 5 4 6 Total interviews 35 12 13 10 Source: Authors’ elaborations on CrESSI semi-structured interviews, 2016. Table 2. Total questionnaires in the Italian social innovation case (SPG) under the EU funded project CrESSI, distinguished by gender. Men Women Age (mean) Total Control group, of which 1,348 (66.1%) 692 (33.4%) 49.25 2,040 Never heard of SPGs 217 92 48.59 309 Heard of them, but never been active with SPG 1,131 600 49.37 1,731 Beneficiary, of which 543 (58.7%) 382 (41.3%) 46.74 925 Actual Beneficiaries 439 311 47.12 750 Past beneficiaries 104 71 48.96 175 Total 1,891 1,074 48.78 2,965 Source: CrESSI survey data, 2016. RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 31 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy Table 3. Farm indicators, Italy 2013. % farm N. Farms AWU/farma Ha/farm Output/farm householdb Piemonte 48,940 1.1 25.6 69,634 3.7% Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste 2,180 1.1 47.7 23,278 22.9% Liguria 7,900 1.5 11.1 32,448 25.6% Lombardia 40,440 1.3 27.0 170,335 6.3% Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano 15,430 1.4 21.2 28,302 4.9% Provincia Autonoma di Trento 8,360 1.3 51.0 42,634 4.7% Veneto 85,190 0.8 12.4 63,250 3.6% Friuli-Venezia Giulia 17,860 0.8 14.6 55,791 2.1% Emilia-Romagna 58,670 1.0 22.6 92,174 2.6% Toscana 48,620 1.0 24.8 44,850 25.6% Umbria 24,930 0.5 19.8 30,609 25.0% Marche 34,600 0.6 16.8 32,836 7.8% Lazio 54,290 0.8 14.5 36,618 21.5% Abruzzo 41,690 0.6 15.2 25,883 29.0% Molise 16,950 0.7 12.9 25,511 15.0% Campania 74,360 0.9 8.8 29,093 19.7% Puglia 145,470 0.7 8.7 22,129 12.1% Basilicata 35,330 0.6 17.4 19,467 24.6% Calabria 73,070 0.7 9.1 18,663 18.6% Sicilia 134,730 0.6 10.9 27,459 7.3% Sardegna 41,350 0.9 34.4 45,759 18.5% Italy 1,010,330 0.8 15.8 43,346 13.1% Source: Author’s calculation on EUROSTAT database. Annual Working Unit (AWU) corresponds to the amount of work provided yearly by one person employed on full-time basis. a  Farm household are those household who consume more than 50 % of their total production. b  RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 32 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy Table 4. What type of benefit have you experienced from social innovation activitiesa - % of some/large extent. Financial/Personal benefit Only personal benefit Money/Income 96.8% 73.5% Friendship 91% 78.8% Business relations 76.5% 65.8% Knowledge 86.1% 70.1% Fair price 93.3% 85.1% End market 83.7% 63.3% Source: CrESSI survey data, 2016. The category proposed in the questionnaire with beneficiaries have been derived from the interviews with social innovators, in a coherent approach a  of mixed methods (von Jacobi et al., 2015). Table 5. Descriptive statistics of clusters (km eans), total number of observations 1,055. Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 n° observations 251 238 257 309 Women 43.43% 33.19% 25.68% 30.74% Age Under 30 7.57% 3.78% 6.23% 7.12% 31-40 27.49% 24.79% 16.73% 13.92% 41-50 21.51% 28.15% 24.51% 27.18% 51-64 31.47% 34.87% 40.47% 41.42% Over 65 11.95% 8.40% 12.06% 10.36% Educational level Above ISCED 2 0% 6.72% 12.84% 16.50% ISCED 3-4 1.20% 58.82% 60.7% 80.26% Over ISCED 5 98.8% 34.45% 26.46% 3.24% Type of contact with SPGs Never heard of SPGs 0% 0% 10.89% 8.74% Heard of SPGs, but no contact 70.12% 0% 73.54% 82.20% In contact with SPGs, but no relevant change 19.12% 0.84% 7.39% 9.06% Only personal benefit 10.76% 68.49% 6.61% 0% Personal and financial benefit 0% 30.67% 1.56% 0% Employment status Dependent worker 18.73% 11.34% 8.56% 13.92% Social cooperative 7.17% 10.92% 2.33% 1.94% RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 33 Solidarity Purchasing Groups as social innovators: an analysis of alternative food networks in Italy Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Entrepreneur 34.26% 40.34% 36.19% 33.33% Solo self-employed 16.73% 19.75% 24.51% 24.92% Farm household 19.12% 16.81% 24.9% 22.33% Pensioner 3.59% 0.42% 3.11% 3.24% Unemployed/inactive 0.4% 0.42% 0.39% 0.32% Level of trust (mean value) Trust GAS 6.3 8.1 3.1 7.3 Trust Farmers’ associations 4.84 4.45 2.1 5.9 Trust Organic Certification 5.8 6.1 1.5 6.2 Political activation index (mean value) 5.24 5.52 4.78 4.87 Perceived autonomy (mean value) 7.06 7.92 6.16 7.10 Perceived happiness (mean value) 7.00 7.23 5.82 6.48 Percentages of individuals who declare they can do anything to improve their lives 7.41% 5% 10.31% 9.20% RES n.º 28 (3, supl. 1) (2019) pp. 15-34. ISSN: 1578-2824 34