Page 1

179

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

Position and Role of Social Supermarkets in

Food Supply Chains

Blaženka Knežević, Petra Škrobot, Berislav Žmuk

University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business, Zagreb, Croatia

Abstract

Background: Social supermarkets were developed in Europe after the economic crisis

2008-2014. Their purpose is to decrease food waste that occurs in traditional food

supply chains and to ensure access to food to socially endangered citizens.

Objectives: This paper analyses the general perception of consumers regarding the

mission and purpose of social supermarkets in four Central Eastern European (CEE)

countries: Croatia, Poland, Lithuania, and Serbia. Methods/Approach: The paper

brings the results of the survey research conducted in the observed CEE countries

measuring attitudes towards the relevance and the role of social supermarkets.

Results: There is a positive attitude regarding the existence of social supermarkets in all

the analysed CEE countries. Less than 10% of respondents claim that there is no need

for such organizations. In Croatia, Lithuania, and Poland examinees claim that

reduction of food waste rather than reduction of poverty should be emphasized as a

mission of social supermarkets. Conclusions: Social supermarkets require improvement

of a legal framework, welfare system integration, and implementation of state

monitoring. Moreover, larger involvement of religious communities, national and local

governments, as supporting institutions is observed as a necessity in all the countries.

Keywords: supply chain; social supermarkets; food distribution; CEE

JEL classification: M3, I3

Paper type: Research article

Received: 12 Oct 2020

Accepted: 06 Apr 2021

Citation: Knežević, B., Škrobot, P., Žmuk, B. (2021), “Position and Role of Social

Supermarkets in Food Supply Chains”, Business Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.

179-196.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2021-0012

Acknowledgements: The paper is a result of the project funded by the Croatian

Science Foundation “Potentials and Obstacles of Social Supermarkets Development

in Central and Eastern Europe” (UIP-2014-09-4057).

180

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

Introduction

As a new type of organization, social supermarkets emerged as the answer to the

recent economic crisis across Europe (2008-2014) when the number of people living

at risk of poverty or social exclusion increased rapidly (EU, 2014a; EU, 2014b; EU, 2014c).

They are focused on those groups of customers who have low income or who are in

severe material deprivation. There are numerous examples of social supermarkets

across Europe, but their level of development and type of operational activity varies

from country to country. As they are an emerging type of organization, there is no

common definition of social supermarkets because it should be broad enough to

integrate all the variations, which are developed and existing in different markets.

Moreover, social supermarkets are not sufficiently analyzed in the literature nor

explored in primary research, but we can find a lot of different definitions and

determinations of the term social supermarkets.

A social supermarket is defined as “a small, non-profit oriented retailing operation

offering a limited assortment of products at symbolic prices primary in a self-service

manner. Authorized for shopping are needy people only. The products are donated

by food production and retail companies free of charge, as they are edible but not

marketable due to small blemishes. Achieved profit is reinvested into social projects”

(Leinbacher et al, 2011). Holweg and Lienbacher (2011) define social supermarkets as

food-oriented retailers selling food to a restricted group of people living in or at risk of

poverty. By definition given in Holweg and Lienbacher (2011), social supermarkets are

nonprofit organizations that base their activity on volunteerism and charity and if they

generate any profits they use them for charitable activities. According to Maric and

Knezevic (2014), a social supermarket is a new retail format that fosters positive social

change by fulfilling the material needs of the socially disadvantaged groups and

allowing them to preserve their dignity in an environment where they can choose

various kinds of goods at extremely low prices. Some social supermarkets are offering

goods free of charge as explained by Knezevic and Skrobot (2018).

In addition, (Schneider et al., 2015) emphasize three types of benefits of social

supermarkets: (1) social benefits, (2) environmental benefits, and (3) economic

benefits. Social benefits are observed through: reduction of food insecurity and life

quality improvement of socially endangered citizens, improvement of their social

inclusion, growth of self-confidence in communication with others, and fostering a

feeling of belonging to a certain community by treating their users as clients rather

than charity users, what strengthens their sense of dignity. On the other hand,

environmental benefits are related to food waste reduction throughout the

distribution of food surplus from companies and individuals to final users. Finally,

economic benefits are concerned with better reallocation of scarce household

budget because users can purchase products at lower prices in social supermarkets,

while companies that donate surpluses improve their cost efficiency by decreasing

handling and warehousing costs for goods with low stock turnover ratios.

Maric et al. (2015) state that “social supermarkets represent a specific form of social

entrepreneurship because they are a voluntary non-profit organization and a special

form of retail which supply socially vulnerable individuals with necessities” and they

claim that social supermarkets should be observed as a specific form of social

innovation. Because they promote the strengthening of social capital, social cohesion

and develop social responsibility among all stakeholders involved in the distribution of

food to socially endangered citizens. Moreover, building on the definition of social

enterprise given in Dees (1998) and Dees and Anderson (2003), Maric and Knezevic

(2014) argue that social supermarkets are the subset of social enterprises because

181

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

they strive to make positive social changes and create social value throughout social

innovation.

Klindzic et al (2016) analyze and define the role of social stakeholders, which enable

daily function and support the development of social supermarkets. They isolate the

following types of stakeholders: (1) individuals (social entrepreneurs, volunteers, users,

and donors), (2) organizations (in non-profit and in profit sector), (3) society

(government and local community). For each group of stakeholders, they explain the

position, role, and responsibilities regarding social supermarkets’ operation.

Besides, when defining social supermarkets there is a discussion on their role and

characteristics as a new retail format (see Lienbacher, 2012; Bogetic et al, 2018). This

discussion is taking into account elements of the retail mix such as assortment, prices,

location, service, and promotion, and establishing distinction towards other retail

formats, especially towards convenience stores, hard discounters, and traditional

supermarkets.

However, all definitions of social supermarkets emphasized selling or distributing

goods to people in severe material deprivation. Moreover, according to analyzed

definitions, social supermarkets can be viewed as a new type of intermediaries within

the food distribution chain because they have been developed to transfer surpluses

of food or products to people in need. Therefore, we can conclude that the purpose

of social supermarkets is twofold: The purpose of a social supermarket is twofold: (1)

the poverty reduction through the distribution of food to people in need and (2)

reduction of inefficiency in traditional (dominantly food) supply chains trough removal

of surpluses of produced goods.

Therefore, the paper is structured as follows. Firstly, social supermarkets are

explained as a new intermediator in food supply chains. Secondly, the research

sample and methodology are explained. The primary research took place during April

and May 2018 in four Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries: Croatia, Serbia,

Poland, and Lithuania. Thirdly, the research results on attitudes of consumers towards

social supermarkets as a new type of organization within the food supply chains are

discussed and elaborated. Finally, conclusions, implications, and limitations of the

research are given. Due to its geographical scope of interest, the paper represents a

valuable contribution to understanding this new phenomenon from the perspectives

of the under-researched European region.

Social supermarkets as new intermediates in food supply

chains

Christopher and Ryals (1999) gave one of the commonly cited definitions of the supply

chain. They define the supply chain as „the network of organizations that are involved,

through upstream and downstream linkages, in the different processes and activities

that produce value in the form of products and services in the hands of the ultimate

consumer". Schroeder and Meyer Goldstein (2018, p. 5) define supply chain as a

“network of manufacturing and service operations (often multiple organizations) that

supply one another from raw materials through production to the ultimate consumer.”

As a managerial discipline, supply chain management aims to improve the

coordination of goods, information, and financial flows within individual companies

(internally) and between companies that are participants in a certain supply chain

(externally) (see Lysons and Gillingham, 2003; Emmet and Crocker, 2009; Van Wheele,

2015). Similarly, Monczka et al. (2015) emphasize that supply chains are composed of

interrelated activities that are internal and external to a company. Booth (2014) also

distinguishes internal and external perspectives of supply chain claiming that supply

182

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

chain is a series of activities that deliver an outcome to internal (a colleague) or

external recipient (a customer).

According to Bailey et al. (2008) and Hughes et al. (1999), successful companies

seek to establish an integrated supply chain by applying, the so-called, helicopter

perspective to their supply chain (see Bailey et al. 2008). Thus, by applying the concept

of integrated supply chain management, business strategy is developed upon the

complete picture of related suppliers and customers to reduce costs and increase

value to the consumer at the level of the entire chain rather than at the level of

individual companies. Moreover, Monczka et al. (2015) claim that integrated supply

chain management developed in the twenty-first century and relies on a cooperative

approach in supplier relationship, on strategic purchasing orientation, and on

intensive usage of information technology (integrated Internet linkages, shared

databases, enterprise-wide systems, cloud computing, intensive use of mobile

devices, etc.).

Pullman and Zhaoui, (2012) argue that the food supply chain is formed of

interconnected companies on the way of food from farm to the table of the

consumer. The structure of the food supply chain is specific concerning the supply

chains of other types of products (eg. cars, shoes, clothes, or electronic products). In

such a supply chain participants are agro-producers: farmers, gardeners, herders,

fishermen, growers of various fruits and vegetables. They can sell their products (see

Pullman and Zhaoui, 2012): (1) directly to consumers, (2) an intermediary organization

(wholesale, retail, HORECA i.e. hotel, restaurant, catering, etc.) or (3) as a raw material

to the manufacturing industry that will turn it into finished food products and distribute

to the market. In addition, the manufacturing industry can sell its products to

consumers directly or can use one or more intermediaries to reach the final consumer.

In Figure 1, see arrows depicting the flow of goods in traditional supply chains. Besides,

Zeljko and Prester (2012) emphasize that supply chains should include other

organizations that are, either directly or indirectly, related in receiving and fulfilling

requests of consumers and/or facilitation of goods, money, or information flows.

Examples of those organizations are transporters, warehouses, banks, IT companies.

Similarly, in sequential approach, Lipinski et al. (2013) explain the 5 basic processes

in the food supply chain: (1) agricultural cultures are sown then, animal husbandry or

harvesting is done, in advance, (2) the produced food is stored and distributed to the

market, or goes further to processing. Then (3) in the processing phase, raw materials

are transformed into the finished food products that are packaged and stored and.

Finally, (4) through a market distribution system are delivered to the final consumer

who is going to (5) consume them.

Food loss and food waste can occur at any company involved in food supply and

at any stage of the food supply chain. Lipinski et al. (2013) claim that food loss occurs

in the stages of production, storage, processing, and physical distribution as an

unintended consequence of business processes or technical limitations in storage,

transport infrastructure, packaging, or marketing activities. While, usually, food waste

occurs in retail or at the stage of consumption (at the point of the final consumer),

and it is the result of negligence or a conscious decision to throw food away (Lipinski

et al., 2013).

Additionally, Lipinski et al. (2013) and FAO (2011) elaborate that there are significant

differences between developed and developing countries at stages of the supply

chain in which food losses and food waste occur In Europe, more than half of the food

is wasted at the stage of consumption (52%) and about a quarter in the production

stage (23%). Moreover, Principato et al. (2015) are adding that food is wasted in the

early stages of the food supply chain due to limits in technical, financial, and

183

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

managerial resources. On the other hand, in the final stages, food waste appears due

to adverse storage methods, poor planning before buying, impulsive purchase of

large quantities of food, food spoilage, inadequate quantity of preparation, etc. More

data on food waste occurrence can be seen in several studies (WRAP, 2007; FAO,

2011; Stefan et al., 2013; Principato et al., 2015; Parfitt et al., 2010, Koivupuro et al.,

2011.

Figure 1

The flow of goods in the food supply chain

Source: Authors’ work

The social and economic consequences of food waste are reflected in the uneven

distribution of food between the developed and developing parts of the world, but

also in the uneven distribution of food between members of society within a certain

country. Therefore, new organizations are emerging to deal with this problem of the

modern economy and society.

One type of such organization is social supermarkets. Within the context of the food

supply chain, they position themselves as an intermediator between traditional

members of food supply chains and consumers who are in material deprivation (see

Figure 1 – the flow of donated goods). Therefore, we can say that social supermarket

serves as leverage trying to establish an equilibrium between the appearance of food

surpluses and food waste in the traditional supply chains and the appearance of food

poverty among the population in a given area on the other side (Knezevic et al, 2017).

Data and methodology

Research instrument and data

For the social supermarkets' study, a web survey was conducted. In primary research

there are several questions to be answered when approaching social supermarkets

as a new type of organization within food supply chains in CEE countries:

• (RQ1) Is there a need for such type of organization in the CEE region?

• (RQ2) What should be emphasized as a mission of such an organization?

184

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

• (RQ3) Is the attitude towards the concept positive or negative as we are

dealing with the concept implemented in post-communist countries?

• (RQ4) What is the perception towards existing legal frameworks and state

support regarding this type of organization?

• (RQ5) Is there a difference in perceptions regarding the country where the

survey was taken?

Due to a specific and sensitive topic, it has been decided to apply a non-

probabilistic survey approach to selecting respondents. In that way here snowball

sampling was used (Kish, 1995). In the first phase, the hyperlink to the web

questionnaire was sent to overall 20 scientists who work at universities in Zagreb, Split,

Belgrade, Niš, Cracow, Katowice, Poznan, Gdansk, and Vilnius. So, respondents from

four different European countries were observed: Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, and

Serbia. In the following step, those scientists have shared the web questionnaire

hyperlink to their colleagues and/or students, which have shared the hyperlink further

and so on. The survey answers collection period was from April to May 2018. At the

end of the survey overall 419 completed questionnaires were collected.

The web questionnaire consists of a brief description of social supermarkets as a

new form of organization within the food supply chain: “Social Supermarkets are non-

profit organizations that aim to distribute surpluses of produced food to people who

are in material deprivation. Primarily, social supermarkets raise donations in groceries

and organize their distribution to poor citizens (people in need) offering them the

possibility to choose needed stuff from a social supermarket's assortment. They

distribute groceries at extremely low prices or free of charge. The collected money is

further used to finance the everyday operation of social supermarkets (e.g. to pay

rent for used space or to buy necessary equipment) or to replenish assortment by

buying the new food at low prices from suppliers. Now, when we briefly inform you

about the scope of activities of social supermarkets, please answer a few questions

regarding this form of organizations.” (Research questionnaire, 2018). Then followed

questions were divided into several groups. The first question group consisted of some

demographic questions like gender; age and working status of respondents (see Table

3). After that are followed general questions about the social supermarkets (see Table

5 and Table 6). In that group, it can be found 11 questions from which 10 questions are

given on Likert scale from Joshi et al. (2015). In the following group of questions, it can

be found 5 questions, all given in Likert scale form, related to social supermarket

managers, but those questions are not in the focus of this paper. The final group of

questions emphasizes the role of frameworks and institutions in the social supermarket

area and it consists of eight questions all given in Likert scale form (Table 8).

Statistical methods

Due to using a non-probabilistic selection method and relatively small sample size, all

conclusions are limited to the observed respondents only. In addition, the design of

questionnaire questions vastly limited the possibility of using different statistical

approaches to the analysis of collected data. Therefore, to inspect differences

between the respondents in the four observed countries, the main emphasis in the

analysis will be given to descriptive statistics methods. The vast majority of questions

are given in Likert scale form. Because of that non-parametric chi-square tests for

equality of three or more proportions will be applied as well (Bolboacă et al., 2011).

185

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

Validity

Before the differences between the countries will be examined, the internal

consistency of the 10 general social supermarket variables is observed. The internal

consistency is inspected by using Cronbach's alpha and by observing respondents on

a country level and overall.

Table 1

Reliability analysis of generally on social supermarkets variables

Country

No of

responses

Cronbach's

alpha

Standardized

alpha

Average inter-item

correlation

Croatia

117

0.5729

0.5768

0.1246

Lithuania

71

0.6181

0.6216

0.1460

Poland

123

0.6194

0.6217

0.1454

Serbia

108

0.5057

0.4934

0.0901

Overall

419

0.5869

0.5875

0.1269

Note: number of variables = 10

Source: Authors’ work

The results from Table 1 have shown that the internal consistency here is poor to

questionable (George and Mallery, 2003). For example, in the Croatia case, about

57% of the variability in the sum score is true score variability between respondents

concerning the concept common in all items. In other words, the used variables

turned out not to be so good and consistent in measuring the concept of social

markets in general. These results are speaking in favor of observing and analyzing

each variable separately rather than all together.

Table 2

Reliability analysis of framework and institutions variables

Country

No of

responses

Cronbach's

alpha

Standardized

alpha

Average inter-item

correlation

Croatia

117

0.6266

0.6451

0.1977

Lithuania

71

0.5717

0.5578

0.1415

Poland

123

0.5733

0.5577

0.1431

Serbia

108

0.6586

0.6560

0.2032

Overall

419

0.6345

0.6286

0.1842

Note: number of variables = 8

Source: Authors’ work

The main results of conducted reliability analysis, where eight variables related to

framework and institutions were included, are given in Table 2. The resulting

Cronbach's alpha is ranging from 0.5717 to 0.6560. In this case, the conclusion about

poor to questionable internal consistency can be made (George and Mallery, 2003).

Analysis and discussion

Analysis of respondents’ main characteristics

In the conducted web survey participated overall 419 respondents from which 117

being from Croatia, 71 from Lithuania, 123 from Poland, and 108 from Serbia. Table 3

shows distributions of respondents by country of their origin and according to their

main demographic characteristics.

According to Table 3 majority of respondents in all four observed countries were

females. The highest share of females in the total number of respondents in a country

186

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

was achieved in Croatia (74%) whereas the lowest share of females was registered in

Poland (58%). When the age structure of respondents is observed it can be concluded

that in Serbia (81%), Poland (66%), and Croatia (54%) the majority of respondents were

younger than 25 years. On the other hand, the majority of respondents in Lithuania

(52%) were aged from 25 to 40 years. The distribution of respondents’ age is explained

if respondents’ working status is closely observed. Namely, the majority of respondents

in Serbia (72%), Poland (59%), and Croatia (56%) are students who are just studying or

who occasionally work. The vast majority of respondents in Lithuania are not students

but respondents who are employed (70%).

Table 3

Main demographic characteristics of respondents

Country

Variable

Characteristics

No of

respondents

% of

respondents

Croatia

Gender

Female

87

74

Male

30

26

Age

Less than 25

63

54

25-40

43

37

More than 40

11

9

Working

status

A student who is just studying

21

18

A student who occasionally works

45

38

Employed

47

40

Unemployed and retired

4

3

Lithuania

Gender

Female

51

72

Male

20

28

Age

Less than 25

18

25

25-40

37

52

More than 40

16

23

Working

status

A student who is just studying

9

13

A student who occasionally works

9

13

Employed

50

70

Unemployed and retired

3

4

Poland

Gender

Female

71

58

Male

52

42

Age

Less than 25

81

66

25-40

26

21

More than 40

16

13

Working

status

A student who is just studying

31

25

A student who occasionally works

42

34

Employed

50

41

Unemployed and retired

0

0

Serbia

Gender

Female

74

69

Male

34

31

Age

Less than 25

88

81

25-40

18

17

More than 40

2

2

Working

status

A student who is just studying

57

53

A student who occasionally works

31

29

Employed

20

19

Unemployed and retired

0

0

Source: Authors’ work

187

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

Respondents’ rating of their economic situation in relation to the average of their

country is given in Table 4. In all four countries, most respondents rated their economic

situation as an average one in comparison to the average of their country. However,

whereas in Lithuania (56%), Poland (54%), and Serbia (56%) the majority of respondents

have selected the “average” option. In Croatia, 47% of respondents stated that their

economic situation is average concerning the average of their country. If the

respondent’s distributions about a perceived economic situation are observed, it can

be concluded that the distribution tends to be negatively skewed because more

respondents have chosen the answers from the right side of the scale (“above

average” and “significantly above the average”) than those from the left side

(“significantly below the average” and “below the average”).

Table 4

Respondents’ rating of their economic situation concerning the average of their

country

Perceived economic situation

Country

Croatia

Lithuania

Poland

Serbia

Significantly below the average

2%

3%

1%

3%

Below the average

14%

15%

13%

16%

Average

47%

56%

54%

56%

Above average

32%

24%

27%

25%

Significantly above the average

5%

1%

6%

1%

Source: Authors’ work

Figure 2

Social supermarkets presence

Source: Authors’ work

When it comes to the question about social supermarkets presence in their city,

most respondents from Lithuania (59%) confirmed that there is a social supermarket in

their city. On the other hand, only 8% of respondents from Serbia know that there is a

social supermarket in their city. However, 86% of respondents from Serbia have

emphasized that there is a need for a social supermarket. Figure 2 are shown the

distributions of answers in more detail.

188

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

Analysis of social supermarkets in general

After the basic demographic questions, the respondents were asked general

questions about social supermarkets. In that way, they were asked about the top

priority of the social supermarket mission. The distribution of answers is shown in Figure

3.

According to Figure 3, the highest share of respondents who think that reduction of

food waste is the top priority of social supermarket mission can be found in Poland

(65%). On the other hand, the highest share of respondents who think that reduction

of poverty is the top priority of social supermarket mission can be found in Serbia (49%).

The share of respondents, who cannot decide what the top priority of social

supermarket mission is, seems to be quite similar in all four observed countries. In

addition, Croatia and Lithuania have almost the same distribution of respondents’

answers regarding this question.

Figure 3

The top priority of social supermarket mission

Source: Authors’ work

Except for the question about the top priority of social supermarket mission, in this

part of the questionnaire respondents had to answer 10 more questions about social

markets in general. All questions were given in the Likert scale form. The scale has

consisted of five items where item 1 means completely disagreeing with the statement

whereas item 5 means that the respondent is completely agreed with the given

statement. Table 5 shows the main descriptive statistics results of generally on social

supermarkets variables on the country levels and overall. Due to the nature of the

Likert scale, those results are given just to get a sense of answers distributions and for

comparison with other countries and overall.

189

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

Table 5

Main descriptive statistics results of generally on social supermarkets variables

Variable

Country

No of

respondents

Mean

Standard

deviation

Social Supermarkets have a noble

purpose and mission because they

return dignity to poor people.

Croatia

117

3.87

1.02

Lithuania

71

3.42

1.04

Poland

123

3.61

1.01

Serbia

108

3.83

0.97

Overall

419

3.71

1.02

I often see volunteers doing

fundraising or collecting food for

poor people.

Croatia

117

2.81

1.16

Lithuania

71

3.51

1.07

Poland

123

2.74

1.11

Serbia

108

2.38

1.21

Overall

419

2.80

1.20

If I had a social supermarket

nearby, I'd like to volunteer there.

Croatia

117

3.11

1.14

Lithuania

71

2.44

1.22

Poland

123

2.71

1.16

Serbia

108

3.45

1.20

Overall

419

2.97

1.23

When foodstuff is collected at a

local school, at a university, or a

shopping mall, I usually donate.

Croatia

117

3.54

1.13

Lithuania

71

2.93

1.42

Poland

123

3.39

1.19

Serbia

108

3.42

1.33

Overall

419

3.36

1.26

In addition to the distribution or

sales of groceries, there is a large

scope for expanding the services

of social supermarkets through the

organization of education,

workshops, etc.

Croatia

117

3.67

0.96

Lithuania

71

3.37

1.00

Poland

123

3.34

1.01

Serbia

108

3.58

1.13

Overall

419

3.50

1.03

Social supermarkets may harm

ordinary retailers because if

people get food for free, the

amount of food bought in the

classic stores diminishes.

Croatia

117

2.52

1.30

Lithuania

71

2.51

1.16

Poland

123

2.70

1.14

Serbia

108

2.62

1.23

Overall

419

2.60

1.21

Sometimes users (citizens in need)

misuse the goodwill of others. They

are just expecting free stuff without

any effort.

Croatia

117

3.65

1.07

Lithuania

71

3.55

1.03

Poland

123

3.60

1.10

Serbia

108

3.59

1.08

Overall

419

3.60

1.07

I have seen or heard in the mass

media about some examples of

social supermarkets and the

reportage was very encouraging, I

liked the concept very much.

Croatia

117

3.58

1.21

Lithuania

71

2.77

1.12

Poland

123

2.69

1.40

Serbia

108

2.56

1.36

Overall

419

2.92

1.36

I fear to donate money or

foodstuffs because some affairs

with humanitarian actions

occurred recently, I'm afraid that

my donation will not end in the

right hands.

Croatia

117

3.68

1.14

Lithuania

71

3.17

1.23

Poland

123

2.98

1.14

Serbia

108

3.38

1.19

Overall

419

3.31

1.20

The social supermarket should be

extremely active in the usage of

social media and Internet

communication in general.

Croatia

117

4.32

0.78

Lithuania

71

3.92

0.97

Poland

123

3.84

1.01

Serbia

108

4.27

0.87

Overall

419

4.10

0.93

Source: Authors’ work

In Table 6 the results of conducted chi-square tests for equality of three or more

proportions of generally on social supermarkets variables are shown. Due to fact that

the five-item Likert scale was used and that the sample size is relatively small, to fulfill

190

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

the prerequisite of the chi-square test used, in the analysis of equality of proportions

responses “agree” and “completely agree” are merged and observed together.

Table 6

Chi-square tests for equality of three or more proportions of generally on social

supermarkets variables, responses “agree” and “completely agree” observed

together

Variable

% of responses

Emp.

Chi-

square

p-value

Croatia Lithuania Poland Serbia

Social Supermarkets have a noble

purpose and mission because they

return dignity to poor people.

65%

49%

57%

69%

8.2752 0.0407*

I often see volunteers doing

fundraising or collecting food for

poor people.

30%

48%

26%

19%

18.6865 0.0003**

If I had a social supermarket nearby,

I'd like to volunteer there.

38%

18%

24%

51%

27.6233 <0.0001**

When foodstuff is collected at a local

school, at a university, or a shopping

mall, I usually donate.

54%

35%

50%

55%

7.8166 0.0500**

In addition to the distribution or sales

of groceries, there is a large scope

for expanding the services of social

supermarkets through the

organization of education,

workshops, social events, etc.

57%

41%

42%

53%

7.9290 0.0475*

Social supermarkets may harm

ordinary retailers because if people

get food for free, the amount of food

bought in the classic stores

diminishes.

26%

18%

26%

25%

1.7225 0.6319

Sometimes users (citizens in need)

misuse the goodwill of others. They

are just expecting free stuff without

any effort.

59%

54%

61%

56%

1.1795 0.7579

I have seen or heard in the mass

media about some examples of

social supermarkets and the

reportage was very encouraging, I

liked the concept very much.

58%

24%

32%

31%

30.7845 <0.0001**

I fear to donate money or foodstuffs

because some affairs with

humanitarian actions occurred

recently, I'm afraid that my donation

will not end in the right hands.

62%

45%

35%

49%

17.2619 0.0006**

The social supermarket should be

extremely active in the usage of

social media and Internet

communication in general.

85%

68%

65%

81%

18.0006 0.0004**

Note: Sample size according to countries : Croatia=117, Lithuania=71, Poland=123, Serbia=108;

** statistically significant at 1%; * 5%

Source: Authors’ work

The results from Table 6 are showing that, at a significance level of 5%, the null

hypothesis can be rejected in eight, from 10, cases. In other words, at eight variables

the structure of respondents who are agreed with the given statements in a country is

different than in other countries. Only at variables “social supermarkets may harm

ordinary retailers because if people get food for free, the amount of food bought in

191

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

the classic stores diminishes” and “sometimes users (citizens in need) misuse the

goodwill of others – they are just expecting free stuff without any effort” seems not to

be statistically significant differences in proportions of respondents who are agreeing

with the statements between the observed countries.

Frameworks and institutions

In the last part of the questionnaire framework and institutions related to social

supermarkets are investigated. To do that eight questions defined in Likert scale form

are used. Again, five-item Likert scale forms were used with items ranging from

completely disagree (code 1) to completely agree (code 5).

Table 7

Main descriptive statistics results of framework and institutions variables

Variable

Country

No of

respondents

Mean

Standard

deviation

Laws in the field of food waste in my

country are good enough.

Croatia

117

2.21

1.04

Lithuania

71

2.68

0.79

Poland

123

2.44

1.06

Serbia

108

2.06

0.92

Overall

419

2.32

1.00

Social supermarkets should be

controlled by state bodies as they

contact a very vulnerable group of

citizens.

Croatia

117

3.42

1.23

Lithuania

71

3.31

1.02

Poland

123

3.05

1.15

Serbia

108

3.28

1.11

Overall

419

3.26

1.15

There should be a significant

improvement in the legal framework

related to the operation of social

supermarkets.

Croatia

117

4.15

0.75

Lithuania

71

3.59

0.87

Poland

123

3.73

0.92

Serbia

108

3.99

0.96

Overall

419

3.89

0.90

Social supermarkets should be

integrated into the social welfare

system.

Croatia

117

4.05

0.98

Lithuania

71

3.89

0.89

Poland

123

3.50

1.10

Serbia

108

3.91

1.09

Overall

419

3.82

1.05

Social supermarkets should be

partially financed from local

government budgets.

Croatia

117

4.08

0.97

Lithuania

71

3.15

1.15

Poland

123

3.21

1.22

Serbia

108

3.97

1.10

Overall

419

3.64

1.18

The local government or national

government should provide facilities

for social supermarkets.

Croatia

117

4.13

0.91

Lithuania

71

3.49

0.95

Poland

123

3.49

1.08

Serbia

108

4.12

0.98

Overall

419

3.83

1.03

EU funds are too complex and too

demanding and inflexible in

supporting this kind of activity.

Croatia

117

3.39

1.11

Lithuania

71

2.90

0.93

Poland

123

3.26

0.96

Serbia

108

3.17

1.00

Overall

419

3.21

1.02

Religious communities should support

the work of social supermarkets.

Croatia

117

4.26

0.98

Lithuania

71

3.31

1.17

Poland

123

3.68

1.13

Serbia

108

3.92

1.24

Overall

419

3.84

1.17

Source: Authors’ work

192

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

In Table 7 main descriptive statistics results of framework and institutions variables

are provided. The given results can be used for describing distributions of respondents’

answers and for comparison between the countries and with overall level.

Table 8

Chi-square tests for equality of three or more proportions of framework and institutions

variables, responses “agree” and “completely agree”

Variable

% of responses

Emp.

Chi-

square

p-value

Croatia Lithuania Poland Serbia

Laws in the field of food waste in my

country are good enough.

11%

13%

13%

5%

5.2684

0.1532

Social supermarkets should be

controlled by state bodies as they

contact a very vulnerable group of

citizens.

54%

34%

39%

45%

8.9203

0.0304*

There should be a significant

improvement in the legal framework

related to the operation of social

supermarkets.

80%

56%

63%

68%

14.2226

0.0026**

Social supermarkets should be

integrated into the social welfare

system.

79%

69%

61%

68%

8.8736

0.0310**

Social supermarkets should be

partially financed from local

government budgets.

76%

37%

46%

69%

42.7853

<0.0001**

Local government or national

government should provide facilities

for social supermarkets.

81%

45%

55%

78%

39.1397

<0.0001**

EU funds are too complex and too

demanding and inflexible in

supporting this kind of activity.

43%

20%

34%

30%

11.3181

0.0101*

Religious communities should

support the work of social

supermarkets.

84%

42%

61%

69%

36.0318

<0.0001**

Note: Sample size according to countries: Croatia=117, Lithuania=71, Poland=123,

Serbia=108** statistically significant at 1%; * 5%

Source: Authors’ work

The results of conducted chi-square tests for equality of three or more proportions for

framework and institutions variables are presented in Table 8. To obey the chi-square

test demands, responses “agree” and “completely agree” were observed together

here as well. According to the results, at a significance level of 5%, the null hypothesis

can be rejected in seven, from eight, cases. So, at seven variables the structure of

respondents who agreed or completely agreed with the given statements in a country

is different than in other countries. Only at variable “laws in the field of food waste in

my country are good enough” differences in proportions of respondents who are

agreeing with the statement between the observed countries seem not to be

statistically significant.

Conclusions

Social supermarkets emerged across Europe during the economic crisis 2008-2014 as

a solution to the increasing problem of poverty. As a new type of organization, they

distribute food to consumers in need and they find their position at the end of the food

supply chain. Also, they positively contribute to a reduction of food waste that occurs

193

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

in traditional food supply chains. In the primary research, we addressed and discussed

several research questions.

The first research question is: Is there a need for such type of organization in the CEE

region? Findings show that there is a strong positive attitude regarding the existence

of social supermarkets in all analyzed CEE countries (Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, and

Serbia).

The second research question is: What should be emphasized as a mission of such

an organization? In all given countries, examinees claim that reduction of food waste

should be emphasized as a mission of social supermarket rather than reduction of

poverty. Only in Serbia, examinees claim that poverty should be prioritized in the

mission of social supermarkets.

The third research question is: Is the attitude towards the concept positive or

negative as we are dealing with the concept implemented in post-communist

countries? Generally, there is a positive attitude regarding the concept of social

supermarkets. In all given countries, examinees agree and strongly agree with the

claim “Social supermarkets have a noble purpose and mission because they return

dignity to the poor people”. Moreover, in all countries, (except Lithuania) majority of

examinees agree or strongly agree with the claim “When foodstuff is collected in a

local school, at a university or a shopping mall, I usually donate”. However, there is a

certain concern regarding the misuse of goodwill of others from social supermarket

users and fear that those donations will not end in the right hands.

The fourth research question is: What is the perception towards existing legal

frameworks and state support regarding this type of organization? Examinees agree

that there is a wide space for improvement of a legal framework, welfare system

integration, implementation of state monitoring and control systems when we deal

with social supermarkets as a new type of intermediary organization. Moreover, in all

countries, examinees seek for larger involvement of national governments, local

governments, and religious communities as supporting institutions for social

supermarkets. Regarding EU financing, only in Lithuania majority of respondents do not

agree with the claim that “EU funds are too complex and too demanding and

inflexible in supporting this kind of activity”.

The fifth research question is: Is there a difference in perceptions regarding the

country where the survey was taken? There are differences in perceptions regarding

countries. There are only a few claims where differences in proportions of respondents

who are agreeing with the statements are not statistically significant. From Table 6 we

can observe that out of 10 statements there are only 2 where the p-value is higher

than 0.05. In addition, From Table 8 we can observe that out of 8 statements there is

only one statement where the p-value higher than 0.05. Therefore, we can conclude

that the level of agreement with given statements on social supermarkets differs

regarding the country where the survey was taken.

The research results can be useful for social supermarket managers, policymakers,

and traditional food supply chain managers as the study deal with an emerging form

of intermediary organizations at the end of the food supply chains. The study can be

useful for managers in traditional supply chains when consider implementing

sustainable practices regarding food waste, then for managers in social supermarkets

when considering improvements of their existing strategies and operations. Besides,

findings can be used as a basis for future scientific research within the fields of food

supply chains, social entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility, and sustainable

development in CEE countries.

There are certain limitations of the study. First of all, it deals only with four CEE

countries (Poland, Lithuania, Croatia, and Serbia), so in the future, more countries

194

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

should be involved to observe more data and to enable further comparisons in the

region. In addition, there are rather small samples per country. Therefore, further

research should be broadened by involving a larger number of respondents from

various age and socio-demographic groups. Finally, the more complex statistical

methods could be applied to discover more complex relationships and causalities

within the collected data.

References

1. Bogetic, Z., Petkovic, G., Knezevic, B. (2018), “Retail mix and its Specifics in Social

Supermarkets”, in Knezevic, B. (Ed.), Social supermarkets as entrepreneurial ventures in

the socially responsible economy, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and

Business, Zagreb, pp. 73-88.

2. Bolboacă, S. D., Jäntschi, L., Sestraş, A. F., Sestraş, R. E., Pamfil, D. C. (2011), “Pearson-

Fisher Chi-Square Statistic Revisited”, Information, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 528-545.

3. Booth, C. (2014), Strategic Procurement. Kogan Page, London, Philadelphia, New Delhi.

4. Christopher, M., Ryals, L. (1999), “Supply Chain Strategy: its impact on shareholder

value”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-10.

5. Dees, J. G. (1998), “Enterprising Nonprofits”, Harvard Business Review, January-February,

pp. 55-67.

6. Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B. (2003), “Sector Bending: Blurring the Lines between Nonprofit

and For-Profit”, Society, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 16-27.

7. Emmet, S., Crocker, B. (2009), Excellence in Supplier Management, Cambridge

Academic, Cambridge.

8. EU

(2014a),

“Poverty

and

Social

Exclusion”,

available

at:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=751 (18 March 2019)

9. EU

(2014b),

“Eurostat

News

release

Euroindicators”,

available

at:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-31012014-AP/EN/3-31012014-

AP-EN.PDF (18 March 2019)

10. EU

(2014c),

“EU

Employment

and

Social

Situation”,

available

at:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=737&langId=hr&pubId=7699 (20 March

2019)

11. FAO (2011), “Global food losses and food waste – extent causes and prevention”,

available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf (8 December

2015)

12. George, D., Mallery, P. (2003), SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and

reference, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.

13. Holweg, C., Lienbacher, E. (2011), “Social Marketing Innovation: New Thinking in

Retailing”, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.307-326.

14. Hughes, J., Ralf, M., Michels, B. (1999), Transform your Supply Chain, International

Thomson Press, London.

15. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., Pal, D. K. (2015), “Likert Scale: Explored and Explained”,

British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 396-403.

16. Kish, L. (1995), Survey Sampling, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

17. Klindzic, M., Knezevic, B., Maric, I. (2016), “Stakeholder Analysis of Social Supermarkets”,

Business Excellence, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 151-165.

18. Knezevic, B., Maric, I., Sucur, Z. (2017), “Cross-Sector Cooperation in the Field of Food

Distribution as a Response to Problems of Poverty and Material Deprivation”, Revija za

socijalnu politiku, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 143-167.

19. Knezevic, B., Skrobot, P (2018), “Social supermarkets’ profiles in Croatia”, in Knezevic, B.

(Ed.), Social supermarkets as entrepreneurial ventures in socially responsible economy,

University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business, Zagreb, pp. 147-158.

20. Koivupuro, H-K., Hartikainen, H., Kirsi Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J-M., Heikintalo, N.,

Reinikainen, A., Jalkanen, L. (2012), “Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural

195

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish

households”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 183-191.

21. Linebacher, E. (2012), Corporate Social Responsibility im Handel, Springer Gabler.

22. Lienbacher, E., Holweg, C. (2011), “Strukturanalyse Sozialmärkte in Österreich”, Eigenverl.

Inst. für Handel und Marketing: Wien, Austria.

23. Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R., Searchinger, T. (2013), “Reducing

food

loss

and

waste”,

available

at:

http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/reducing_food_loss_and_waste.pdf

(15

December 2015)

24. Lysons, K., Gillingham, M. (2003), Purchasing and Supply Management, Prentice Hall

Financial Times.

25. Maric, I., Knezevic, B. (2014), “Social Supermarkets as a New Retail Format Inspired by

Social Needs and Philantrophy - Case of Croatia”, in K., Demetri (Ed.), Global Business &

Economics Anthology, Business & Economics Society International, Danvers, pp. 278-286.

26. Maric, I., Knezevic, B., Dzambo, D. (2015), “Social Supermarket Rijeka as a Social

Innovation in Food Distribution”, in Knego, N., Renko, S., Knežević, B. (Eds.), Trade

Perspectives 2015: Innovations in Food Retailing, Faculty of Economics Zagreb, Zagreb,

pp. 235-245.

27. Monczka, R.M., Hanfield, R. B., Guinpero, L.C., Patterson, J.L. (2015), Purchasing and

Supply Chain Management, Cengage Learning, Boston.

28. Parfitt, H., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S. (2010), “Food waste within food supply chains:

quantification and potential for change to 2050”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society, Vol. 365, pp. 3065-3081.

29. Principato, L., Secondi, L., Pratesi, C. A. (2015), “Reducing food waste: an investigation

on behaviour of Italian youths”, British Food Journal, Vol. 117, No. 2, pp. 731-748.

30. Pullman M., Zhaoui, W. (2012), Food Supply Chain Management: Economic, Social and

Environmental Perspective, Taylor and Francis, Routledge.

31. Schneider, F., Scherhaufer, S., Montoux, H., Gheoldus, M., O’Connor, C., Derain, A.

(2015), “Implementing social supermarkets in Europe”, available at: https://www.eu-

fusions.org/phocadownload/feasibility-

studies/Supermarkets/Advancing%20social%20supermarkets%20report.pdf (20 March

2019)

32. Schroeder, R., Meyer Goldstein, S. (2018), Operations Management in the Supply Chain,

McGraw Hill Education, New York.

33. Stefan, V., Van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A. A., Lähteenmäki, L. (2013), “Avoiding food waste

by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines”, Food

Quality and Preference, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 375-381.

34. Van Wheele, A. (2015), Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, Cengage Learning

EMEA, Hampshire.

35. WRAP

(2007),

“Understanding

Food

Waste”,

available

at:

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/FoodWasteResearchSummaryFINALADP29_3_

_07.pdf (28 December 2015),

36. Zeljko, D., Prester, J. (2012), “Upravljanje lancem dobave i učinkovit odgovor na potrebe

potrošača u maloprodajnom sektoru”. Ekonomski pregled, Vol. 63, No. 5-6, pp. 322-351.

196

Business Systems Research | Vol. 12 No. 1 |2021

About the authors

Blaženka Knežević, Ph.D. is a Full professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business,

University of Zagreb, Croatia. She teaches courses: Retail information systems;

Economics of electronic commerce; Trade and trade policy; Procurement

management; Supplier relationship management. She participated in various

scientific research projects and published more than 40 papers in conference

proceedings, books, and academic journals. She is a member of the editorial board

of the Business Excellence Journal (BEJ) and the advisory board of Entrepreneurial

Business and Economics Review (EBER). She is the regular reviewer of several

international scientific journals. She can be contacted at bknezevic@efzg.hr.

Petra Škrobot, Ph.D. candidate and research and teaching assistant at Faculty of

Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Croatia. Graduated at Trade

department at Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb. Currently, she

is enrolled in the doctoral study program at the Faculty of Economics and Business,

University of Zagreb. She is doing Ph.D. research in the field of e-commerce and

corporate social responsibility. She is involved in teaching in seminars for courses: Retail

information systems; Economics of electronic commerce; Trade and Trade Policy;

Procurement Management; Supplier relationship management. She can be

contacted at pskrobot1@efzg.hr.

Berislav Žmuk graduated with a major in Accounting, post-graduated Statistical

Methods for Economic Analysis and Forecasting, and gained his Ph.D. degree in

Business Economics at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb.

Currently, he is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Statistics, Faculty of

Economics and Business, the University of Zagreb where he teaches the following

subjects: Statistics, Business Statistics, Business Forecasting, and Introduction to

economic statistics. His main research fields include applications of statistics in business

and economy, survey methodology, and statistical quality control. He can be

contacted at bzmuk@efzg.hr.