Retail Market

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/233169174
Social Marketing Innovation: New Thinking in Retailing
Article in Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing · October 2011

DOI: 10.1080/10495142.2011.623548
CITATIONS READS
32 1,633
2 authors:
Christina Holweg Eva Lienbacher
29 PUBLICATIONS 285 CITATIONS
Fachhochschule Salzburg
26 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sustainability and Retail-specific Supply Chain Management View project
Food Waste View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Eva Lienbacher on 28 November 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Bibliothek Der Zt-wirtschaft]
On: 28 November 2014, At: 06:48
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector

Marketing
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20
Social Marketing Innovation: New

Thinking in Retailing
a a
Christina Holweg & Eva Lienbacher
a
Vienna University of Economics and Business , Vienna, Austria
Published online: 29 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Christina Holweg & Eva Lienbacher (2011) Social Marketing Innovation:
New Thinking in Retailing, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23:4, 307-326, DOI:
10.1080/10495142.2011.623548
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2011.623548
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 23:307–326, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1049-5142 print/1540-6997 online
DOI: 10.1080/10495142.2011.623548
Social Marketing Innovation: New Thinking

in Retailing
CHRISTINA HOLWEG and EVA LIENBACHER

Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria
Downloaded by [Bibliothek Der Zt-wirtschaft] at 06:48 28 November 2014
Retail marketing has been a well-established research stream in

academic literature for several decades. As social marketing takes
ideas from commercial marketing, this article proposes to transfer
the retail-marketing concept of social supermarkets (SSMs), a real-
world application, to social marketing. Social supermarkets can be
seen as an innovative example of social entrepreneurship, as well
as a best-practice benchmark of “new thinking” in social market-
ing. Social supermarkets sell food and consumer goods that they
receive free from retailers and manufacturers for a discount of up
to 70% to people who are in or at risk of poverty. The contribu-
tion of this article is in defining the concept of social supermarkets
founded on social marketing and retail marketing literature and
in describing the development and current status of the social
supermarket sector in a European country.
KEYWORDS social supermarket, social entrepreneurship, social

marketing, social innovation, retail, food waste
INTRODUCTION
Since its beginning in the early 1970s, social marketing, a subtopic of

social entrepreneurship (Christie & Honig, 2006), has taken ideas from
commercial marketing and used them to address both social and health
problems (Hastings, 2003). Several researchers have called for the adop-
tion of alternative approaches to social marketing (e.g., Andreasen, 2003;
Hastings, 2003). Further, there has been a call for the expansion of social
Address correspondence to Christina Holweg, Vienna University of Economics and

Business, Institute for Retailing and Marketing, Augasse 2-6, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. E-mail:
christina.holweg@wu-wien.ac.at
307
308 C. Holweg and E. Lienbacher
marketing in several aspects (e.g., relational aspects; Hastings, 2003), new

target groups (Andreasen, 2003), or at service and organizational levels
(Bennett & Sargeant, 2005). With reference to the current special issue about
innovations in social marketing, this article is related to social innovation as
described by Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller (2008):
A novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient,

sustainable . . . than existing solutions and for which the value created
accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.
(p. 36)
The contribution of this article is to introduce an innovative example

of a social marketing activity: social supermarkets (SSMs). SSMs are food-

oriented retailers selling food and consumer products at low, symbolic prices
to a restricted group of people living in or at risk of poverty. Products
are provided free of charge by partnership companies (e.g., manufacturers,
retailers); these products are consumable but not saleable by conventional
retailers because of minor quality deficiencies, surplus production, or too
close proximity to the expiration date. SSMs operate mainly with the support
of volunteers and also employ long-term unemployed people. As SSMs are
nonprofit organizations, potential profits are used for further charitable activ-
ities. They thereby meet the definition of Hansmann (1980), who states that
nonprofit organizations can derive their resources from commercial opera-
tions so long as they retain or reinvest potential profits (Powell & Steinberg,
2006). SSMs are an innovative organization form, and they combine two
existing organizational formats: food banks and conventional supermarkets.
Thereby they offer a unique social product and provide a solution to var-
ious social problems. Linked to that, SSMs give exclusive access to people
living in or at risk of poverty. In contrast, food banks that exist in Austria
also target a different consumer group; that is, people at the very lowest
end of society such as the homeless and people living in shelters. That said,
SSMs follow socially oriented goals that include the following: preventing
food waste, supporting financially poor and long-term unemployed people,
as well as sponsoring charitable activities. The following summarizes the
arguments that underpin the relevance of discussing the concept of SSMs in
academic literature:
● There is a call for the expansion of social marketing in several aspects

(e.g., relational aspects; Hastings, 2003), new target groups (Andreasen,
2003), or at a service and organizational level (Bennett & Sargeant, 2005).
Moreover, Dann (2010) stated that future research should examine social
marketing in a business-to-business context.
● Recent research and studies point out the need for social initiatives in the
areas of prevention of waste, as well as reduction of poverty and provision
Social Marketing Innovation 309
of better access to food and work (see e.g., Europe 2020, 2011; European
Commission, 2010, 2011; Salhofer, Obersteiner, Schneider, & Lebersorger,
2008; Tarasuk, 2009; Von Normann, 2009).
● The concept of SSMs has not been investigated in academic literature
up to now, and it can be viewed as an example of alternative retail-
ing (Goodmann & Bryant, 2009) and likewise as a new social marketing
activity. “Defining and describing” as a first step is, according to Malhotra
(2007) and Müller-Hagedorn (2004), a fundamental duty of researchers.
● SSMs have been successfully established in Austria, a European coun-
try, since 1999. Similar concepts were launched in France, Belgium, and
Greece under the name of épicerie solidaires with approximately 600 mar-
kets (e.g., A.N.D.E.S, 2011), as well as in Italy under the name of last
minute markets (LastMinuteMarkets, 2011). The concept of SSMs thus has

the potential for replication in other countries since taking advantage of
existing and successful campaigns is among the key principles for success
in social marketing (Kotler & Lee, 2008).
Stated consecutively, the objectives of this article are (a) to introduce

SSMs as an innovative example of a social marketing initiative in the retailing
context, (b) to define the concept of the SSM based on social marketing and
retail marketing literature, and (c) to describe the development and status of
the SSM sector in Austria.
The article proceeds as follows: The research background is set with
a brief literature review on social entrepreneurship, social marketing, and
social aspects in retailing. The section on the concept of SSMs gives a
detailed description about its strategy and operations. The methodology
describes the research methods applied, followed by the empirical study,
which illustrates the actual operations of this new retail format. The article
terminates with conclusions and an outlook for further research.
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Following the conceptualization of Weerawardena and Mort (2006), social

entrepreneurship strives to achieve the creation of social value. The theory
of social entrepreneurship is characterized by creating a social mission, by
recognizing and pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, by engag-
ing in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, and by
acting within limited resources (Dees, 1998). Despite increased interest in
social entrepreneurship, research in this area is challenging, because vari-
ous definitions have been developed in a number of different domains (see
e.g., Christie & Honig, 2006; Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009; Sullivan Mort,
Weerawardena, & Carnegie, 2003). Short et al. (2009) indicate in a literature
review that social entrepreneurship has been viewed through a variety of
conceptual lenses and has developed a research framework. Based on this,

SSMs can be seen as a contribution to the research domain of entrepreneur-
ship and public/nonprofit management. Herein fall activities that contribute
to the creation of new social value, such as the creation of new and growing
nonprofit organizations that provide opportunities to meet unfulfilled social
needs and/or create social value (Gartner, 1988; Short et al., 2009) within
or across government, business, or nonprofit sectors (Austin, Stevenson, &
Wei-Skillern, 2006).
Christie and Honig (2006) state that social marketing is, among other
things, one relevant subtopic of social entrepreneurship. Social marketing
as a concept has been expanded over the last decades as evidenced by the
more than 40 different definitions by the year 2010 (Dann, 2010). Within the
marketing literature much fragmentation can be observed, accompanied by

critiques concerning this proliferation. A recent definition by Dann (2010),
based on prior studies and the integration of commercial aspects, defines
social marketing as follows: “the adaptation and adoption of commercial
marketing activities, institutions and processes as a means to induce behav-
ioral change in a targeted audience on a temporary or permanent basis to
achieve a social goal” (p. 151).
Social marketing initiatives have not yet, to the knowledge of the
authors, been initiated in a retail marketing context. Nonetheless, several
other research fields do cover social activities in retail marketing. One
accepted retail format with social contributions to the community in Europe
is the concept of “charity shops,” which provide low-cost goods and employ
voluntary staff (see e.g., Broadbridge & Parsons, 2003; Horne, 2000; Parsons,
2002). The charity shop is a retail format, as well as a social enterprise
(Holweg, Lienbacher, & Schnedlitz, 2010). Corporate social responsibility
(CSR) for conventional retailers has been discussed in academic literature for
decades. In 1968, Hochstrasser stressed that “the structure of our civilization
and culture is mostly influenced by our economy, and in this view especially,
businesses have to accept their responsibility in building the future of our
world” (Hochstrasser, 1968). At that time, the concept of CSR was connected
to consumer-specific topics such as food safety and fair pricing (see e.g.,
Burke & Berry, 1974/1975; Dornoff & Tankersley, 1975/1976). More recent
CSR publications address wider stakeholder interests such as supplier con-
cerns, environmental issues, and the society overall. In this vein, the role of
retailers in enhancing socially responsible practices across the supply chain
is of greater importance (Brashear, Asare, Labrecque, & Motta, 2008). Other
studies address ethical aspects of food retailing (see e.g., Chen & Pfleuger,
2008; Smith-Hillman, 2007; Williams, Memery, Megicks, & Morrison, 2010)
and the topic of sustainability (see e.g., Marques, Mendonça, & Jabbour,
2010; Quak & de Koster, 2007; Thompson, 2007).
Hastings (2003) proposes that the future of social marketing depends
on its continued learning from commercial marketing; in particular, recent
movements toward relational paradigms and a whole new way of thinking

about social problems. Additionally, Andreasen (2003) calls for an expansion
of the discipline by convincing a wider range of organizations of the value of
social marketing in an even wider range of applications. In that vein, SSMs
represent an example of a “diffusion upwards” (Andreasen, 2003), as well as
an upstream strategy (Kotler & Lee, 2008) addressing managers of corporate
business to change a current practice, i.e., passing on consumable food
products instead of declaring them waste. Building on this, SSMs represent
a good example for taking commercial retailing practices to achieve the
social goals of preventing food waste and reducing poverty and long-term
unemployment.
As stated in the beginning of this article, the concept of the SSM can
be classified using the four core principles of a recent definition of social

marketing (Dann, 2010) as illustrated in Table 1.
In the context of social marketing, the concept of SSMs is different
and unique for several reasons. First, in comparison to most social mar-
keting initiatives, the operation of SSMs did not begin with a marketing
campaign. Nevertheless, they are an example of the ability to induce social
behavioral change (e.g., passing on food that is still consumable but not
saleable anymore in conventional retail outlets) generated from “within” as
a direct and moderate community-based action (Brennan & Binney, 2008).
TABLE 1 Social Supermarkets Within Dann’s Definition of Social Marketing
Core principles of social marketinga Social supermarkets
Marketing (1) Adaptation and adoption of Adaptation and adoption of

commercial marketing activities, commercial “retail marketing
institutions, and processes concept” (core competence of
retailer: e.g., procurement, pricing,
marketing, logistics) and the
concept of food banks
Behavior (2) Induce behavioral change on a Permanent behavioral change by
temporary or permanent basis two target markets: manufacturer
(3) Achieved through the creation, and retailer (B2B) and consumers
communication, delivery, and exchange (B2C)
Voluntary (4) Competitive social marketing offering Cooperation between SSMs and
that induces voluntary change partnership companies (e.g.,
(5) Targeted social group manufacturers, retailers) on a
voluntary basis as well as
consumers shopping there
voluntarily
Benefit (6) Benefit to recipient, partner, and Prevention of food waste; reduction
society of poverty and long-term
(7) Self-interest satisfaction unemployment
(8) Return on social investment
(9) Social profit
a
Dann (2010).
With reference to the target market, SSMs are confronted with a more
complex target market structure versus other social marketing campaigns,
requiring a multirelationship approach (Hastings & Saren, 2003). Retailers
and manufacturers represent the first target market of SSMs, and they share
a business-to-business (B2B) relationship. Consumers shopping in SSMs are
the second target group, which can be seen as a business-to-consumer
relationship (B2C).
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL SUPERMARKETS
The unique retail concept of the SSM is explained by the three elements of a
retail strategy according to Levy and Weitz (2006): retail format, target group
or market, and competitive advantage.
The retail format of SSMs is comparable to conventional supermar-
kets that operate in stationary outlets and primarily sell food and consumer
products. The main difference of SSMs as compared to conventional super-
markets lies in a modified implementation of various retail marketing
mix instruments—for example, assortment or price. The limited assortment
shows medium width and low depth and consists of surplus product that
is supplied for free by retailing and manufacturing companies. Since avail-
ability of merchandise is limited to what is supplied, the shelves of SSMs
often remain half empty. Filling the gaps by purchasing additional mer-
chandise is not an option since it would put SSMs in competition with
conventional supermarkets. Offering a full assortment in SSMs might fur-
ther foster an undesirable “ghetto-effect” in which financially poor people
would refrain from going grocery shopping in conventional supermarkets.
Consumer prices in SSMs are significantly lower, approximately 50% to 70%
less than regular market prices. These “symbolic prices” represent a mone-
tary cost, and they are a deliberate choice over giving out product for free as
to do so would put consumers in a position of asking for alms. Nonmonetary
cost for consumers is the time and effort required when shopping at a SSM,
along with the potential discomfort or stigmatization some people may feel
in shopping there.
The target group of SSMs from a retail marketing perspective is restricted
to financially poor people (i.e., access is limited to people living in or at risk
of poverty). This is controlled with the help of identification cards that are
issued against the presentation of an income statement and a proof of resi-
dence. The criterion for income is linked to the national poverty threshold
at monthly C994 for a one-person household. (Further criteria are available
for multifamily households.) Also important, however, SSMs have to address
a second core target group: retailers and manufacturers who provide them
with food and consumer goods.
The competitive advantage of SSMs lies in the unusual cost structure

compared to conventional supermarkets, which allows the very low price
levels. All revenues equal gross margin and are used to cover cost of per-
sonnel, rent, and operating cost. A potential surplus is spent against further
charitable activities. Some SSMs receive public funds or private donations.
Notably, conventional supermarkets do not regard SSMs as competitors, but
rather as cooperative partners who provide a valuable social service. Foods
banks could be seen as competitors to SSMs; however, they target a differ-
ent consumer group (i.e., people at the very lowest end of society, such as
people living in shelters).
Social marketing aims at selling a desired behavior instead of a phys-
ical good. In the case of SSMs, this means that retailers and manufacturers
pass on food to SSMs that is still consumable but not saleable anymore in
conventional retail outlets. To answer the first objective of the article (i.e., to
introduce SSMs as an innovative example of a social marketing initiative in
the retailing context), the authors build on the “product platform” (Kotler &
Lee, 2008), which consists of three levels: the core product (benefits), the
actual product (desired behavior), and the augmented product (tangible
objects and services) as outlined in Table 2.
The core product (i.e., benefits or social values created by SSMs for
society) is portrayed in Table 2. Benefits are directed toward two tar-
get markets, B2B (cooperating partners) and B2C (consumers), and they
address three social issues: waste, poverty, and unemployment. These social
TABLE 2 Social Supermarkets (SSMs): Levels of the Social Marketing Product and Target
Markets
Products Cooperating partners Consumers of SSMs (B2C)

of SSMs (B2B)
Core product Prevention of food waste Poverty prevention

(benefits) Reduction of long-term
unemployment
Actual product Passing on food that is still Buying food and consumer
(desired behavior) consumable but not saleable products at SSMs to save on
anymore in conventional retail household budget
outlets Working at SSMs for
reintegration into the labor
market
Augmented product Collecting food from retailers and manufacturers
(tangible objects and Preparing it for sale by selecting out nonedibles
services) Offering a limited assortment of food and consumer products
Selling food and consumer products at 30% versus prices in
conventional supermarkets
Employing long-term unemployed and volunteers
Additional services can, for example, include support by social
workers, common room to meet, joint activities (cooking lessons,
language courses, etc.)
Source. Based on Kotler and Lee (2008).
issues, which unfortunately accompany prosperity in developed societies,

are briefly highlighted from a European perspective:
● As per the European Commission, food waste is composed of raw or

cooked food materials and includes food loss before, during, or after meal
preparation in the household, as well as food discarded in the process of
manufacturing, distribution, retail, and food service activities. Eurostat data
shows that around 89 million metric tons of food waste is generated in the
EU in one year. On a per capita basis, this amounts to approximately
179 kg, or 395 lbs, per year (European Commission, 2010). A German
study estimates that between 3% and 8% of the value of food products
within the entire food supply chain is avoidable food waste that has
the potential to be rescued for consumption (Von Normann, 2009). Food
waste occurring within the retail sector is ascribed to the category retail
and distribution, as defined by the European Commission; manufacturing,
households, and food services are the three other areas where it is also
observed. While data on the volume of food waste in retailing is not avail-
able at the European level, an Austrian study reports that 267.000 metric
tons of food waste occur at the retail and wholesale level (Obersteiner &
Schneider, 2006). The EU documentation highlights the SSM as a success-
ful example of an initiative for food waste prevention and one of the very
few such initiatives in the retail sector (European Commission, 2010).
● The European Commission defines the at-risk-of-poverty threshold at 60%
of the national median income. In 2008 about 17% of the population in
the EU27 was at risk of poverty, meaning that their income after social
transfers was below the poverty threshold (Eurostat, 2010). In Austria, the
at-risk-of-poverty threshold for a single-person household is set at C994
per month. In total, 12% of the population were considered at risk of
poverty in Austria in 2009 (Statistics Austria, 2011); that is about 1 million
persons, which is below the European average.
● Unemployment and poverty are two closely linked social issues. In the
European Union (EU27) the average unemployment rate is 9%. The unem-
ployed are defined as those persons who are unemployed (without work,
but actively seeking work) as a proportion of the labor force, the latter
comprising all employed and unemployed persons. Long-term unemploy-
ment is a more severe social issue and includes persons who are without
work for 12 months or more. Within the European Union 3.8% of the
population are long-term unemployed; Austria reports 1.1% long-term
unemployment (Eurostat, 2011).
These three social issues call for solutions in the areas of food waste
prevention and reduction of poverty and unemployment, all of which are
addressed by SSMs.
These benefits are achieved by the actual product (i.e., the desired
behavior of manufacturers and retailers to pass on to SSMs food and
consumer products that are still consumable or useable but not saleable
anymore). The main reasons for nonsaleability are minor quality deficien-
cies, slightly damaged packaging, incorrect labeling, product from surplus
production, or product that is close to the expiration date. If not consumed,
most of it would become waste, which in turn causes waste disposal costs
for these companies. The desired behavior of consumers of SSMs is to buy
food and consumer products that help them to save money that they can
then spend for other products or services needed or most wanted (e.g., new
clothes or visiting cultural events). Working at an SSM represents a further
desired behavior for long-term unemployed people. The multiple working
areas in an SSM allow some flexibility in the needs of this specific target
group, and thus they increase the possibility of reintegrating the people into
the labor market.
The operations of SSMs can best be described in the context of the
augmented product, defined as objects and services that support the afore-
mentioned behavior change. From a process point of view, SSMs collect
products from partnership companies, in most instances with SSMs’ own
transportation facilities. The collected products are then prepared for sale by
sorting out nonedibles (e.g., opening a net of oranges to eliminate the poor-
quality ones). Products are being offered in-store in a simple, discount-like
store atmosphere. They are sold at symbolic prices, which are approximately
30% less than the prices in conventional supermarkets. Further, SSMs operate
mainly with the support of volunteers for cost-saving reasons. In addition
to having very few (part-time) employed managers, they also give long-
term unemployed people the opportunity to work. Finally, some SSMs offer
additional services beyond their retail activities, which include support from
social workers (depending upon individual needs), workshops, or language
classes. Common rooms are established to facilitate communication among
the socially disadvantaged.
METHODOLOGY
Social marketing requires a profound understanding of the objects and ser-

vices that support behavior change. This indicates a need to investigate the
augmented product of SSMs (e.g., their operations and development, as a
starting point). For this third objective of the article (i.e., describing the
development and status of the SSM sector in Austria), a two-step approach
was applied. First, qualitative research allowed valuable insights into the
research project and served as basis for the development of a question-
naire as a tool to investigate the status of the SSM sector in Austria. The
qualitative research consisted of: (a) expert interviews with managers of
SSMs; (b) an expert panel with representatives from retailing and manufac-
turing companies, SSMs, as well as public and governmental institutions;
and (c) the active participation of the researchers in the operations of an
SSM. Second, the quantitative research began with the generation of an
address dataset of SSMs in Austria, based on an Internet search, from press
articles and expert interviews, since no sector overview was available. The
questionnaire aimed at generating a profound understanding of the SSM
sector, and it was developed based on qualitative research, the literature in
retail marketing, nonprofit organizations, and social marketing (see Tables 3
and 4). In keeping with that process, the research design was structured
TABLE 3 Retail Marketing Mix Instruments
Retail marketing mix instruments Variables Literature
Assortment/ Selection of merchandise Commodity groups Müller-Hagedorn and

merchandise carried by a retailer including offered (food and Natter (2011),
both the breadth of nonfood) Berman and Evans
categories and the variety (2010), Liebmann,
within each category Zentes, and Swoboda
Price Retailers set prices by Level of consumer (2008), Zentes,
marking up the cost of items pricing; promotional Morschett, and
to yield a profitable cross offers; products Schramm-Klein
margin and adjust them on offered for free (2007), Constantinides
the basis of insights about (2006), Levy and
customer price sensitivity Weitz (2006), Kotler
and competitive pricing (2003), Mulhern
(1997)
Promotiona Activities undertaken by a Communication
retailer to provide consumers (below and above
with information about a the line)
retailer’s store, its image, and
its retail marketing mix
Location Choice of location requires Address
decision making on a
number of criteria such as
population size, competition,
transport access, and parking
availability
Store layout/ The combination of the Store size; storage
atmosphere store’s physical characteristics facilities
(e.g., layout, lighting, and
sound), which together
create an image in the
customer’s mind
Service/ The set of retail activities that Hours open;
personnel increase the value customers employment
receive when they shop and relationship
purchase merchandise
a
Surveyed in a separate study: Siwy (2011).
according to the retail marketing mix instruments found in the literature that
describe the operations of a retailer (Berman & Evans, 2010). Table 3 depicts
the retail marketing mix instruments of assortment/merchandise, price, pro-
motion, location, store layout/atmosphere, and service/personnel, which
mirror the traditional marketing mix instruments of the 4Ps, adapted to the
requirements of a retailer (Constantinides, 2006).
As SSMs substantially differ from conventional retailers in their retail
marketing strategy, as discussed earlier, this research design also included
key organizational variables related to organizational theory, social market-
ing, and retail marketing literature (see Table 4).
The previously mentioned expert panel was used for fine-tuning and
pre-testing the questionnaire. Desk research revealed that 68 SSMs do exist
in Austria as stationary and mobile outlets. This translates into a 1.2% market
share of all stores in the Austrian food sector (Nielsen, 2009). All SSMs (N =
68) received the questionnaire by post in May 2010 and June 2010. The
overall response rate was 84% (n = 57), partly fostered by incentives in the
form of coupons for free merchandise to be sold in SSMs.
TABLE 4 Key Organizational Aspects of Social Supermarkets
Key organizational aspects of social supermarkets Variable Literature
Target A target audience A group of Control of social Dann (2010),

group/market mindset holds that consumers with accuracy; Pope, Sterrett Isely,
(B2C) success will come similar needs number of and Asamoa-Tutu
to that identification (2009),
organization that cards Andreasen and
Target best determines Specific, Procurement of Kotler (2008),
group/market the perceptions, identifiable and commodities; Zentes, Morschett,
(B2B) needs, and wants reachable transport and
of target markets market vehicles Schramm-Klein
and continually segmentation (2007), Levy and
satisfies them within a broader Weitz (2006),
through the community Powell and
design, population Steinberg (2006),
communication, Kotler (2003),
pricing, and Salamon and
delivery of Anheier (1997),
appropriate and Kosiol (1976)
competitively Expert panels
viable value
propositions
Organization Organizations differ in size, function, Opening date;
and structure. It is a formalized revenue;
system of rules and policies number of
Nonprofit organizations are employees;
characterized by their organized, reintegration
private, nonprofit-distributing, programs; social
self-governing, and voluntary form orientation
EMPIRICAL STUDY
Results of the first national survey of the SSM sector in Austria are pre-
sented, starting with a sector overview, followed by a description of the
retail marketing mix instruments.
Sector Overview
In 2010, Austria reported 63 store-based SSMs located in most of the major
cities nationwide. Five of these markets operated as mobile SSMs in rural
areas. The sector showed a slow growth after the opening of the first SSM
in 1999, but then a rapid expansion in 2008, partly fostered by the global
financial and economic crisis during that year (see Figure 1).
About half of all SSMs (32 stores) belong to an umbrella organization
called SOMA, serving as a national logistics platform and providing admin-
istrative support for its members (SOMA, 2011). Of SSMs, 65% are registered
as nonprofit companies; the rest are private limited companies also with a
nonprofit mission. Revenues of SSMs are on average C46,215 annually, or
C3,851 per month. Notably, there is a large variation in revenues per store
with a median of C28,333. Only 14% of SSMs report revenues of more than
C100,000 a year. Since their start, SSMs have issued in total 62,151 identi-
fication cards. Of these cards, 23,906 cards were actively used during the
month of the survey. Of all SSMs, 69% have less than 250 customers, which
reflects the dominance of small stores in the sector. Only about 20% of SSMs
have more than 2,000 customers. The entitlement to an identification card is
controlled on a continuous basis; in most SSMs (84%), a review of eligibility
occurs 1 year after the issue of the previous card. SSMs that participated in
the study employed 750 people in total, which is an average of 18.4 people
2010 9
2009 12
2008 13
2007 4
2006 4
2005 3
2004 2
2002 2
2000 2
1999 1
Not Reported 11
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Social Supermarkets
FIGURE 1 Historical development of social supermarkets in Austria (n = 63).

per store. Sixty-five percent of them work on a voluntary basis, which is

approximately 12 people per store. Seventeen percent of people get paid,
but the majority of them are employed on a part-time basis. The remain-
ing 18% of the people are part of reintegration programs for the long-term
unemployed. The majority of SSMs (91%) receive minor financial support
from governmental institutions, mainly for their participation in reintegra-
tion and unemployment programs. Only 9% of SSMs obtain support from
private parties or organizations.
Merchandise
The merchandise in SSMs mirrors the product categories offered in conven-
tional supermarkets, which are divided into food and nonfood categories
(Nielsen, 2009). The main difference, however, is product availability
in-store, which depends on the merchandise provided by suppliers. While
all SSMs offer bread, bakery products, and sweets (100%), dairy products are
available in 98% of SSMs, tins and packets in 96%, and fresh fruit and veg-
etables in 89% of SSMs (see Figure 2). Meat and poultry are offered in only
32% of SSMs, as they require proper cooling facilities. Alcohol and tobacco
are not part of the assortment of offerings.
Non-food categories are less frequently offered, as these products usu-
ally have longer expiration dates, and less surplus product occurs during the
production process. Fifty-eight percent of SSMs offer pet food; 44% and 56%
of SSMs offer laundry and cleaning products, respectively (see Figure 3).
Baby products such as diapers are offered in 73% of stores; notably, part of
that volume is donated by manufacturers as regular product.
The majority of all merchandise is reported to be derived from retailers.
Beverages, cans and packets, and frozen food are provided by both retailers
and manufacturers; cosmetics and cleaning products primarily come from
Frozen Food (n = 45) 84 16

Fresh Fruit & Vegetable (n = 45) 89 11
Commodity Group: Food
Sweets (n = 45) 100

Tins & Packets (n = 45) 96 4
Meat & Poultry (n = 44) 32 68 Yes
Bread & Bakery (n = 45) 100 No
Dairy (n = 45) 98 2
Beverages (n = 45) 91 9
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Social Supermarkets in %
FIGURE 2 Food categories in social supermarkets.

Pet Food (n = 45) 58 42
Commodity Group: Nonfood Cleaning (n = 45) 56 44

Laundry (n = 45) 44 56
Body Care (n = 45) 42 58
Dental Care (n = 45) 31 69 Yes

No
Cosmetic & Hair Care (n = 45) 49 51
Hygiene Paper (n = 45) 49 51
Baby care (n = 45) 73 27
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FIGURE 3 Nonfood categories in social supermarkets.
manufacturers. A total of 87% of SSMs have one or more transport vehicles

available to collect products directly from retail stores or manufacturer sites.
Price
The average consumer price in SSMs is 33% of the regular shelf price
found in conventional supermarkets. Prices are fixed prices indicated on
the product or on the shelf. Mark-downs or promotional offers are rare.
Bread is available for free to consumers in all SSMs, and it accounts for
the largest volume of all categories supplied by retailers and manufactur-
ers. Purchase frequency is limited to three times per week with a maximum
basket spending of C10 per trip.
Promotion
Promotional activity by SSMs is very limited. According to the results of a
6-month media survey of the SSM sector in 2010 (Siwy, 2011), promotions
focus on below-the-line activities on the Internet. Fifty percent of SSMs have
their own Internet home page; 27% are present as part of a charitable orga-
nization; and the remaining 23% have no Internet presence. Web content is
directed both to consumers and potential sponsors, describing the concept
and the service of the SSM and asking for support in terms of products or
financial aid. Public relations messages are the only other source of informa-
tion about SSMs. Out of 179 reports investigated, 88% were articles in daily
newspapers, 8% reports on TV, and 4% articles in weekly magazines.
Store Layout
The store layout of SSMs is simple and discount-like. The average store
size of a SSM is 90m2 or about 970ft2 , which puts SSMs in the category of
Frozen Storage (n = 40) 50 50

Storage for...
Cold Storage (n = 40) 50 50 Yes
No
Store Room (n = 47) 93.6 6.4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

FIGURE 4 Storage facilities in social supermarkets.
convenience stores (i.e., the smallest retail format). Thirty-three percent of

SSMs even report a store size between 41 m2 and 80 m2 or about 440 ft2 and
860 ft2 , respectively. Additional space for storage is available in 94% of SSMs
on average at 59 m2 or about 635 ft2 (see Figure 4). Fifty percent of SSMs
are equipped with cold storage and frozen storage facilities.
Service
Personal service in SSMs is provided in-store for the fresh food and veg-
etables, dairy products, and bread categories. The number of hours open is
restricted compared to conventional retailers. On average, SSMs are open
4.3 days a week; 70% of SSMs are open up to 20 hours a week and
approximately 4 to 5 hours per day.
Location
SSMs are located mainly in city centers and close to public transport. This
neighborhood location allows good access and minimizes transportation
costs for its customers.
CONCLUSION
SSMs are an example of a social enterprise and social entrepreneurship char-

acterized by creating a social mission, by recognizing and pursuing new
opportunities to serve that mission, by engaging in a process of continuous
innovation, adaptation, and learning, and by acting within limited resources
(Dees, 1998). Following the conceptualization of Weerawardena and Mort
(2006), social entrepreneurship strives to create social value by an inno-
vative, proactive, and risk-taking management behavior; however, it does
so within the boundaries of a dynamic environment (e.g., the retail mar-
ket), the need to build a sustainable organization (e.g., ensuring continuous
product supply or the support of volunteers), and their social mission (e.g.,
supporting financially poor people). As a subtopic of social entrepreneur-
ship, social marketing’s most fundamental feature is that it takes its learning
from commerce (Hastings, 2003). Therefore, by applying the retail market-

ing concept, SSMs can be seen as an innovative “best practice benchmark,”
as recommended by Dann, Harris, Mort, Fry, and Binney (2007). Further,
they are an example of the application of an upstream social marketing pro-
cess through the adaptation and adoption of a business-to-business insight
(Dann, 2010).
In reference to the first two objectives of this article, the concept of
the SSM has been introduced and defined based on information from social
marketing and retail marketing literature. SSMs are clearly distinct from their
closest organizational forms (i.e., food banks and conventional supermar-
kets) because of their restricted target group of financially poor people,
their limited assortment of offerings, their different pricing strategy, and the
constrained hours of service.

The third objective of this article, describing the development and status
of SSMs, resulted in a comprehensive and first-time-ever overview of this
sector in Austria and provided, against the background of social marketing, a
detailed description of the augmented product. The empirical study revealed
the rapid growth of SSMs in Austria within the last ten years. Heterogeneity
is observed only in organizational size in terms of number of employees,
store size, and revenues.
SSMs are well established in Austria and are present in nearly every
major city. Nevertheless, social marketing activities could benefit from a
more professional approach. An increase in marketing efforts toward their
targeted group of retailers and manufacturers (i.e., procurement market-
ing) could increase product supply, which now falls short mainly due to
limited resources and expertise, a common characteristic of nonprofit orga-
nizations (Pope, Sterrett Isley, & Asamoa-Tutu, 2009). Likewise, promotional
campaigns directed toward the public could increase awareness about the
activities of SSMs and lead to additional partnerships.
OUTLOOK
The concept of the SSM with its focus also on B2B relationships has impli-
cations for the social marketing research agenda. Specifically, the authors
propose to expand research on specific partnerships and relationships, such
as those proposed by Hastings (2003) or Dann (2010). Moreover SSMs
cause behavior change, especially more environmentally friendly behavior
by organizations, in an unorthodox and innovative way. They accomplish
maximum results with minimum financial input by a “guerilla-like” approach.
A deeper understanding of unconventional concepts like these could enlarge
the social marketing research landscape.
The article makes a deliberate choice to focus on understanding the
operations of SSMs, i.e., the augmented product. Using both target markets
(partnership companies and consumers) to measure behavior change is a

valuable research aim for the future. The results of the empirical study
are specific to the Austrian sector of SSMs and are not representative of
similar concepts in other countries. Nevertheless, following the above, the
authors envision that SSMs have the potential to be replicated in other coun-
tries, very much in the spirit of social entrepreneurship advocated by the
Austrian economist, Joseph Schumpeter. The concept is simple and provides
an immediate solution to the three social issues of food waste, poverty, and
unemployment, which are of key relevance in most of the developed coun-
tries. Hastings and Saren (2003) expect that social marketing will flourish
by exploiting its twin understanding of the good and bad that marketing
can bring to society. Under the current economic and social circumstances,
avoidable food waste as a sign of prosperity will exist in the future with SSMs
providing a solution that is beneficial both from a social and an ecological
perspective.
REFERENCES
A.N.D.E.S. (2011, April 30). L’Association Nationale de Développement des Épiceries

Solidaires. [National Association for the Development of Solidary Stores].
Retrieved from http://www.epiceries-solidaires.org/
Andreasen, A. (2003). The life trajectory of social marketing. Marketing Theory, 3,
293–303.
Andreasen, A., & Kotler, P. (2008). Strategic marketing for nonprofit organizations
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial
entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship, Theory and
Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
Bennett, R., & Sargeant, A. (2005). The nonprofit marketing landscape: Guest editors’
introduction to a special section. Journal of Business Research, 58, 797–805.
Berman, B., & Evans, J. R. (2010). Retail management: A strategic approach
(11th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.
Brashear, T. G., Asare, A. K., Labrecque, L., & Motta, P. C. (2008). A framework for
socially responsible retailing (SRR) business practices. Revista de Administração
FACES Journal, 7(2), 11–28.
Brennan, L., & Binney, W. (2008). Concepts in conflict: Social marketing and
sustainability. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20, 261–281.
Broadbridge, A., & Parsons, L. (2003). Still serving the community? The profes-
sionalisation of the UK charity retail sector. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 31, 418–427.
Burke, M. C., & Berry, L. L. (1974/1975). Do social actions of a corporation influence
store image and profits? Journal of Retailing, 50(4), 62–72.
Chen, J. V., & Pfleuger, P. (2008). RFID in retail: A framework for examining con-
sumers’ ethical perceptions. International Journal of Mobile Communications
6(1), 53–66.
Christie, M., & Honig, B. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New research findings.
Journal of World Business, 41(1), 1–5.
Constantinides, E. (2006). The marketing mix revisited: Towards the 21st century
marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 407–438.
Dann, S. (2010). Redefining social marketing with contemporary commercial
marketing definitions. Journal of Business Research, 63, 147–153.
Dann, S., Harris, P., Mort, G. S., Fry, M.-L., & Binney, W. (2007). Reigniting the fire:
A contemporary research agenda for social, political and nonprofit marketing.
Journal of Public Affairs, 7, 291–304.
Dees, G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 55–67.
Dornoff, R. J., & Tankersley, C. B. (1975/1976). Do retailers practice social
responsibility? Journal of Retailing, 51(4), 33–42.
Europe 2020. (2011, July 13). Europe 2020 targets. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.
eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/index_en.htm
European Commission. (2010). Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27
(Final report). Paris, France: European Commission in association with
AEA Energy, Umwelt Bundesamt and Environment and BIO Intelligence
Service.
European Commission. (2011, April 27). Research and innovations—social sciences
and humantities. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/
index_en.html
Eurostat. (2010). Living conditions in 2008. 17% of EU27 population at risk of
poverty (News release). Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/
ITY_PUBLIC/3-18012010-AP/EN/3-18012010-AP-EN.PDF
Eurostat. (2011, April 30). Long-term unemployment rate by gender. Retrieved
from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&
language=en&pcode=tsisc070
Gartner, W. B. (1988). ‘Who is an entrepreneur?’ is the wrong question. American
Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32.
Goodmann, M., & Bryant, R. (2009). The ethics of sustainable consumption gover-
nance: Exploring the cultural economies of ‘alternative’ retailing (Environment,
Politics and Development Working Paper No. 15). London, England: King’s
College London.
Hansmann, H. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89.
Hastings, G. (2003). Relational paradigms in social marketing. Journal of
Macromarketing, 23(1), 6–15.
Hastings, G., & Saren, M. (2003). The critical contribution of social marketing.
Marketing Theory, 3, 305–322.
Hochstrasser, C. H. (1968). Opportunities and responsibilities of retailers around the
world. Journal of Retailing, 44(1), 38–44.
Holweg, C., Lienbacher, E., & Schnedlitz, P. (2010, November–January). Social super-
markets: Typology within the spectrum of social enterprises. Paper presented at
the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy, Doing More with Less,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Horne, S. (2000). The charity shop: Purpose and change. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 5(2), 113–124.
Kosiol, E. (1976). Organisation der Unternehmung [Business Organisation]

(2nd ed.). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing management (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
LinkPearson Education International.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. R. (2008). Social marketing (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publications.
LastMinuteMarket. (2011, April 30). LastMinuteMarket. Trasformare lo spreco in
risorse. [Transforming waste into resources]. Retrieved from http://www.
lastminutemarket.it/
Levy, M., & Weitz, B. A. (2006). Retailing management (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Liebmann, H.-P., Zentes, J., & Swoboda, B. (2008). Handelsmanagement [Retail
Management] (2nd ed.). München, Germany: Verlag Franz Vahlen.
Malhotra, N. K. (2007). Marketing research. An applied orientation (5th ed.). Harlow,

England: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Marques, F., Mendonça, P. S. M., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2010). Social dimension of sus-
tainability in retail: Case studies of small and medium Brazilian supermarkets.
Social Responsibility Journal, 6, 237–251.
Mulhern, F. J. (1997). Retail marketing: From distribution to ontegration.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(2), 103–124.
Müller-Hagedorn, L. (2004). Was leistet die Handelswissenschaft? [What can retail
research accomplish?]. Handel im Fokus, 4, 254–266.
Müller-Hagedorn, L., & Natter, M. (2011). Handelsmarketing [Retail marketing] (5th
ed.). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
Nielsen. (2009). Handel in Österreich. Basisdaten 2009 [Retail in Austria
2009]. Retrieved from http://at.nielsen.com/site/documents/Nielsen_Jahrbuch_
2009.pdf
Obersteiner, G., & Schneider, F. (2006). NÖ Restmüllanalyse 2005/06.
Zusammensetzung des Restmülls [Analysis of Residual Waste in Lower Austria].
Vienna: University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences.
Parsons, E. (2002). Charity retail: Past, present and future. International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, 30, 586–594.
Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation.
Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.
Pope, J., Sterrett Isley, E., & Asamoa-Tutu, F. (2009). Developing a marketing strategy
for nonprofit organizations: An exploratory study. Journal of Nonprofit & Public
Sector Marketing, 21, 184–201.
Powell, W., & Steinberg, R. (2006). Non-profit sector. A research handbook (2nd ed.).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Quak, H. J., & de Koster, M. B. M. (2007). Exploring retailers’ sensitivity to local
sustainability policies. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 1103–1122.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1997). Defining the non-profit sector: A cross-
national analysis. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Salhofer, S., Obersteiner, G., Schneider, F., & Lebersorger, S. (2008). Potentials for
the prevention of municipal solid waste. Waste Management, 28, 245–259.
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneur-
ship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 3, 161–194.
Siwy, R. (2011). Marketing of social supermarkets [working title]. Unpublished
manuscript, Vienna.
Smith-Hillman, V. A. (2007). Socially irresponsible, unethical or business as usual?
UK case of Argos Ltd. and Littlewoods Ltd. v. OFT. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 16, 150–162.
SOMA. (2011, July 26): Soma-eine Idee die hilft [Social Supermarket - an idea that
helps]. Retrieved from http://www.sozialmarkt.at/
Statistics Austria. (2011, January 20). EU-SILC 2009: Risk of poverty and manifest
poverty unchanged [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.statistik.at/web_
en/press/054998
Sullivan Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship:
Towards conceptualisation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76–88.
Tarasuk, V. (2009). Food charity: When doing our best is not enough. Esurio: Journal
of Hunger and Poverty, 1(2), 1–4.
Thompson, B. (2007). Green retail: Retailer strategies for surviving the sustainability
storm. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 6, 281–286.
Von Normann, K. (2009). Contribution of non profit organisations to reduction of
food poverty. Paper presented at the 3rd BOKU Waste Conference, April 15–17,
2009, Vienna.
Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship:
A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35.
Williams, J., Memery, J., Megicks, P., & Morrison, M. (2010). Ethics and social
responsibility in Australian grocery shopping. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 38, 297–316.
Zentes, J., Morschett, D., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2007). Strategic retail management.
Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
View publication stats

Retail Market

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Retail Market

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Social Marketing Innovation: New Thinking in Retailing

Article in Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing · October 2011

Christina Holweg Eva Lienbacher

Sustainability and Retail-specific Supply Chain Management View project

Food Waste View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector

Social Marketing Innovation: New

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2011.623548

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Social Marketing Innovation: New Thinking

CHRISTINA HOLWEG and EVA LIENBACHER

Retail marketing has been a well-established research stream in

KEYWORDS social supermarket, social entrepreneurship, social

Since its beginning in the early 1970s, social marketing, a subtopic of

Address correspondence to Christina Holweg, Vienna University of Economics and

marketing in several aspects (e.g., relational aspects; Hastings, 2003), new

A novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient,

The contribution of this article is to introduce an innovative example

of a social marketing activity: social supermarkets (SSMs). SSMs are food-

● There is a call for the expansion of social marketing in several aspects

minute markets (LastMinuteMarkets, 2011). The concept of SSMs thus has

Stated consecutively, the objectives of this article are (a) to introduce

Following the conceptualization of Weerawardena and Mort (2006), social

conceptual lenses and has developed a research framework. Based on this,

marketing literature much fragmentation can be observed, accompanied by

movements toward relational paradigms and a whole new way of thinking

be classified using the four core principles of a recent definition of social

TABLE 1 Social Supermarkets Within Dann’s Definition of Social Marketing

Core principles of social marketinga Social supermarkets

Marketing (1) Adaptation and adoption of Adaptation and adoption of

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL SUPERMARKETS

The competitive advantage of SSMs lies in the unusual cost structure

Products Cooperating partners Consumers of SSMs (B2C)

Core product Prevention of food waste Poverty prevention

issues, which unfortunately accompany prosperity in developed societies,

● As per the European Commission, food waste is composed of raw or

Social marketing requires a profound understanding of the objects and ser-

TABLE 3 Retail Marketing Mix Instruments

Retail marketing mix instruments Variables Literature

Assortment/ Selection of merchandise Commodity groups Müller-Hagedorn and

TABLE 4 Key Organizational Aspects of Social Supermarkets

Key organizational aspects of social supermarkets Variable Literature

Target A target audience A group of Control of social Dann (2010),

FIGURE 1 Historical development of social supermarkets in Austria (n = 63).

per store. Sixty-five percent of them work on a voluntary basis, which is

Frozen Food (n = 45) 84 16

Sweets (n = 45) 100

FIGURE 2 Food categories in social supermarkets.

Pet Food (n = 45) 58 42

Commodity Group: Nonfood Cleaning (n = 45) 56 44

Body Care (n = 45) 42 58

Dental Care (n = 45) 31 69 Yes

FIGURE 3 Nonfood categories in social supermarkets.

manufacturers. A total of 87% of SSMs have one or more transport vehicles

Frozen Storage (n = 40) 50 50

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

FIGURE 4 Storage facilities in social supermarkets.

convenience stores (i.e., the smallest retail format). Thirty-three percent of

SSMs are an example of a social enterprise and social entrepreneurship char-

from commerce (Hastings, 2003). Therefore, by applying the retail market-

constrained hours of service.