Please enter your student number and word count on the next

page.

‘’In submitting this assessment, I certify that this is my own work (except, where indicated
as group work) and that the use of material from other sources has been appropriately
acknowledged in the text. Neither this work, nor any part of it, has been submitted in the
same format in connection with any other assessment.
I have read and understood the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy and University
Proofreading Policy, and definitions including plagiarism, collusion and commissioning
therein, and I therefore understand that the consequences of committing Academic
Misconduct will result in an investigation for academic misconduct and, if proven, may
result in cancellation of marks for the paper, a mark of zero for the module, cancellation of
marks for the level of study, or cancellation of all marks and disqualification from the
programme.”

A penalty of zero will be applied for late submission. It is your responsibility to submit the
work in the correct format and to ensure that you allow enough time to submit by the
deadline.

1
 Word Limit Policy

STUDENT NUMBER: 1911292

WORD COUNT: 2889

MODULE CODE: MN-3016

2
 INDIVIDUAL COURSEWORK ASSIGNMENT

TITLE:

THE “SOUP-ER” HEROES INITIATIVE

Rapid community-based response to the cost-of-living crisis, focusing on resource- and effort-pooling

AUTHOR:
1911292

MODULE:
MN-3016
INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

SWANSEA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
2021/22
DECEMBER

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

CHALLENGE AND MARKET 5

THE INNOVATION AND THE APPROACH 5
RISKS AND OUTCOMES 5

SUMMARY OF THE CHALLENGE 6

THE INNOVATION 10

NOVELTY AND PROCESS 10

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 13

COMMERCIAL ATTRACTION 14

THE NEED FOR AID NUMERISED 14

GEOGRAPHIC DATA TO TARGET AID 15

THE APPROACH 18

PARTNERSHIPS 18
SMART OBJECTIVES 20

LIMITATIONS AND RISK 22

OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23

REFERENCE LIST 24

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHALLENGE AND MARKET

Falling real disposable household income, caused by high inflation, is presenting a serious
challenge to Swansea residents.

Roughly 54,000 residents face significant financial headwinds over the coming months (and
years, recovery expected after 2028), over 30,000 of whom may already be in a perilous
situation as they were not able to save more than 10 pounds per month in 2020-21.

Inflation hits low-income groups hardest as essential items and expenses such as food and
energy, for which they already pay a higher portion of their income than higher income
bands, rapidly increase in price.

Townhill and Ravenhill are identified as areas of particularly high risk in Swansea, where
between 50-80% of households faced at least one dimension of deprivation already in 2021.

51% of UK adults expect the government to step in to reduce pressure on households.

THE INNOVATION AND THE APPROACH

Using existing connections between Swansea Council and NGO actors in the food space, a
rapid response initiative has been developed to form local, informal cooking groups, the idea
being that people would get together on an ad-hoc basis to pool their financial resources
and effort to make for easy and cheap meals, reducing pressure on monthly expenditures.

The idea is to refer people from food banks to cooking groups who already offer services for
free, using Council connections and financing specialised courses will be developed to
network people and make it very easy for them to realise cost and effort benefits.

RISKS AND OUTCOMES

Risks include failure to communicate benefits properly to consumers or convince key
stakeholders to become partners, as well as the risk that the conversion from food bank to
community cooking may be harder than anticipated, these risks are planned for on page 22.

The key limitation is that it does not provide tangible goods, but this makes it fast and cheap
to realise. The project is planned in principle, and it is reasonably realistic to expect a pilot
workshop to be held five weeks from approval, given that the proper resources are
allocated. Namely,

1. Go ahead on the action plan

2. A part-time assistant and access to media resources for the five-week
period
3. An agreement in principle to cover costs for crucial partners for the pilot
and promotion phase until March 1st, 2023 by which date numerous
iterations of the workshop will have been completed and a sufficient data
set for analysis gathered.

5
SUMMARY OF THE CHALLENGE

The current cost-of-living crisis is hitting households in Swansea and the rest of the UK. Pwc
(2022) reports that 86% of UK adults are worried about rising costs of living, with 54% saying
they are very worried. Not only does the government have a moral and legal obligation to
protect citizens from this crisis, but it is expected to do so. Constituencies expect first
government and second businesses to help mitigate the impacts of the crisis, as shown in
Figure 1.

0% 20% 40% 60%

Government 51%

Businesses 33%

Individuals 22%

Charities / community groups 17%

Others 21%

Figure 1 Pwc survey respondents saying who they expect to help (Pwc, 2022)

Real net disposable income across the UK fell sharply during the Covid crisis. Now, in the
midst of the expected V-shaped recovery, rising inflation presents a large obstacle to
economic growth and poses a real threat to millions of people in the UK at large but also in
Swansea. The Office for Budget Responsibility (2022) in figure 2 illustrates the expected
contraction in real household disposable income (RDHI) growth. This means that while
incomes do not shrink, they do not keep up with escalating prices. RDHI is not expected to
catch up until 2024, signalling a difficult year for households. Pre-pandemic levels of RDHI
are not expected to be reached until after 2027-28, as shown in figure 3 (Francis-Devine et
al. 2022)

6
Figure 2: OBR (2022) forecast for RDHI growth.

Figure 3 Francis-Devine et al. (2022) expect a steep drop in RDHI with a lengthy recovery period

Almost all households can expect to lose wealth during this period, most will deploy their
savings, but there is a significant amount of people in Swansea who do not have the
longevity to sustain this even for the coming months. In 2020, one in five people in Wales
was living with relative low income (in poverty) before housing costs, closer to one in four
(23%) after housing costs (DWP, 2020).
7
It is exactly these households for whom inflation is highest and who spend the largest share
of their income on food and energy, and exactly these are becoming much more expensive
(Francis-Devine et al. 2022). Figures 4-6 show the according figures by income deciles.

Figure 4 CPI data shows how inflation affects different levels of income

Figure 5: March-April 2020 data shows the burden before rampant inflation, this can be expected to skyrocket.

Figure 6: March-April 2020 data shows pre-inflation burden on low-income households

8
Having established what the problem is, who is most affected by it, and why the Council
needs to act, the question remains what quick solutions can be implemented. This proposal
seeks to outline a rapid to implement, low-complexity, low-cost solution by leveraging the
existing network of organisations and policy measures.

9
 THE INNOVATION

The idea is to drive a public awareness campaign to establish cooking groups at local levels,
especially in deprived neighbourhoods but also as a wider initiative. It is essentially the
follow-up step from food shares, whereby communities organise online or in person to
reduce food waste informally. This iteration will involve the pooling of resources (rather than
sharing) and the sharing of experiences and effort to realise savings from homecooked meals
while reducing effort as much as possible, on a semi-regular and ad-hoc basis. Picture
neighbours, friends, families having meals together more often or preparing meals in
advance. For this idea to be feasible, it is assumed that food banks and the like are not the
primary source of sustenance for many beneficiaries – this must be verified with voucher
agencies as well as referral system and food bank administrators, refer to SMART target 1.

NOVELTY AND PROCESS

This is hardly a radical innovation, but there is novelty in the combination of shared
homecooked meals as a means of reducing costs with a targeted effort to bring together
struggling, at-risk people who are open to cooking and then trying to network them to form
communities that create resource and “labour” pools. See figure 7 for the ideal flowchart. A
key strength lies in the informal nature and self-organisation of the people involved; a key
weakness is that it provides no goods to relieve acute resource shortages.

Community cooking remains an ad-

hoc practice, but creates monthly
At risk savings in tightly squeezed budgets
Referred people
people
through resource and effort pooling
Food banks
Voucher
holders

Because of excellent preparation

through cooking organisations and
clear communication of benefits
Introduction to concept via leaflets, spokespeople and combined with actionable advice,
referral to existing cooking enthusiast groups cost and time savings are realised

People open to the concept attend a meeting on cost
benefits, cheap, quick, tasty, healthy menus and
connect with people who love to cook or are in a
similar situation as they are.
Figure 7: Community cooking ideal flowchart
Informal networks of people are
established and first experiments
commence
Results here are a key success factor

10
 The innovation triangles below seek to illustrate how food has been distributed to people in
need and how they consumed it over time.

Past Why?

- Predate welfare state (1790 onwards)

- Administration through churches
- Religious values with deserving - Help those in need
- Moral, theological
and undeserving poor obligation
- Fed between 10-30% of UK
during winter
Carstairs (2022)
- Predates welfare
state
- Only way to
survive

- Soup kitchen
- Food bank
What? Figure 8: Past triangle How?

Why?
Present

- Access to food is a human right

- Modern food banks are a
product of austerity - Help those in need
- Largest UK food bank - Moral obligation
charity experienced - Legal obligation
5000% growth in - Reduce food waste
2008-2018
HRW (2019) - Private Charities
- Government
- Soup kitchen
- Religious communities
- Food bank
Figure 9: Present triangle - Food share
What? How?
Why?

Future

- “Teach a man to fish…”

- Improve resilience through
Community
- Preserve and expand - Build community
current services as - Move from resource
needed sharing to pooling
- Share burdens and
experiences

- As above - As above
+ Community + Individual coordination
cooking by those affected

What? Figure 10: Future triangle How?

11
 Another way of conceptualising the innovation is to look at it through the lens of the
Abernathy and Utterback (A&U) (1978) model.

Divert potential
food waste
Clerical soup
kitchens
1790 onwards Utilise resources more
Human right efficiently by pooling
resources and effort
Food Banks
For the deserving Food share*
2008 onwards
At least since
2010

Figure 11: A&U model applied to this process innovation

* Food share with the same caveat as the triangles, sharing food with neighbours likely goes back to the neolithic revolution

Both these conceptualisations serve the purpose of locating the innovation temporally, in
both cases the (immediate) future, and contextualising it with respect to its roots. An
important caveat with the A&U model is that it is easy to misread it. As pointed out
numerous times, food share does not really belong in the same category, it will not (as one
might read figure 11) replace the dominant design of food banks and their like since food
share is for people with too much food, the polar opposite of food bank beneficiaries.

It is included in both models because of the overlap in combatting food waste, in 2018 the
UK produced 9.5 million tonnes of food waste, 70% from households, 6.4 of which were
edible which equates to 15 billion meals (Dray, 2021). Suffice to say, solving this problem
would immediately make the UK a food exporter with zero need for food aid. But until that
point, such aid is an excellent way to reduce waste and provide much needed relief for
households. By applying the food share mentality of shared resources through informal local
networks, people who are not chronically dependent on food donations can effectively cut
costs from their monthly bills.

This makes the initiative an incremental, process-based platform innovation.

It is true that cooking, especially for multiple people, can be cheaper than buying ready
meals (Evans, 2012), but it is always time consuming and can be frustrating (Bowen & Elliot,
2014). The key to the initiative is to deliver qualified leads for cooking advocates to educate
people with their vast experience, like what meals can be made in large batches and frozen,
spreading grocery costs over multiple days, saving through bulk buys, and reducing the time
spent cooking per meal. Such tips are crucial in providing immediate cost benefits. To reduce
strain, local cooking groups can cook together or invite each other sequentially to take
advantage of savings while distributing effort.

12
If these benefits can be clearly communicated with emphasis on the economic benefits and
the various methods and strategies to reduce effort, then there is a good chance of success.
Health and community benefits are important as well, but in severe stress these are likely
“nice to haves” rather than “must haves”. The details of how this will be achieved are laid
out in the SMART targets in the plan section

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The UK Intellectual Property Office (2022) returned no entries on the name “Soup-er Hero”,
refer to appendix 1. The name will be registered to be safe.

13
 COMMERCIAL ATTRACTION

THE NEED FOR AID NUMERISED

In the summary of the challenge, it was established that after housing costs, around 23% of Welsh
people are in relative low income, 60% under median household income. Applying this proportion to
Swansea, with a population of 238,500 according to the latest census data (ONS, 2022), a total
addressable market (TAM) of 54,855 people at imminent risk from the crisis can be calculated. It is
important to note that the dark figure is perhaps higher, when trying to identify the total amount of
vulnerable citizens, as asked by the Council in the brief. This figure does not account for (lack of)
savings or for people one significant unexpected expense away from being immediately threatened.

Additional data is available to estimate immediately threatened people. Swansea Council (2022b)
reports that 77.2% of its working age residents are economically active, totalling 117,200. Extrapolating
that to 100% equals (117,200/0,772=) 151,814 working age residents. Francis-Devine (2022) shows that
of the working age population in the UK, around 21% could not make savings of 10 pounds or more per
month in 2020/21, before current inflationary pressures (figure 12). This means there were 31,881
people in Swansea who may now be at severe risk. In the same report, she reports that 28% of parents
have the same problem, no good data for Swansea could be found to calculate figures, likely many
duplicates exist between working age adults and parents so the difference may not be significant.
Francis-Devine caveats her report by stating that poverty is likely overreported for 2020/21, since
relative low-income levels remained constant over the past 10 years in Wales this is likely a small
adjustment.

Figure 12: Affordability issues during Covid

14
 Demand for help of all kinds is likely to increase dramatically over the coming months, so a cheap,
scalable, and fast solution is important. Although the proposed solution is only a band aid, it may
reduce the number of people forced to seek more extensive help at very low cost and quickly. This is
very much a market pull dynamic (Brem & Voigt, 2009), where government, businesses, and charities
must coordinate to ensure effective help is available.

GEOGRAPHIC DATA TO TARGET AID

To help achieve this in Swansea and specially to identify locations where community cooking
initiatives could help alleviate pressure the deprivation map from the ONS (2022b) census 2021 will
be analysed.

The map (alpha version) differentiates between four dimensions of deprivation, education,
employment, health, or housing at the street level. Noting that there is no income dimension, more
deprived areas can still be expected to have a higher need for food aid.

The map is limited in functionality as the viewing options are limited to only no deprivation, one
dimensions, two dimensions, three dimensions, or four dimensions. It is not possible to overlay all
the dimensions to best identify hotspots, therefore the map will be viewed with no deprivations, as
this provides this exact result with the drawback that the scale must be read backwards. Percentage
values in headings and discussion will have been adjusted to reflect actual values.

Key figures:

• 54.5% of households in Swansea are deprived in one or more dimensions

• 33.3% are deprived in one dimension
• 16.2% are deprived in two dimensions
• 4.9% are deprived in three dimensions
• 0.2% are deprived in four dimensions

Key locations:

• Townhill – deprivation in one or more dimensions in 70% of households (range 50-80%)

Figure 13: Households in Townhill

15
 • Ravenhill – deprivation in one or more dimensions in 66% of households (range 52-
78%)

Figure 14: Households in Townhill

• Swansea overall

Figure 15: Households in Swansea overview

16
Townhill and Ravenhill are the most striking clusters and should be of special concern when
raising awareness and preparing for rising demand for aid. Light green concentrations in
Swansea central are usually clustered around high-density student accommodation or
nonsensically around areas like The Quadrant, the Swansea Central Bus Terminal and areas
with high concentrations of shops and restaurants. This is interpreted as faulty data.
Therefore, only two main areas are identified, since their patterns suggest faulty data is
unlikely.

These areas both lack a food bank directly in the community, accordingly people from these
localities can be expected to visit charitable food suppliers downtown, suggesting these
should be priority targets to partner with to deliver aid quickly and effectively.

17
 THE APPROACH

Currently, while people may be

sharing meals, there is no
community cooking in Swansea with
the educational and targeted
approach proposed. This places the
innovation at the very beginning of
the innovation diffusion curve
(Rogers, 1962, from Lecture 1),
though for this case the categories
may be characterised more by
increasing financial distress over
time rather than any innovative
spirit among beneficiaries.
Figure 16: S-Curve and Bell distribution of uptake

PARTNERSHIPS
The Swansea Council (2022) has a public list of 24 Swansea-based food banks and food
shares for people in need to access. Numerous community interest groups for cooking or
other community-led efforts to educate people on savings and health benefits related to
cooking exist as well, many of these list the Council as supporter on their websites. These
services provide supplies on the one hand and teach people about food and its preparation
on the other hand. Collectively, they have access to both vulnerable citizens and enthusiastic
or aspiring cooks and have had contact with the Swansea Council. Figure 17 illustrates the
food aid cluster the solution sits in.
Primarily commercial
Restaurants
Industrial food
Food retailers Related clusters
Supermarkets producers

UK Government
Vouchers agencies Consumers
and referrals

Food bank
Charitable food
Soup kitchen
suppliers At risk Other Swansea Council
Food share
consumers segments
3.
Cooking advocates Irrelevant interactions

Concurrent interactions
2.
Dedicated aid Community
Project flow
cooking
1. Behaviour

Figure 17: Cluster Map 18

Table 1: Project flow – key activities and outcomes

1. Project initiation – orchestration, promotion, financing

2. Project execution – education, knowledge to enact cost efficiencies
3. Project outcome – behaviour change achieved, deeper ties and resource/effort pooling

Partnerships do all the heavy lifting in this initiative, which is why costs need to be covered
and a strong rationale developed. Figures 18 and 19 represent the planned approach.

•Shared mission (alleviate food poverty)

•Strategic alignment – Provide more opportunities for vulnerable people
•Tactical rationale – no-risk, no-cost opportunity to reduce dependency on food donations,
Motives leaving more food for more severe cases

•Charitable food suppliers have unique access to the people who need immediate help
•The Council has the resources to help better serve those people with initiatives such as this
Organisation •This project seeks to also establish great shared community value

•Build on existing relationship through good-faith advancement of mutually shared mission

•Strategic alliance would be the formal title, whereby the Council gains market access to deploy
Alliance resources towards helping the cost of living crisis sustainably
Design •Objectives and rewards are formulated in lives that are bettered, since there is no financial gain

•Absorb market insights that these workers have

•Involve them in engagement, awareness, and course design
Learning •Provide an opportunity to shape government policy and give insights into decision making to
Cycle improve transparency

Figure 18: Charitable food suppliers

19
 •Moral alignment – Eating well should be the norm rather than the exception
•Strategic alignment – Improve access to healthier food, grow cooking community
Motives •Tactical rationale – no-risk, no-cost but decent effort, potentially grow rapidly

•Cooking groups have the essential skills to realise potential cost and effort savings in the
initiative
•Experienced educators, tacit knowledge, actionable tips, access to enthusiastic cooks
Organisation •The Council brings awareness that will significantly raise these groups profile in the public

•Build on existing relationship by providing fair value for the effort that is put in
•Absorb knowledge and skills from courses to expand the offering
Alliance •Trade the time capabilities of cooking advocates for exposure and growth opportunities
Design

•Deeply involve them in course design, they have invaluable knowledge

•Try to leverage their network to get hashtags going and measure the impact
Learning •Provide an opportunity to shape government policy and give insights into decision making to
Cycle improve transparency

Figure 19: Cooking advocates

SMART OBJECTIVES
Below are the objectives for the project, formulated in the SMART method (Bjerke & Renger,
2017). Divided into ambitions and the action plan.

Objective Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Timebound

Project ambitions
A) Gain high 90% of persons Not exactly to Market need, Within
awareness with associated with 90%, but these engagement and promotion
key stakeholders partners are small groups media should period of 8
Have a hashtag Hashtag is easily cover this weeks
used 5000 times traceable
across social
media
B) Run An iteration is a Have educated Considering March 1st
numerous completed and connected previous deadline
iterations by workshop, 300+ people analysis,
March 1st measured by conservative Yes
number of goal
participants

C) Continually Employ Track records of Trivial March 1st review

monitor structured feedback and date
feedback and feedback changes
continue mechanisms,
development conduct
comprehensive
review

20
 SMART Action plan
1. Verify what Data from the Proportion and ASAP – very first
portion of last two years absolute task once
people use food with specific number of serious
banks as focus on any beneficiaries consideration is
primary source current trend who fulfil the given to the
Contacts exist
of food changes criteria project
already, simple Yes, roughly 1
matter of calling hour of work
2. Contact Provide this very Action Immediately
and emailing
charitable food document, ask happened: upon
providers and for input and yes/no completion of
cooking whether interest Measure previous
advocates exists proportion of objective
respondents
Stage gate 1
3. Develop Invite Workshop took Provide clear Doable, requires Immediate
materials and stakeholders to place: yes/no case for why this careful and response upon
course concept workshop to Sufficient will help prepared reception of
create materials, attendance: at beneficiaries engagement individual
get input on least two each and how other initiated with responses
benefits of of food stakeholders this document
cooking and providers and profit (fulfilling
how to engage cooking mission,
beneficiaries advocates growing course
attendance)
4. Find Flyers are Flyers Leverage Doable, worst-
volunteers and handed out and sufficiently network of case means
advocates to somebody is available: partners, get Council staff is
engage people present to talk yes/no people working employed
at food banks to beneficiaries Gauge response at charities to This would be a
from become strong sign of
beneficiaries advocates service/market
mismatch
5. Raise public Use public Various specific Channels exist Depends on the
awareness channels and performance and contacts are specific targets
social media, marketing KPIs, well established. assigned to each
Start
media contacts, measure Leverage in- channel
immediately
start hashtag, engagement, try house media - High
after completion
get prominent to start a trend competencies awareness
of objective 3.
council – beginning with among
Promotion
members to food advocates beneficiaries key
period: 8 weeks
engage in the and their - Same for
scheme personal cooking
networks enthusiasts
6. Prepare Relying on the Actionable cost Partners have Partners have
workshop experience of saving strategies facilities and extensive
cooking Allocate time to utensils; Council experience in
advocates, connect people can cover costs engaging and
design Practical cooking for partners as teaching people,
appropriate tips incentive delegate and
course List of easy, have faith
Stage gate 2
cheap, recipes

21
 7. Execute pilot 10 people or Collect feedback Given capacity Given the As soon as one
workshop(s) less per partner, Evaluate and of at least one economic capacity is filled
contingent on reassess partner is filled, situation and
capacities Ask for yes market analysis,
Deliver agreed permission to this is a very
programme contact 2 weeks conservative
later to evaluate goal
Stage gate 3
8. Iterate Create clear Monitor Creation of Contingent on Indefinite
feedback loops response quotas online survey, uptake of the
to continually for feedback low cost and initiative, but This stage
adapt. after each easy to do based on should be
Monitor workshop for analysis above reached within
economic each partner to and quality of 9-11 weeks at
situation identify best execution is a the latest.
practices likely outcome

LIMITATIONS AND RISK

The great limitation is that this initiative provides nothing tangible, that makes it cheap, fast
to roll out but potentially limits its effectiveness. This is not the solution to cost of living but
a rapid response to help at least some of the TAM while UK governments roll out large scale
solutions.

Failure to communicate benefits

convincingly.
Make a solid economic case for
Low uptake
the initiative

Indicates misidentification of
value proposition
Ensure partnerships are Food banks not Cooks not
mutually beneficial or sleightly interested interested
tipped in their favour

Indicates there are unforeseen After workshops

hurdles
Food banks fail benefits are not
Have a strong feedback system
with good response rates to to recruit realised for
adapt quickly and accurately people
Figure 20: Major risk from top (fairly simple) to bottom (fairly difficult to mitigate in advance)

22
 OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

To make this happen with the pilot workshop delivered in five weeks, the
following resources are required

One assistant part- An agreement in

Go ahead on action
time and access to principal to cover
plan
media competencies partner costs

Crucial to the
Crucial feasibility Over the entire 5
partnership
question week period
proposition

Help in coordination Initially only for the

with partners, promotion and pilot
Basis for resource
setting up meetings, stage, with
allocation
intellectual sparring evaluation on
partner March 1st

23
REFERENCE LIST

Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology review,
80(7), 40-47.

Bjerke, M. B., & Renger, R. (2017). Being smart about writing SMART objectives. Evaluation and
program planning, 61, 125-127. URL

Bowen, S., Elliott, S., & Brenton, J. (2014). The joy of cooking?. Contexts, 13(3), 20-25. URL

Brem, A., & Voigt, K. I. (2009). Integration of market pull and technology push in the corporate front
end and innovation management—Insights from the German software industry. Technovation,
29(5), 351-367. URL

Carstairs, P. J. (2022). A generous helping? The archaeology of soup kitchens and their role in post-
medieval philanthropy 1790-1914. University of Leicester. URL

Dray, S. (2021). Food waste in the UK. UK Parliament URL

DWP. (2020). Trends by Country and Region. URL

Evans, T. (2012). The great debate: Is it cheaper to cook from scratch or buy a ready meal? This is
Money. URL

Francis-Devine, B., Bolton, P., Keep, M., Harari, D. (2022). Rising cost of living in the UK. House of
Commons Library. URL

Francis-Devine, B. (2022). Poverty in the UK: statistics. House of Commons Library. URL

HRW. (2019). Nothing Left in the Cupboards. Austerity, Welfare Cuts, and the Right to Food in the
UK. URL

Lecture 1. (2022). Showing Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation S-Curve. MN-3016

OBR. (2022). The outlook for household income and consumption. URL

ONS. (2022). How the population changed in Swansea: Census 2021. URL

ONS. (2022b). Census Maps. URL

Pwc. (2022). How the cost of living crisis is changing people’s behaviours and their spending. URL
24
Swansea Council. (2022). Food banks + support. URL

Swansea Council (2022b). Key facts about Swansea. URL

UK Intellectual Property Office. (2022) Keyword search. URL

25
Appendix 1. UK Intellectual Property Office Trademark search from the 13th of December 2022.

26