Balancing Multiple Stakeholder Needs

However, the food bank did not simply obtain unlimited and steady supplies of free food without developing strategies to deal with multiple, potentially conflicting, stakeholder needs

The main issue for all food banks (Foodbank, SecondBite, FareShare and OzHarvest) now was ‘getting more food’ or ‘getting enough food’; a constant theme in food banking communications was that more food was needed because more hunger was evident in local communities. Despite the need for but lack of specific research evident about current and likely future demand specifically for food banking products and services, food bank reports reveal that the general message about increased demand persisted:

Almost 90% of food relief agencies have experienced an increase in the need for food related services in the last twelve months (SecondBite 2009, p. 2).

Throughout Australia demand for food relief is rising (Foodbank Hunger Report 2014, p. 11). THE PROBLEM appears to be GROWING: of SecondBite’s community food program partners 80% experienced an increase in demand in the previous 12 months (SecondBite 2014, p. 4).

Meanwhile, SecondBite data indicated a shortfall between what should in theory be available for donation and what was actually donated (both within the same Coles Supermarket store over time, and large variations between different stores). In November 2013, internal memos show that a meeting was called by senior SecondBite management to discuss the ‘dwindling volume of food donations from Coles’ (Respondent A 2014, pers. comm., 9 August). SecondBite staff had visited individual Coles Supermarkets stores to remedy the situation. However, it was found that not all store level managers were enthusiastically compliant with national policy. A SecondBite manager commented that:

you got the impression that they were not quite as enthusiastic at the local store level as the senior people were nationally (Respondent A 2014, pers. comm., 13 August).

Additionally, it was found that an ‘old habit’ of supporting farmers by donating edible food (for example, as pig food), had persisted. A larger problem, however, was losing a supply of food altogether. Early on there was no guarantee of loyalty on either side of a food bank/food business relationship. A letter from Woolworths to SecondBite (undated, circa 2011) included the following extract:

The whole company is extremely proud of the recognition that Foodbank has given us of being Australia’s largest donator of food to charitable organisations…If you haven’t already we would encourage you to look at increasing the number and diversity of outlets you receive food from, thereby insulating the people you serve from the inevitable rise and fall in donations which might come from any one donor.

A subsequent reluctance by SecondBite to ‘upset’ major donors such as Coles Supermarkets and Woolworths could have resulted from this experience, and perhaps underpinned why SecondBite ‘asked no questions’; a senior SecondBite manager commented that:

if a donor calls, say “yes” and sort it out later on (Respondent B 2014, pers. comm., 2 December).

Unfortunately, however, this acceptance sometimes caused issues of food quality to flow downstream or to result in wastage at the food bank rather than at the food business. The quality of food bank products was almost totally dependent upon the quality of the inputs it received free of charge from the donor food organisations. In a DPAC (2014) report it was noted that:

Generally recipient organisations are very happy with the service that SecondBite provides, however, as SecondBite relies upon donated food, it is sometimes unable to provide the level of quality or variety of food that [downstream welfare] organisations would like… (DPAC 2014, p. 23).

The data revealed that the manner in which SecondBite serviced the for-profit food and grocery supply chains while attending to the issues that arose (such as food shortages, food quality and wastage) was at one level simply public relations management (i.e. keeping donors ‘on-side’ come what may) and, at another level, was a more complex form of multiple stakeholder management. In the SecondBite 2014 Annual Report it was stated that:

we need to innovate and collaborate; we need to leverage the skills and resources of business, government andcommunity sectors. At SecondBite, we are excited by the many opportunities that exist for working together to create value... (SecondBite 2014, p. 20).

By 2014, food donors rarely attempted to deliberately use food banks as a waste disposal option but on occasions would attempt to donate food of lesser quality, a problem dealt with

differently by other food banks. An OzHarvest manager reported (during an interview in Sydney on 25 March 2015) that:

Yes, but all of our drivers are paid and they know what to do…. We think this is very important. …they know the food donors and they know the recipient’s needs…they can match them. The bigger problem for us is more that we send a driver based on estimates given over the phone…there are times when there’s not enough room in the van (Respondent D 2015, pers. comm.).

Similarly, a FareShare operations manager stated that they had learned to put in place measures to protect themselves from inappropriate donations:

we became better at asking more about the donation before actually accepting it... It’s more a case of having the capacity to deal with what we are offered. There was [recently] an offer of meat carcasses rejected - we simply don’t have the butchery skills for… (Respondent Q 2014, pers. comm., 28 January).

However, despite the best efforts of food bank managers, and in contrast to the more superficial accounts of food banking in annual reports and in the media: (1) some social welfare charities ‘resisted’ or complained about food banking products and services, and (as mentioned earlier) (2) some redistributed foodstuffs remained underutilised or were all together wasted.

The ‘Healthy Hampers’ project was an example of a response to the concerns of stakeholders. SecondBite balanced its commitment to the for-profit food and grocery chain’s major donors with its ‘food system agenda’. Inspiration had been drawn from overseas experience where the Ontario Government had decided to ‘provide a tax credit for farmers who donate agricultural product to local food banks’ (Ontario Association of Food Banks, 2016, p. 1):

As an amendment to Bill 36, The Local Food Act, in 2014, farmers in Ontario will receive a non-refundable 25 per cent tax credit based on the fair market value of product that they donate to local food banks and community meal programs (Ontario Association of Food Banks 2016, p. 1).

Such strategic priorities not only supported existing donors but were aimed at recruiting potential new upstream donors and underpinned the integration of the food bank into local food and grocery supply chains. As a part of these local food supply chains the food bank was able

to increase its collaborative efforts in order to deliver different types of downstream shared value.