4.6 Article

Dignity in Food Aid Logistics Is Also a Knowledge Management and Digital Matter: Three Inspiring Initiatives in France

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14031130

关键词

dignity; food aid; food insecurity; logistics; supply chain management; knowledge management; digital systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Throughout the world, including in developed countries, the COVID-19 crisis has revealed and intensified food insecurity. Despite relying on food aid, even the working poor in developed countries remain food insecure.
Throughout the world, including in developed countries, the COVID-19 crisis has revealed and accentuated food insecurity. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations clearly defines food security as a situation of not only availability and accessibility but also social acceptability (i.e., adequacy and sustainability). In developed countries, food security remains non-achieved at all. Notably, the so-called little deprivation leads the working poor to rely on food aid. We argue that even doing so, they remain food insecure: food aid is socially unacceptable because, despite their work, they are kept away from classical food access paths. In this article, we present the specificities of food aid in France and state some of its limits, namely those associated with the supply chain of donated foodstuffs. We propose a monographic study relying on a mix of firsthand material (six years of fieldwork from students with associations) and secondhand material (analysis of specialized, legal, and activity reports). We describe inspiring initiatives from three French associations and mobilize the recently published analysis of dignity construction in food aid in the United States of America to argue that dignity in food aid logistics is also a knowledge management and digital matter. Indeed, the initiatives of the three considered associations show concretely how knowledge management and digital systems can enhance dignity in food aid logistics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据