Solidarity emporiums, growing Italian realities increasingly oriented towards the community hub model

Adherence to the established requirements is binding: in order to obtain the points card needed for purchases, potential beneficiaries are chosen on the basis of their income (of the individual or the family), with thresholds that vary according to the situation; the lack of other economic support; and recognition through interviews with the Caritas Listening Centres. The (sometimes excessive) rigidity of the parameters, however, also entails the risk of reducing the effectiveness of the interventions and precluding support to those who really need it: it happens, in fact, that single individuals or elderly couples ask for help because they have lost their jobs but, living in a house of their own, do not fall into the eligible categories.

The same applies to the period of stay of the beneficiaries in the emporium: access, in fact, has a limited duration that goes from six to 18 months, with the possibility of requesting an extension after a few months. Timeframes that sometimes clash with the impossibility for some to get out of difficult conditions.

According to Euricse's monitoring (which stops in May 2025), in 2025 there were 309 solidarity emporiums active in Italy (equal to 38 per cent of the enterprising communities mapped). A number that intercepts a significant increase compared to 2021, when there were 193 active structures, closely linked to the increase of fragile people and families. To date, after a series of considerable peaks in certain periods, the phenomenon has stabilised on average, perhaps by virtue of the fact that emporiums now boast a capillary and well-established presence on the peninsula. This, however, does not exclude new births.

In terms of geographical distribution, however, the emporiums are generally present throughout Italy. However, going into more detail, it can be seen that they are mostly concentratedin Northern Italy (about 48 per cent, almost half of the realities mapped). This is followed by Central Italia (29 per cent) and the South (23 per cent, where classic assistance models such as food parcel deliveries and distribution of meals in soup kitchens still prevail).

At the regional level, the most consistent presence is found in Lombardy, Piedmont, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna, which alone account for over 48 per cent of the emporiums in the country. This is not all: in all four, in fact, real networks of emporiums have developed, whether formal or informal, in which individual structures work in tandem in the fight against poverty and waste with a view to cooperation and social inclusion.

With regard, on the other hand, to the legal form of the organisations that run the emporiums, the analysis revealed the centrality of the territorial networks and the enormous wealth of operational and management models. All aimed at overcoming welfarism in favour of the centrality of the person, further highlighting the shift from simple distribution corners to complex multi-service hubs and network actors. In the overall picture, in first place are Caritas and church bodies (39 per cent), followed by associations (31 per cent) and voluntary organisations (12 per cent). But there are also social cooperatives (6 per cent), public bodies (5 per cent), foundations (2 per cent) and consortia (1 per cent). In general, most identify themselves as third sector or ecclesiastical entities, aiming to build community welfare and also aligning themselves with the heritage of values of these contexts: the culture of giving, solidarity, the dignity of the person.

Turning instead to the 28 solidarity emporiums interviewed, the situation changes little: the most widespread legal form is that of voluntary organisations (57 per cent), followed by social promotion associations, Caritas and ecclesiastical organisations with 18 per cent. The preferential choice of these models also denotes the priority given to the use of unpaid human resources. Which also represents a weakness of the emporiums: depending on totally voluntary profiles, in fact, many struggle to guarantee continuity and the professionalisation of ancillary services.

On the other hand, as far as ecclesiastical intervention is concerned, direct or indirect management is strategic: for some elements, e.g. the subject of real estate, it provides them directly on loan or acts as patrimonial guarantor. And the advantages are obvious. Not only that: the integration of the emporiums in the dioceses' welfare system also makes a difference in the choice of beneficiaries and in the launching of assistance programmes.

In general, the prevalence of the two models (Caritas and Voluntary Service Centres) reflects a virtuous synergy between two different social cultures which, however, find a meeting point in the focus on the person: on the one hand the centrality of charity, through human relations and listening beyond material needs, and on the other a vision that relies on active citizenship and empowerment. A perimeter in which there is also room for citizenship involvement through instruments ranging from the institutional to the informal level. And, frequently, also of the beneficiaries of the services themselves, who give back the welcome received, for example with volunteer hours and support in loading and unloading goods. The real challenge for the future remains to transform this from an episodic initiative to structural involvement.

Besides the strengthening of collaborative networks in order not to operate in isolation and the evolution towards multidimensional models, the most critical challenge for the galaxy of solidarity emporiums remains that of economic sustainability. To continue to operate, in fact, emporiums need to become multi-service poles in order to address the issue of poverty from multiple perspectives, integrating food assistance with responses to poor work, social isolation and relational poverty. Diversifying the offer makes it possible to intercept ad hoc funding (such as for training or psychological assistance) that would not be available for food distribution alone.

With regard to financing, the ecosystem is quite hybrid (and tends to be precarious). They mainly come from three directions: institutional and public support represents the most solid source of resources and manifests itself both in the form of monetary financing and the concession of premises on free loan; followed by associative funds, diocesan funds and temporary tenders, which often represent a starting capital for projects that will then have to learn to stand on their own two feet; finally, relational and private capital which covers the costs that official channels cannot cover.

Lastly, in terms of supplies, sustainability is closely linked to the ability to manage the logistics of fresh and surpluses. While the Agea-Fead channels (respectively the Agency for Agricultural Disbursements and the Fund for European Aid to the Destitute) guarantee basic foodstuffs, the real test field lies in the ability to recover from large-scale organised distribution. Which, on the part of individual stores, requires specific investments (e.g. in vacuum-packing machines or bags).

In solidarity emporiums, volunteers are clearly an essential piece of the puzzle. The profile of the volunteer has changed over the years due to the need to find a balance between tradition and new resources. Although the historical pool (which is in the age range of 50-60 years) is still operational, the obstacle of turnover weighs heavily. And for this reason, the challenge is the search for flexibility: the emporium model has proved to have a certain appeal to the new generations, because it allows "a less constrained commitment and more linked to individual projects". Experiences, therefore, of extemporaneous volunteering of variable duration.

In addition to ethical motivations and civic commitment, volunteers are also driven by the fight against food waste, caring for the environment and volunteering as a means of empowerment. And the profiles working in the field are increasingly varied: from professionals working pro bono (e.g. doctors) to young people involved, for example, through Pcto courses (formerly school-to-work alternance), to beneficiaries, i.e. former users who become active volunteers.

Belonging to a network, be it formal or informal, is an important tool to avoid being overwhelmed by the discontinuity of funding, the complexity of the needs to be addressed and the risk of chronic care. And it profoundly affects both the operational effectiveness of the emporiums and their resilience over time.

In the networks, individual structures exchange skills, organisational models, tools and concrete solutions (from food supply strategies to protocols for volunteer management) and work on the ability to adapt to contexts in order to renew their own modus operandi over time. Not only that: contact with other realities also favours valuable relational investments, which then make it possible to tap into otherwise inaccessible information and opportunities. With an automatic improvement in the quality of services, a consolidation of social legitimacy and greater openness to dialogue with institutions.