No one stands alone: partnerships for community resilience

Organisations included in social partnerships jointly address the gaps in their society and community. Community-based social partnerships are based on the principles of self-organisation, yet logistically, this can bring many challenges. This study therefore focuses on the logistical aspects of a community-based social partnership in Greece and the contribution of this partnership to community resilience. The role of community-based logistical activities in building community resilience has been studied. An in-depth qualitative study of a particular community-based social partnership was conducted, with interviews across all partner organisations and secondary data from publicly available documents. Logistical activities are performed mainly by the membership base of various non-governmental organisations in a manner of self-organised “collective action”. Interestingly, community resilience refers to a capacity for collective action; hence, organising logistical activities in this fashion ultimately contributes to community resilience.


Introduction
The self-reliance of communities has frequently been emphasised from various directions: Disaster management (DM) stresses how communities are "on their own" for the first hours and days after a disaster has occurred, before international aid can at all arrive. Even more, self-reliant communities can be actively involved in operational planning, policy and practice of all DM phases (Gaillard 2010). At the same time, humanitarian and development aid has moved towards localisation and local capacity building, while facilitating trade and growth. Local communities increasingly participate to different degrees in all phases of a disaster cycle including preparedness, response and recovery/reconstruction (Pardasani 2006;Gaillard 2010;Rogers et al. 2016;Matopoulos et al. 2014). Community engagement in DM also relates to community resilience (UNDRR 2017).
Community resilience has been identified as the potential for individuals to collaborate with key organisations by acting on the local level. Ideally, power and responsibility for action should pass to citizens, yet there is no single model of sustainable collaboration and community engagement in building community resilience (Rogers et al. 2016). A high degree of community participation leads to community empowerment and a high degree of citizen control (Arnstein 1969). Community participation and community partnerships can be considered as community capabilities towards building effective disaster prevention and disaster resilient communities (Chou and Wu 2014).
In the context of disaster risk reduction (DRR), there is a wide discussion on the impact of different degrees of community participation and the "power" relationships between a community and the government (Burnside-Lawry and Carvalho 2015). Yet, community engagement contributes to community empowerment; therefore, the interactions involved in the activities between stakeholders to build disaster resilience should encourage a participatory approach. Such approaches contribute to social learning, explore shared interests, joint problem solving, relationship building and can be reflected in modified policies (Burnside-Lawry and Carvalho 2015).
Community resilience has become the holy grail of both DM and development aid, and how better to create resilient communities than developing the idea of self-reliance (Shuman 2013)? Resilience is a concept that allows researchers to bridge between adaptation and resistance (Alexander 2013). Community resilience is influenced by the social and economic networks, whereas it depends on the quality of the relationships developed between public and private sectors (Stewart et al. 2009). Moreover, it can lead to positive adaptation by using stakeholders' resources (Norris et al. 2008). Among the community resources, social capital and social competence are social adaptive capacities (capabilities) that can lead to community empowerment through collective action and decision-making. Capabilities also refer to the resources and assets that local communities own, including local knowledge, skills, technologies and solidarity networks (Gaillard and Mercer 2013).
Importantly, effective disaster response requires the involvement of local people with logistical expertise to coordinate needs assessment and information sharing among stakeholders (Perry 2007). Yet, it is less clear how logistics, itself a dynamic capability (Kovács et al. 2012), contributes to community resilience. Logistics is a dynamic capability of all relevant stakeholders (Kovács et al. 2012). Therefore, it has the potential to contribute to positive adaptation in a dynamic environment and community resilience building. According to Jahre et al. (2016), neither extant academic literature nor humanitarian practice distinguishes between the logistical and other efforts of a community. However, local communities do also contribute themselves to logistics (Perry 2007;Sheppard et al. 2013). Therefore, this paper focuses on the logistical activities of a local community during a crisis and examines its role in building community resilience.
In order to do so, a study has been conducted on the endeavours of a particular community-based social partnership (CBSP) in Greece in the midst of a financial crisis, a consequence of the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis. While financial crises are less typical in DM as well as humanitarian logistics (HL) research, at its height, the Greek financial crisis had escalated into a humanitarian crisis, with almost 2 million people depending on local aid distribution in 2012. Interestingly, however, much of this aid was self-organised by the Greek community. The community endeavour in this study has been investigated earlier in Drakaki and Tzionas (2017), who also defined a CBSP as "a grassroot, self-organised, social network that involves combinations of public, private and civic sectors, with members engaging in voluntary, mutually beneficial, innovative relationships at national level, sensitising individuals to participate in actions, in order to jointly respond to a shared risk or crisis" (p. 206).
This paper is structured as follows: The next section revisits community-based approaches in relation to (humanitarian) logistics, resulting in the presentation of a conceptual framework. After this, the research methods are presented, before turning to discussion and findings of the study itself. The paper ends with conclusions and suggests avenues for further research.

Definitions of the concepts of humanitarian disasters and communities in the context of CBSPs
This study focuses on a resultant CBSP in Greece in the midst of the financial crisis. This crisis constitutes a disaster, according to a definition of a disaster by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), in that it constitutes a "A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental losses and impacts" (UNDRR 2017). Financial crises have been recently classified as a subgroup of societal hazards (UNDRR and the International Science Council (ISC) 2020). Societal hazards are a newly introduced group of hazards, and therefore, research in this area is needed to fully investigate and understand their scope and the associated risks (UNDRR and ISC 2020). The effect of a disaster may last for a long time and test or exceed the capacity of a community or society to cope using its own resources (UNDRR 2017). In the context of disasters, the concept of community is interpreted with different meanings (Norris et al. 2008;Cutter et al. 2008, UNICEF 2020. Communities may have geographic boundaries and shared destiny (Norris et al. 2008). A community may be e.g. a village hit by a landslide, or a whole nation affected by a crisis (Anderson and Gerber 2018). In the context of the Greek financial crisis, a large proportion of the Greek population became aid recipients. Communities can also be viewed as the totality of social system interactions within a specific geographic area such as a neighbourhood, a city or county (Cutter et al. 2008). According to United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) (2020), a community "can also include non-geographically centred social networks of interaction, interchange and interdependency". Such networks may have direct local inputs into the transfer of health, educational, social, informational, economic, cultural and political resources.
Moreover, community resilience can be analysed at different levels of analysis, and therefore, communities can be described by terms ranging from neighbourhoods to combinations of organisations (Norris et al. 2008).

CBSPs
Communities are at the core of DM and HL; yet more often than not, the way they are treated are as passive aid recipients. As Kunz and Reiner (2012) point out, "community" is one of the most commonly used terms in HL literature, yet interestingly, communities are referred to as the setting or recipient, i.e. a socio-cultural situational factor, rather than a resource. At the same time, DM models acknowledge that any community is at its own in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, and the first responders are the community itself (Gaillard and Mercer 2013). Also, people affected by a disaster typically turn to their family and social network first for help and social networks are equally important in raising interest and even volunteers in disaster relief (Stewart et al. 2014). Overall, while disasters are defined as events that exceed the capacity of a community, this is not to say that communities could not also self-organise and at least in part address the vulnerabilities and contribute to the alleviation of suffering. From the perspective of the social system, disasters are linked to latent social vulnerabilities (Quarantelli 2005;Perry 2007), whereas crises pose threats to core values and life sustaining functions (Rosenthal et al. 2001). Social vulnerabilities including uneven power distribution within the society are brought to surface when disasters strike. Therefore, DRR should focus on development, in order to address the root causes of social vulnerabilities, including power, access and choice (Wisner et al. 2004;Gaillard 2010). Accordingly, communities may take actions that will address social vulnerabilities and result in social transformation in order to build community and disaster resilience (Gaillard 2010;Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015). Generally, the discussion evolves around the link between local capacity building, resilience and the contribution of social capital to both of these (Bernier and Meinzen-Dick 2014).
In fact, both DM and HL studies posit that by building local capacity, aid recipient communities would gain in resilience and require less to no aid the next time they face a similar disaster. This consideration has led to an emphasis on local procurement (Matopoulos et al. 2014) and beneficiaries as decision-makers ). Yet HL research on local manufacturing, local business, local procurement and local logistical efforts overall is scant (Kunz and Reiner 2012;Jahre et al. 2016). Also when it comes to depicting the HL network, communities are overlooked. Rather, HL focuses on partnerships across non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and aid agencies such as clusters and communities of practice (Kovács and Spens 2010), and alliances, partnerships and other engagements between aid agencies or NGOs with other types of organisations such as the military (Heaslip et al. 2015), logistics service providers (Tomasini and van Wassenhove 2009) and implementing partners (IPs) (Kovács 2014).
Yet also HL research has advocated for community-based approaches, not only to build local capacity and increase community resilience, but also to increase the local acceptance of decisions made in an aid programme and return the decision-making power to beneficiaries themselves . Whilst humanitarian efforts are centred on the needs of beneficiaries, the degree to which beneficiaries and communities partake in decision-making varies greatly. At one end of the spectrum, aid can be completely organised in a top-down fashion by agencies and governments (such as the agency-centric efforts described in Holguín-Veras et al. 2012); on the other, communities can also completely self-organise aid on a grassroot basis. There are many options in between, from communities partaking in decisions in governmental-steered programmes, to collaborative aid networks (CANs) that are integrated with the local social networks (Holguín-Veras et al. 2012), to beneficiaries being included in decisionmaking committees or even as suppliers of materials and workforce in various programmes (Matopoulos et al. 2014). But while there is even a stream of literature that has been defined as "community-based operations research", that claims HL to be among its domains and that focuses on problems that are community-specific (Johnson and Smilowitz 2011), it still focuses on HL models that solve community-specific problems but not necessarily on models that are driven by the community itself.
Focusing on the community as the driver of a humanitarian response, Drakaki and Tzionas (2017) have drawn upon social partnership literature when defining a communitybased social partnership (CBSP), widening the scope of the traditional social partnership focus from labour market agreements to other societal endeavours. There is though more than just a common societal goal that defines a CBSP. According to Putnam (2000), social capital facilitates co-ordination and co-operation among community members on issues of shared concern. Social capital contributes to community resilience (Norris et al. 2008;Stewart et al. 2009;Bernier and Meinzen-Dick 2014;Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015;Cutter 2016). Yet while social capital is necessary, it is not sufficient for local development (Khrishna 2001). According to Krishna (2001), agency, as to say, some catalyst to urge individuals and organisations to act, is required to convert social capital to development benefits. Apart from a shared social network, a shared risk and/or crisis seems to be a catalyst for individuals' sensitisation, and mobilisation (participation) in the CBSPs (Comfort 1999; Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). When social capital is pre-existent and potentially strong, it facilitates the formation and self-organisation of CBSPs. For the presented CBSP, the shared risk is the loss of community's social cohesion, through poverty, caused and aggravated by the financial crisis.
CBSPs consist in essence of a network of organisations and individuals. These collaborative efforts involving public, private and non-profit sectors, emerge when complex problems arise, such as disasters, to cope with issues outside the scope of a single organisation (Kamensky and Burlin 2004). Self-organisation is another important characteristic of CBSPs. Resilient communities exhibit self-organisation characteristics (UNDRR 2017; Norris et al. 2008) by using social networks (Holguín-Veras et al. 2012;Comfort et al. 2010;Comfort 1999;Kapucu et al. 2010;Kapucu 2005). The CANs Holguín-Veras et al. (2012) described were integrated with pre-existing social networks, such as religious congregations that came with their own social network, logistical system and also physical space that could be used as HL and supply chain management (HLSCM) facilities such as collection and sorting points, warehouses, distribution points, etc. Comfort et al. (2010), using the concept of complex adaptive systems as a theoretical framework, further argued that resilient communities use a self-organised and mobilised collective response system to act coherently, in response to risk or danger. Furthermore, volunteers are more likely to engage with disaster relief to a community if they have linkages to them through their social networks (Stewart et al. 2014). Self-organisation brings further challenges with it, primarily in the area of logistics and assigning volunteers for various logistical activities (Falasca and Zobel 2012). Figure 1 summarises these characteristics and presents a conceptual framework of a CBSP.
To summarise these characteristics, CBSPs mobilise individuals and organisations from the public, civic and private sectors towards a common societal goal. Social capital is of importance in the formation of the network of individuals and organisations as in the mobilisation of volunteers. Through people, CBSPs also mobilise, i.e. collect and distribute, material resources. The common societal goal may be more short-term, such as the provision of aid to an affected population, but through the formation and the operation, 1 3 including logistics operation, of the CBSP it further contributes to social cohesion, and ultimately, to community resilience.

Research methodology
This paper investigates the logistical challenges and logistics contribution of CBSPs in community resilience by using a case example of a CBSP in Greece, named "All together, we can". Considering the complexity of a crisis environment, the case study investigated in this paper aims to contribute in enriching the existing knowledge on the research area. Furthermore, community resilience efforts in crisis environments characterised by both humanitarian and financial aspects are an under researched HLSCM area (Behl and Dutta 2018). Additionally, there is scant research in HL on local logistical efforts (Kunz and Reiner 2012;Jahre et al. 2016). Therefore, data collected while the crisis was still evolving were unique. Accordingly, this paper is based on unique data collected during the financial crisis. In HL, unique data have been used in different time periods than the one it was collected, e.g. to investigate the effect of aid programs using a "local" view of the humanitarian supply chain (Matopoulos et al. 2014).
Moreover, financial crises have been recently classified as hazards that belong to the newly added group of societal hazards (UNDRR and ISC, 2020). Accordingly, more research is needed in societal hazards, e.g. in the components of risk such as capacity (skills and resources), for risk informed decision-making, since there is no established scientific knowledge in this field (UNDRR and ISC 2020).
At its height, the Greek financial crisis had escalated into a humanitarian crisis, with almost 2 million people depending on local aid distribution in 2012. By 2013, the UN Human Development Index placed Greece as No.27, slipping down 9 places below its No.18 place back in 2008. While the slip has not been this drastic since, there is no recovery yet in sight, the 2019 index ranks Greece No.32. "All together, we can", was established in response to this crisis, to collect and distribute aid to those affected.
The CBSP in the focus of this study was initiated by the private company Radio & Telecommunications Enterprises S.A (SKAI) in 2010. It called on the community to contribute in their own way to the well-being of the community and resulted in a myriad of local organisations and people contributing to the community. While one can debate whether a media company-initiated effort is indeed a "community"-based one, it is the resultant partnership that is of essence to this study. A description of the first three years of the CBSP can be found in Drakaki and Tzionas (2017); this paper, however, turns to a more in-depth analysis of its logistical challenges.
The study itself was designed as follows: First, the members of the CBSP were mapped out to identify relevant respondents. Respondents were thus identified from private companies as well as NGOs. Interviews were conducted with participants representing different departments of each organisation, such as marketing and NGO directors, NGO representatives and private sector employees including logistics staff, in order to have a complete picture at the operational as well as technical levels. Two interview guides were used: A general one to all participants and a more specific one for warehouse employees.
Both formal and informal interviews were conducted with various members of the CBSP, either face to face or over the phone. Data collection was implemented between October 2013 and November 2014. The process included 11 semi-structured and informal interviews plus 5 feedback documents from 6 private companies and 2 NGOs. Most of the semi-structured interviews took between 60 and 90 min. In addition, secondary data were collected for data triangulation from the partnership's website, social accounting reports of the participants and media news reports (Johnson et al. 2013). Further written communication was exchanged to cross-verify collected information. For validity and credibility purposes, documents with results of the analysis of the interviews were sent to participants to comment and verify the results of the analysis. Moreover, as a verification check, one of the authors made direct observations of the CBSP's actions by field visits to some of the actions that took place in one city during the period that data was collected (Yin, 2003).
For the purposes of data analysis, interview topics were categorised at different themes/ levels. First, five overall themes were matched with the general supply chain structure and the involvement of the community as its member as depicted in Fig. 1. Accordingly, the first theme covered general information on the structure of the partnership to validate the published action outcomes in the partnership's website and to gather more information on the logistical activities. The second theme included questions on operations and processes, such as staff responsibilities, material flow (from determining the needs/demand to organising the funding and the distribution). The third theme included questions on social capital and focused on relationships, such as how the relationship was established, how partners met and developed trust with each other (trust mechanisms), how they controlled that the agreements were held (control mechanisms) and relationship-building properties. The fourth theme included questions on how the community was involved, such as a list of human, material/physical and organisational resources, with topics ranging from employment to the involvement of community members as decision-makers, suppliers of labour and materials. The fifth theme included more questions on social capital, such as shared interests among partners, what constitutes the "returns" in the relationship, trust and solidarity.
Next, as the focus in this study is on the contribution of logistical activities in community resilience, the analysis used the resource division of local resources as in Matopoulos et al. (2014) for a subsequent template analysis. Template analysis (also called thematic analysis) categorises data across predefined topics while also allowing for topics to emerge from the data. It is most often applied to interview data but can also combine other textual or even observational data while following the same structure (King 2012). In this study, the local resource categorisation in Matopoulos et al. (2014) provided the a priori coding structure. Focusing on logistics and supply chain management, only those activities that included the collection and distribution of items (food, medicine, clothing, school supplies) were included in the analysis.
The author that was not involved in data collection contributed in this part in order to ensure reliability and transparency. Objectivity was optimised by following the resource division of local resources as in Matopoulos et al. (2014). All authors carefully read the data and independently identified the impacts of the local resources of the CBSP on aid effectiveness and community resilience, based on the resource division of local resources introduced by Matopoulos et al. (2014). They shared and compared their results in order to ensure credibility. The results include impacts identified by Matopoulos et al. (2014) as well as additional impacts from the literature. They have been analysed and discussed based on the information included in the relevant sections of the data, as well as based on extant literature. The identified impacts and indicative vocabulary from the data (mainly interviews) are shown in Table 1. The vocabulary in the second column of the table also shows how the initial, a priori coding structure was implemented and refined through the process of the template analysis.
A further step of the analysis also made use of a template when analysing the CBSP in terms of community resilience. Here, the same community impact categories from Table 1 were analysed through Norris et al. (2008) framework of community resilience. Findings from each of various steps of this analysis are presented next.

Findings
The aftermath of this financial crisis in Greece has led to a vast proportion of a population becoming aid recipients. The government rolled back the social welfare system due to the austerity measures. However, social solidarity and civic engagement increased considerably in response to the crisis (Sotiropoulos and Bourikos 2014;Kantzara 2014;Simiti 2015). Accordingly, during the crisis many agencies provided social support and welfare services to people in need including local authorities, the Church of Greece, NGOs, companies, mass media companies, informal social networks as well as citizens. Informal social networks including among others, cooperatives, social pharmacies, social groceries and social medical centres, differentiate from formal organisations such as NGOs by not registering in courts (Sotiropoulos and Bourikos 2014). Both public participation and informal volunteerism increased as the crisis evolved. Several municipalities set up a department of solidarity which often cooperated with other agencies to provide welfare services. Simiti (2015) pointed out that a novel element of both formal and informal initiatives that had emerged in response to the crisis was that they often transcended the binary divisions between formality and informality. Kantzara (2014) argued that solidarity in Greece during the crisis sustained social ties, whereas simultaneously it helped so that social relations changed from bottom-up. Sotiropoulos (2014) claimed that the welfare services, provided by civil society in response to the crisis, contributed to the stabilisation of the government and therefore made democracy work (Putnam 1993). In this context, some NGOs became critical of the impact of their welfare services, wondering whether they were letting the government of the hook (Simiti 2015). Self-organisation was shown by both NGOs and informal social networks (Sotiropoulos and Bourikos 2014). NGOs reorganised to cover rising social needs, expanding their services in the area of social welfare and integrating volunteers in their labour force (Sotiropoulos and Bourikos 2014;Simiti 2015). Moreover, Table 1 Community impact of local physical, human and organisational resources of the CBSP on aid effectiveness and community resilience. Indicative vocabulary from the data is also shown Community impact Vocabulary (indicative)

The structure of the CBSP
In an effort to cope with the effects of the crisis, SKAI, itself a broadcaster, launched a national media campaign in 2009, addressing the audience through its media outlets (radio, TV, web stations and print) in available trailer time to contribute as they can, so that services and goods could be delivered to people who really need it. Public response was growing and therefore, in 2010, the initiative became a partnership called "All together, we can". A dedicated website was created, and voluntary actions were offered in various sectors. As stated in May 2010, "the financial crisis has penetrated through all levels of the society. It becomes obvious daily that it is a matter that concerns all of us, and that we, all together, should react to it…We will go through this difficult period all together…" ("All together, we can" 2013).
In other words, SKAI initiated a campaign to collect items from the public and to distribute them to people in need. While SKAI was involved in co-ordinating the resulting efforts, it was not alone in doing so: "The media campaign increased public awareness of the action and helped in raising public awareness of the company's activities. It has sensitised many more citizens and private companies to join the actions and offer goods. Individual. .. contribution is large and touching." (Deputy director of corporate communications) Apart from donors, which apart from the general public included e.g. 2,000 supermarkets for food donations, other organisations and individuals joined in to co-ordinate the efforts and to collect and distribute the items (Fig. 2).
By 2010, IPs came from public, private and civic sectors, to promote actions in sectors such as nutrition, health and education. By using the community's collective action, the aim was to keep society's social cohesion intact, as illustrated by the following quote: ".. . to reinforce social cohesion, better access to information, enhanced reputation and credibility, citizen sensitisation, boost in donations, employees' voluntary participation in social actions" (SKAI's deputy director of corporate communications) From a critical perspective, a private sector company initiated the CBSP. SKAI advocated for a partnership that would enhance social cohesion, in response to the crisis, and therefore sustain social ties. It could be argued that the CBSP aimed to maintain rather than question the status quo (Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015). Yet activities such as welfare services, otherwise provided by the state, have political implications, because they expose weaknesses of the political system (Kantzara 2014) and therefore, increase community risk awareness. The CBSP also collaborated in the logistics with informal social networks, namely social groceries, social pharmacies and social medical centres (free clinics), that were both providers of social support and expressions of public dissatisfaction (Sotiropoulos and Bourikos 2014).
In terms of power sharing in the partnership, the specific responsibilities of SKAI were: (i) to bring key IPs together for each action type and (ii) to implement the media campaign to promote the actions of the partnership. Decision-making in the CBSP was decentralised. Some of the actions were initiated and implemented by NGOs, such as the medical services to children in need. As acknowledged by an NGO representative, participation in the CBSP increased the publicity of their actions and the number of beneficiaries: Through the partnership more beneficiaries accessed NGO's services (increased publicity through the media campaign) Regarding the provision of welfare services to Greek citizens, an NGO Director argued that social capital (social cohesion and inclusion) formed the basis of their policy: "The NGO's policy is based on social cohesion and inclusion, through the provision of … services to all people in need. The target beneficiaries before the crisis used to be socially excluded community groups…but after the crisis…the majority of the beneficiaries are Greek citizens outside of the target groups" (NGO Director).
The participation of NGOs in the CBSP further supported bottom-up approaches by promoting equality and the empowerment of beneficiaries. As stated by an NGO representative: NGO's key policies are based on no discrimination -equity principles, voluntary work, and community capacity building through empowerment of beneficiaries. Empowerment of beneficiaries is built by following policies based on no discrimination, equity for all community members and voluntary work Drakaki and Tzionas (2017) argued that interactions and relationship building in planning and implementation of the actions facilitated development of social adaptive

Needs assessment
Needs assessment is a complex exercise of determining who is vulnerable yet not capable to support themselves (Kovács and Spens 2007). Based on this, needs can be matched with supply, and deliveries can be organised. Needs assessment was done by programme coordinators in cooperation with the collaborating IPs, public sector services, institutions, organisations and municipalities. It was a complex process and a dynamic one, as needs evolved and increased over time: "There is a large increase in needs. The beneficiaries in the past used to be mostly immigrants. But currently the majority of the beneficiaries are Greek citizens, either people who have lost their jobs or low income citizens." (NGO representative) The CBSP responded to increasing demands from Dioceses of Greece, various institutions and organisations, social services departments of municipalities. Additionally, the Ministry of Education provided lists of students in need and the Ministry of Health provided lists of uninsured people:

"Social services departments of various municipalities in the areas of Athens and
Thessaloniki provide catalogues of uninsured citizens, where each catalogue represents a different location area." (NGO director) Figure 3 shows the partners responsible for the needs assessment and the beneficiaries of the main actions.
In the early stage of the CBSP, SKAI created a database of people in need, accessed by anyone wishing to provide help. People in need could themselves provide their data (name, Fig. 3 Partners involved in the needs assessment and beneficiaries of main actions 1 3 address, employment status, family members, needs) to either SKAI or other collaborating radio stations and thereby register in the database. This community-based approach of needs assessment ensures beneficiary participation and empowerment (Pardasani 2006;Matopoulos et al. 2014).

Collection and distribution
Logistically, these endeavours differed from one another significantly. Their numbers and locations of collection and distribution points, their contributors and beneficiaries, as well as the frequency of collection and distribution differed. Thus, the mobilisation of individuals, organisations, companies, among others, and resources in order to deliver services and goods to people in need was a prerequisite for the operational success of the CBSP's actions. For example, 2,000 supermarkets contributed to the food collection continuously across Greece, while e.g. school supplies were collected from the general public three times a year through specific calls to drop-off points in cities. Most collections were rather regular:

"Our audiences are the ones who contribute at large both in the food and medicine collection actions. This can be explained due to the regularity of our medicine actions which occur on a weekly basis, and the food collection is a static point of gathering where individuals can donate on a daily basis" (SKAI representative)
The collection of medicine from the public was organised with regional medical associations (also for their quality assurance) across 70 municipalities. Volunteer doctors collected the medicine, part of which was distributed to social medical centres run by volunteer doctors and social pharmacies for the uninsured citizens in Athens and border cities. The Ministry of Health stated in relation to this that "The crisis we live requires solutions that would seem unorthodox in the past. Private sector has undertaken initiatives for the collection of medicine to help people in need. In this framework the state wants to contribute to the initiative taken by the Athens Medical Association and Apostoli…" (Ministry of Health). .
Thus, in the end, even public resources such as the Ministry of Health were mobilised. Their contribution was to provide free health services (health vouchers). Therefore, the measures taken by the government as a result of the interactions with the CBSP can be considered as an indication of social learning (Burnside-Lawry and Carvalho 2015).
Not only the regular actions but also the one-offs, e.g. the collection of items for the 2014 floods in the Balkans, posited quite a logistical challenge: "But the actions that tend to shock us in respective of participants and donations to the cause are the actions that are dedicated to sensitive, desperate call for helpsuch as when we collected basic necessary goods. .. for the people that suffered the severe floods in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Such organised actions tend to bring a large public outpour of participations, e.g. for the specific event we were collecting at 5 different locations around Athens. .. One specific location required 7 large trucks in order to pick up all the donations people gave on the specific day and hours of the one-day-only action event. We assume that this incredible number of participants is due to the sensibility of its cause. Even if Greece is going through a financial crisis, individuals will give what they can in their own way" (SKAI marketing department employee) Food, medicine, and non-food items were collected from the community, and deliveries were scheduled according to the specificities of the items and their demand. Much attention was paid to the quality of collected items; which could otherwise be a main problem in material convergence especially in light of in-kind donations (Kunz et al. 2017).
"Expiration date control is done for food and medicine products. Quality product control takes place with frequent subsequent controls." (NGO logistics staff) Each logistics plan of action was decided on the basis of the corresponding programme. Logistics planning was done by programme co-ordinators in co-operation with programme IPs. Logistics assessment was linked with the operational organisation of the programmes. Interestingly, however, logistical activities of collection, but also of materials handling, warehousing, transportation and distribution were all carried out by various members of the community itself.
Volunteers did the collection, sorting and materials handling, churches served as warehouses, trucks were provided by private companies, and anything from social supermarkets to municipal buildings were used as points of distribution: "Using the five social groceries, goods are distributed as packages of "love" to large unit families, low income families, students and soup kitchens. They are also distributed to various foundations and charity institutions. Medicine is distributed in cooperation with the Athens Medical Association from the social pharmacies." (NGO logistics staff) Figure 4 shows the partners involved in the logistics decision making of the main actions.
The overall logistical assessment of the CBSP is summarised in Table 2.  1 3

Analysis
Operationally, the CBSP can be characterised as an event network operating in a crisis. For the CBSP, resources and individuals are dynamically mobilised and self-organised to contribute to community resilience. An analogy can be made to the event nature of humanitarian supply chains or networks operating in turbulent environments which leads to a transformation of resources and skills to dynamic capabilities (Kovács et al. 2012). The success of any community resilience initiative depends on the availability of resources. Table 3 analyses the resources of the CBSP as suggested by Matopoulos et al. (2014), i.e. in terms of access to beneficiaries, cost efficiency, continuity, balancing the local economy, knowledge of local authorities, community participation, ownership of the decision and aid effectiveness. The community impact shown in Table 3 has been measured in terms of the information extracted from the data (mainly interviews) concerning intangible aspects such as trust mechanisms or relationship building as well as measured outcomes such as number of medicinal products collected in a certain time period.
Physical resources included local material and infrastructure (see also Table 2). Local churches and municipal buildings were collection points, and informal social structures (social groceries, social pharmacies, social medical centres) were part of the distribution channels. Local material included food collected at local supermarkets for the action of food collection. Thus, cost efficiency as well as balancing the local economy can be identified as contributors to a positive community impact (Matopoulos et al. 2014).
Human resources include the volunteers registering their own services at the CBSP's website, volunteers in the partnership actions, such as doctors in the action of medical services to children in need; church employees, faith-based church members which provided voluntary work for the churches being points of actions collection and doctors for the receiving, sorting, quality control, warehousing and distribution of medicine donations; journalists and reporters of SKAI for the media campaign; private company employees, who contributed in the logistics of the actions. For instance, the logistics for the collection of goods for children in need ( Fig. 2; Table 2) were collaboratively done by volunteers from NBG, municipalities' social services, orphanage institutions and large-unit families unions. It should be noted, that certain volunteers were beneficiaries themselves, such as volunteers from orphanage institutions and large-unit families unions. Collaboration is enhanced among volunteers of networks with strong social/religious connections (Holguín-Veras et al. 2012). Based on survey results, many volunteers were unemployed citizens that felt empowered by participating in various solidarity actions (Sotiropoulos and Bourikos 2014). However, IPs acknowledged that the large number of volunteers was a challenge, mainly due to volunteer training. Human resources training is a key element in HL (Kovács et al. 2012).
In the HL context, the partnership exhibits an agility dimension (Oloruntoba and Gray 2006), as the actions/events take place at a national level and many resources (such as faithbased volunteers or NGO members) constitute a dormant resource (Kovács and Tatham 2009;Matopoulos et al. 2014) mobilised when needed. Moreover, information technology, warehouse and logistics employees, marketing and communication departments co-ordinators and local logistics service providers included staff/paid personnel that contributed to the human resources.
Organisational resources included local IPs. Thus, community participation and knowledge of local authorities contribute to positive community impact. For instance, the social services department of the relevant municipality cooperated with Doctors of the World Greece to suggest the location for each action and the associated list of beneficiaries. Social groceries and social pharmacies operated in spaces offered for free by the municipalities. The local chapters of Red Cross in Athens and Thessaloniki assisted with transportation and temporary warehousing of collected goods for the flood-stricken countries of Serbia and Bosnia Herzegovina, in 2014. Local organisational resources such as local chapters and IPs in humanitarian aid contribute to the continuity of aid programs and the development of community resilience (Oloruntoba and Gray 2006;Matopoulos et al. 2014). Procurement was not integral resource in all actions. For instance, the food and medicine collection actions relied on donors as suppliers of material.
The national media campaign, organised and implemented by the leading company, a company of the media industry itself, was generally acknowledged by the participants of the CBSP to contribute to the mobilisation of individuals and resources, and a boost in donations (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). SKAI advertised in all available trailer time through radio, TV, internet and print the actions of the CBSP. Furthermore, often SKAI's journalists reported live from event locations. Α successful disaster response can be influenced by media attention and the appeals that follow (Van Wassenhove, 2006).
Responsible media is an element of information and communication in the framework of community resilience proposed by Norris et al. (2008), also adopted by Chou and Wu (2014). Norris et al. (2008) identified information and communication as a set of community resilience resources which includes the element of responsible media. The authors argued that media can be used to inform the public about the available services during disaster relief and recovery, as well as educate the public about the available services (Norris et al. 2008). Online information posted on social media platforms is a crucial element of crisis and disaster management (Linardos et al. 2022). Emergency responders and other decision makers use information posted on Twitter platform for effective decision making. Moreover, quantitative methods have leveraged information posted on Twitter such as to improve communication between affected population and emergency responders; estimate demand of relief supplies; to facilitate search and rescue operations (Linardos et al. 2022).
Community impact includes community competence, trust and social capital building (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). Trust between collaborating IPs was either pre-existent or developed through the actions. The authors argued that social interactions and relationship building enabled by the actions, contributed to development of social adaptive capacities (resources), i.e. social capital and community competence building and therefore community resilience building (Norris et al. 2008). Relationship building is a key element of logistics (Kovács et al. 2012;Jahre et al. 2016). Community competence, defined as the place attributes that promote health and well-being, is an indicator/form of community resilience (Cutter 2008). Collective action in the logistical activities enabled social capital and community competence and therefore, community resilience building (Norris et al. 2008). Importantly, the impact on the community is not only one in terms of the aid being received, but further impacts can be traced in light of reinforcing the social cohesion of the community, and in building local capacity-which are also the aims of community resilience. Table 4 summarises the key impacts of the CBSP on community resilience, in terms of the framework of community resilience proposed by Norris et al. (2008). As shown in Table 4, Table 4 Community impact of local physical, human and organisational resources of the CBSP on community resilience with theoretical discussion and community resilience resources (adaptive capacities) with resource elements based on Norris et al. (2008) Community impact

Discussion
Community resilience resource-resource elements (based on Norris et al. 2008) Reinforcement of social cohesion Loss of social cohesion can be viewed as a shared risk that mobilises individuals to participate in the actions of the CBSP (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). Social capital is a networked adaptive capacity, a resource of community resilience (Norris et al. 2008). Social cohesion is a bond of social capital. Social support, provided by the actions of the CBSP, is an element of social capital in the framework of community resilience by Norris et al. (2008). It relates to the social interactions that provide individuals with actual assistance readily available when needed. Social support reflects the care of the community for the needs and well-being of the community members (Pfefferbaum et al. 2005).
The reinforcement of social cohesion was the aim of the national media campaign of the CBSP. Responsible media is an element of information and communication in the framework of community resilience by Norris et al. (2008). Information and communication is a networked adaptive capacity, a resource of community resilience (Norris et al. 2008).
Social capital-Social support; Community bonds. Information and communication-Responsible media.

Table 4
(continued) Community impact

Discussion
Community resilience resource-resource elements (based on Norris et al. 2008) Access to beneficiaries The media campaign informed the public about the actions at a national level and therefore more people in need became aware of the CBSP's actions.
Responsible media is an element of information and communication (Norris et al. 2008).
Local authorities cooperated with IPs in the needs assessment, by providing lists of beneficiaries.
Ministries (e.g. Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education) also provided lists of beneficiaries.
Equity of resource distribution relates to access to beneficiaries and is an element of economic development in the framework of community resilience by Norris et al. (2008). Economic development is a networked adaptive capacity, a resource of community resilience (Norris et al. 2008).
Economic development-Equity of resource distribution. Information and communication-Responsible media.
Provision of services to meet beneficiary needs Self-organised voluntary actions including the logistical activities to meet beneficiary needs. Collective action and decision making as well as collective efficacy are elements of community competence in the framework of community resilience by Norris et al. (2008). Collective efficacy relates to mutual trust and willingness to collaborate. Community competence is a networked adaptive capacity, a resource of community resilience (Norris et al. 2008). Social support is an element of social capital (Norris et al. 2008). The received social support relates to resource mobilisation during the implementation of the CBSP's actions (Norris et al. 2008).
Community competence-Collective action (including the logistical activities) and decision-making; collective efficacy.
Social capital-Social support (received social support).

Table 4
(continued) Community impact

Discussion
Community resilience resource-resource elements (based on Norris et al. 2008) Trust (between partners in individual actions and between partners and beneficiaries) Trust within a CBSP facilitates social capital and community competence building (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). Mutual trust facilitates community action. Pre-existing relationships including trust are an essential factor of mobilising disaster relief and recovery services. Trust is a community bond, an element of social capital (Norris et al. 2008). Community (collective) action is an element of community competence (Norris et al. 2008).
Social capital-Trust. Community competence-Collective action (including the logistical activities).
Community social capital building/ Relationship building Social capital building has been facilitated by trust, collaboration, collective action, solidarity, social cohesion, information and communication within the CBSP (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017).
Key element of social capital is social support, as well as network structures. Trust and citizen participation are also dimensions of social capital (Norris et al. 2008). Mutual trust facilitates community (collective) action, an element of community competence (Norris et al. 2008). Social relationships (informal ties) including the frequency and intensity of interactions are an element of social capital.
Social capital-Social support; Trust; Informal ties. Community competence-Collective action. Mobilisation of individuals Loss of social cohesion can be viewed as a shared risk that mobilises individuals to participate in the CBSP (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). The national media campaign mobilised individuals to participate in the actions of the CBSP (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). Citizen participation is a key element of social capital in the community resilience framework by Norris et al. (2008).
Social capital-Citizen participation Information and communication-Responsible media.

Volunteerism
Volunteerism is a benefit of CBSP's participants (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). CBSPs mobilise their members in voluntary actions and relationships, in response to a shared risk or crisis (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). Citizen participation is an element of social capital.
Social capital-Citizen participation; informal ties.

Balancing the local economy
Economic development is a networked adaptive capacity, a resource of community resilience (Norris et al. 2008). Level and diversity of economic resources as well as equity of resource distribution are elements of economic development (Norris et al. 2008).
Economic development-Level and diversity of economic resources; Equity of resource distribution Knowledge of local authorities Local authorities contribute to the logistical activities, such as needs assessment (access to beneficiaries), collection and warehousing (collective action).
Organisational linkages and collaboration are elements of social capital. Loosely coupled organisations that better respond to local needs can collaborate to facilitate access to resources (Norris et al. (2008).
Community competence-Collective action (including the logistical activities). Social capital-Organisational linkages and collaboration.

Community participation
Collective action and decision-making are elements of community competence (Norris et al. 2008). Members of a community collaborate effectively to identify needs and priorities, agree on goals and priorities, agree on the ways to implement the goals and collaborate to achieve those goals.
Community competence-Collective action (including the logistical activities) and decision-making.
the CBSP mobilised the networked resources of community resilience in the framework of community resilience proposed by Norris et al. (2008), as follows: • Social capital, in terms of (received) social support, community bonds including trust and social cohesion and informal ties, citizen participation, organisational linkages and collaboration; • Information and communication, in terms of responsible media; • Community competence, in terms of collective action (including the logistical activities) and collective efficacy; and. • Economic development, in terms of equity of resource distribution, and level and diversity of economic resources.
The role of media was crucial for the effectiveness of the CBSP. The leading company of the CBSP, a media company itself, was known as a trusted source of information and for implementing successful media campaigns (Drakaki and Tzionas, 2017). Trust facilitated the implementation of the actions including the logistical activities. Trust contributed to social capital/relationship building and community competence building. Knowledge of local authorities such as municipalities was a crucial element for the effectiveness of the CBSP. Municipalities offered spaces such as open squares as collection points, buildings for warehousing, and social pharmacies and groceries as distribution points. Furthermore, the social services departments of the municipalities participated in needs assessment. Public resources such as municipalities and ministries contributed to the effectiveness of the CBSP to reach the people who needed help the most, by providing lists of uninsured and poor people. Moreover, municipality employees were voluntarily present assisting the implementation of the logistical activities. Volunteerism was a crucial element for the effectiveness of the CBSP. Many volunteers participated in the logistical activities, for the collection, warehousing and distribution activities. Volunteer doctors assisted in sorting, quality control and warehousing of collected medicine. Beneficiaries were also volunteers for various logistical activities. Balancing the local economy was a crucial element the effectiveness of the CBSP. Local social groceries, social pharmacies contributed to the collection and distribution of in-kind donations and supermarkets were used as collection points. Furthermore, mobilisation of individuals was a crucial element for the effectiveness of the CBSP. Individuals were mobilised as volunteers and by offering services and in-kind donations.

Conclusion
This paper has investigated the logistical aspects of a community-based social partnership in Greece and the contribution of this partnership's logistical activities to community resilience. Based on the logistics performance, a conceptual model has been developed, linking the partnership with self-organisation, social capital building and community resilience. The community impact of physical, human and organisational resources of the CBSP on community resilience follows the resource division of local resources introduced by Matopoulos et al. (2014). The CBSP's actions have mobilised resources and individuals to participate in self-organised logistical activities in order to reinforce social cohesion. Various CBSP's actions mobilised public resources including local authorities and ministries to contribute to logistics. They even triggered further solidarity/policy measures by various ministries and therefore may have contributed to social learning. Social changes show the capacity of a community to adapt and bounce forward. An agility dimension has been shown as dormant resources are mobilised on an event/action need basis at a national level.
Community impact also includes social resources such as community competence and social capital, both enabled by collective action in the logistical activities. Relationship building between IPs facilitated social capital building and contributed to the planning and implementation of the CBSP's logistical activities. Stakeholder engagement and interactions enabled self-organised collective action for the logistics implementation and contributed to community capacity building.
Community impact has been analysed in terms of the framework of community resilience by Norris et al. (2008). The interconnected mobilised resources that contribute to community resilience include information and communication, social capital, community competence and economic development. The role of media was identified as an essential factor in the model of the CBSP and the implementation of the logistical activities for aid effectiveness. Other essential factors include knowledge of local authorities, trust, volunteering, balancing the local economy and mobilisation of individuals. The media campaign of the CBSP has been identified as a communicative strategy that encouraged public engagement and advocated for the social risk dimensions, such as the loss of social cohesion (Drakaki and Tzionas 2017). Many volunteers contributed to the implementation of logistical activities, yet, decision-making was mainly done by various IPs. The partnership's social welfare services contributed to exposing the weaknesses of the system. Moreover, in some logistical activities volunteers were both beneficiaries and active participants. Furthermore, the partnership collaborated with informal social networks that also exposed the weaknesses of the political system in the social welfare. Applying a social capital lens to resilience may not be novel, but the link to (humanitarian) supply chains is yet to be understood better. Future research could focus more on grassroot activities, communitybased partnerships, and the contribution of social capital in these to the overall success of a humanitarian response.
Apart from the attribution of responsibilities for logistical activities, a shift of responsibilities between public, civil and private sectors has been acknowledged in the CBSP (Drakaki et al. 2017). Future research could focus on issues of governance and the relationship between community resilience and transformation of governance. This transformation of governance brings rise to different constellations of institutional logics. Their constellations and trajectories are yet to be investigated more in detail with regards to their contribution to community resilience. This supports Therrien et al.'s (2020) suggestions, since they have also identified the lack of institutional factors in the literature of (urban) resilience. The role of community-based logistical activities in building community resilience has been studied. The study complements existing knowledge on the contribution of community-based logistical activities to community resilience. It was conducted during the aftermaths of the Greek financial crisis, and the context may impact significantly on the findings. The focus of this study is on the Greek population. Later refugee movements have not been included in this study. Future research could investigate the applicability of the model of the CBSP in the context of logistics and supply support as proposed in this study in other humanitarian disaster settings. This would also bridge the gap between localisation endeavours in the humanitarian space, which would need to be embraced better in supply chain design as to be more effective.
Additionally, future research could investigate the evolvement of the partnership in terms of its contribution to community capacity building, especially since 2015, in the context of both the financial crisis and the refugee flows. Community impacts on both host communities and refugee communities should also be investigated in terms of distress and tensions between communities (Drakaki and Tzionas, 2021). Furthermore, future research could focus on the analysis of informal social networks as well as similar international CBSPs in order to formulate policy responses for community resilience.
Funding Open access funding provided by HEAL-Link Greece. No funding was received for conducting this study.

Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.