7. What Can Different Actors in the Value Chain Do?

As mentioned in Chapter 4, there are many reasons why food is discarded. In this chapter, we examine more specific causes of FLW among the various actors in the value chain and what they themselves can do to reduce it. Some measures are relatively easy to implement, whilst others realistically require support from policy change, as outlined in the previous chapter.

Some aspects are common to all actors. Management commitment is fundamental. An engaged management shows that they prioritise the issue; they can drive initiatives, implement various strategies, and delegate authority to staff to work on the matter. Feedback also plays an important role internally, as staff need to gain insight into how their engagement and efforts make a difference. Education and training of personnel are necessary to increase awareness and improve practical work towards reducing FLW. Finally, collaboration between different actors in the value chain, from producers to consumers, is necessary to lead efforts against FLW and not simply shift the problem from one actor to another.

The food chain begins at the level of primary production and includes producers from large-scale commercial farms to small family businesses. The sector includes growing and harvesting fruits, vegetables, berries, raising animals, producing milk and eggs, as well as fishing, hunting, and mushroom picking. It thus includes activities such as raising and caring for animals of various kinds, as well as planting and harvesting crops.

Overall analysis of causes
In primary production, a considerable quantity of potentially edible products is lost,

Strid I., Fernqvist F., Thörning R and Andrae L. 2023. Livsmedelsförluster av potatis vid odling, skörd, lagring och packeri (2023:2).Jordbruksverket. Sverige.

^,

H. Hartikainen, L. Mogensen, E. Svanes, and U. Franke. 2018. Food waste quantification in primary production – The Nordic countries as a case study. Waste Management, Vol 71: 502–511.

partly due to overproduction, which leads to surplus food. Such overproduction can occur because farmers account for potential pest attacks, weather, and market uncertainties and guarantee contractual obligations they may have towards buyers.

R. Ishangulyyev, S. Sanghyo Kim, and S. Lee. 2019. Understanding Food Loss and Waste—Why Are We Losing and Wasting Food? Foods, Vol. 8, No. 8: 297. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/8/8/297

It can also be difficult to know what proportion of the harvest meets the high aesthetic standards that the market demands for fruits and vegetables.

Primary production, therefore, is highly affected by external factors, such as unpredictable weather conditions and diseases. In primary production, the point at which the product can be labelled as “food” is also less clear and, therefore, when waste should be considered FLW.

H. Hartikainen, L. Mogensen, E. Svanes, and U. Franke. 2018. Food waste quantification in primary production – The Nordic countries as a case study. Waste Management. Volume 71, January 2018, Pages 502-511

One can argue whether food that is damaged and destroyed on the farm due to weather conditions should be counted as FLW at all, as the damage is almost impossible to avoid.

K. Joensuu, H, Hartikainen, S,, Karppinen, S., A.-K., Jaakkonen, A.-K., and M. Kuoppa-aho. 2021. Developing the collection of statistical food waste data on the primary production of fruit and vegetables. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 28, No. 19: 24618–24627. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11356-020-09908-5.pdf

Oversupply can lower market prices, leading to a lack of profitability when all produce is harvested. Some products are simply not harvested or are discarded immediately after harvest, as they do not meet the quality or aesthetic standards, such as shape, size, colour, and weight, required by the market. Gaps in knowledge and practice can also cause FLW in primary production. Choosing the wrong variety that is not adapted to a particular location and inadequate handling of nutrients and water can contribute to lower quality in production, thus leading to losses. Moreover, poor harvesting methods and inadequacies in mechanisation can lead to food losses.

K. Joensuu, H. Hartikainen, S. Karppinen, A.-K. Jaakkonen, and M. Kuoppa-aho. 2021. Developing the collection of statistical food waste data on the primary production of fruit and vegetables. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 28, No. 19: 24618–24627. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11356-020-09908-5.pdf

There are many good examples of technical investments that reduce FLW. For instance, the proportion of fish that ends up on the floor and is consequently discarded has been reduced with better technology and routines.

A. Carvaljal. 2023. Matvinn i sjømatindistrien. Sintef Ocean. https://www.sintef.no/contentassets/b6afb5b64bd247db9c248fc358e5b0cf/matsvinn_sjomatindustrien_oppdatert_12_04_2023.pdf (2024-08-14)

A more digitalised food production process with attempts to reduce FLW seems promising. However, the purpose of increased digitalisation is often focused on maximising food production rather than managing waste, and thus, important resource and environmental aspects in the agricultural stage may be overlooked.

A. Benyam, T. Soma, and E. Fraser. 2021. Digital agricultural technologies for food loss and waste prevention and reduction: Global trends, adoption opportunities and barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 323: 129099. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621032881

Proposed measures
Both production methods and market factors play a significant role in reducing FLW. Measures sometimes need to be implemented at several stages in the value chain, as they may affect the waste of another actor. The following proposed measures are largely based on a summary of action areas highlighted in the final report on food loss by the Swedish Board of Agriculture.

Jordbruksverket. 2024. Slutrapport om livsmedels förluster. Resultat och åtgärder för att mer ska bli mat. https://www2.jordbruksverket.se/download/18.23e68dd418d7c649d1713a30/1707493705544/ra24_1.pdf Volume 71, January 2018, Pages 502-511

New production methods: To reduce loss, primary producers need to develop robust production methods that ensure quality even in a changing climate. Production methods should also enable high utilisation of produced raw materials. This will require primary producers to be sufficiently profitable to invest in, for example, smarter animal housing, fishing gear, storage, irrigation technology, and machinery. Protection against wildlife damage, plant pests, and animal diseases is also important.

From both environmental and economic perspectives, more animals need to survive to reach slaughter; therefore, preventive work for animal care needs to be strengthened.

More knowledge: Food producers need to continue to invest in their own knowledge building in order to contribute to reduced food losses, increase resource efficiency, and reduce climate and environmental impacts. For this, they need access to advice and tools to measure and evaluate their production. Advice needs to be based on good knowledge of the specific conditions of the different sectors.

Consumers need more knowledge about the quality of raw materials and the preparation of “new” dishes that make greater use of raw materials.

Research and innovation: The changing climate is a clear example of the need for more knowledge and research to ensure that we have robust and resilient production methods. To strengthen research and innovation, cooperation between authorities is important.

Product development and innovation: More animal parts (e.g. the offal and blood) and plant parts (e.g. wheat bran) could be used as food through the development of new products. Innovation, financing, and consumer demand are important for profitability in these ventures. The use of more parts and by-products is also needed to increase our preparedness in times of crisis.

New rules: New rules should be designed to both prevent FLW and guard against jeopardising food safety, for example, access to and the use of plant protection products and their handling during animal disease outbreaks.

Collaboration along the value chain: Increased collaboration between chain actors needs to increase to meet the market challenges faced by primary producers. This includes both the aesthetic requirements for food and knowledge and curiosity about new products that use parts that would otherwise have been discarded. Here, the retail sector can also play a greater role in highlighting such new innovations. Restaurants are already doing some work by cooking with ingredients that would have been discarded, which can inspire consumers. Public actors can lead the way and procure good quality food that is not in demand in retail, for example by using “ugly fruits”.

New business models: There is a need for the development of new and more flexible business models and sales channels where surplus can be absorbed by larger local buyers, for example, for large-scale kitchens. Actors who help mediate such surpluses can play an important role.

Case: 100% Fish Initiative

The Icelandic initiative 100% Fish is driven by the Iceland Ocean Cluster and has revolutionised the way in which fish and fish products are handled and utilised. The goal of the initiative is to inspire the fishing industry and the communities dependent on it to maximise the use of every caught fish, increase the value of landed fish, support new business opportunities, increase employment, and reduce waste.

The initiative has had an enormous impact, especially in Iceland where it originated. By transforming fish by-products – such as heads, skin, bones, and innards – into valuable products, Iceland has managed to increase the utilisation rate of its fish products to approximately 80%. This means that practically nothing goes to waste. Examples of products produced include dietary supplements, cosmetics, pharmaceutical products, and even textiles and biomedical applications.

Technological advancements have played a key role in this transformation. Increased production yields and improved processes have resulted in a four-fold increase in the export value per kilogram of cod since the 1990s. Through strict regulations and innovative solutions, Icelandic fisheries have been forced to find profitable ways to utilise these by-products.

One of the biggest challenges has been to show fishing companies the value of collaboration. By building trust and demonstrating how collaboration can improve the future prospects of fishing companies and coastal communities, 100% Fish has helped companies create valuable connections with academic institutions, startups, and research and development organisations. This network, called the Ocean Cluster Network, facilitates information and knowledge exchange worldwide.

The initiative has now expanded globally and is influencing other regions, such as the Great Lakes in the United States and Canada, the Pacific, and Africa. By adopting 100% Fish methods, these areas have begun reducing waste and creating more value from their fish stocks, thereby contributing to economic growth, sustainability, and environmental protection.

The 100% Fish programme demonstrates that it is possible to approach zero waste in the fishing industry while remaining economically sustainable. This approach not only results in food security but also creates new job opportunities and promote social innovation, especially in regions dependent on fishing. By promoting collaboration and innovation, 100% Fish is paving the way for a more sustainable future.

Sjávar Klasinn. 100% Fish.
Read more (2024-08-14)

Case: 100% Fish Initiative

The Icelandic initiative 100% Fish is driven by the Iceland Ocean Cluster and has revolutionised the way in which fish and fish products are handled and utilised. The goal of the initiative is to inspire the fishing industry and the communities dependent on it to maximise the use of every caught fish, increase the value of landed fish, support new business opportunities, increase employment, and reduce waste.

The initiative has had an enormous impact, especially in Iceland where it originated. By transforming fish by-products – such as heads, skin, bones, and innards – into valuable products, Iceland has managed to increase the utilisation rate of its fish products to approximately 80%. This means that practically nothing goes to waste. Examples of products produced include dietary supplements, cosmetics, pharmaceutical products, and even textiles and biomedical applications.

Technological advancements have played a key role in this transformation. Increased production yields and improved processes have resulted in a four-fold increase in the export value per kilogram of cod since the 1990s. Through strict regulations and innovative solutions, Icelandic fisheries have been forced to find profitable ways to utilise these by-products.

One of the biggest challenges has been to show fishing companies the value of collaboration. By building trust and demonstrating how collaboration can improve the future prospects of fishing companies and coastal communities, 100% Fish has helped companies create valuable connections with academic institutions, startups, and research and development organisations. This network, called the Ocean Cluster Network, facilitates information and knowledge exchange worldwide.

The initiative has now expanded globally and is influencing other regions, such as the Great Lakes in the United States and Canada, the Pacific, and Africa. By adopting 100% Fish methods, these areas have begun reducing waste and creating more value from their fish stocks, thereby contributing to economic growth, sustainability, and environmental protection.

The 100% Fish programme demonstrates that it is possible to approach zero waste in the fishing industry while remaining economically sustainable. This approach not only results in food security but also creates new job opportunities and promote social innovation, especially in regions dependent on fishing. By promoting collaboration and innovation, 100% Fish is paving the way for a more sustainable future.

Sjávar Klasinn. 100% Fish.
Read more (2024-08-14)

The next stage in the food value chain is in the production of the food, where the outcomes from the primary production are being processed to be turned into the products bought in shops or used in cooking. The food producers concern a heterogenous group of actors, dependent on for instance the type of food. However, many of the reasons for food waste in this stage are shared among these actors, being concerned with for instance cleaning, sorting, cooking, freezing and packing.

FLW in production occurs because raw materials and products need to be discarded due to faults and deficiencies that occur with the raw material, in production, or during packaging. One reason is that different parts of the raw material do not become new food products, which may be due to lack of demand. For example, consumers in a specific setting might opt out of meat cuts that are appreciated in other cultures.

Disruptions during production can cause production to cease temporarily, thereby causing FLW. There is often waste in production when switching between different products or flavours in a facility, such as when the flavour of yoghurt is to be changed from strawberry to mango. During a changeover, all of one flavour must be out of the facility before a new flavour can begin to be packaged. Sometimes, faults are discovered in some raw materials that result in production stoppage and the discarding of contents. Errors can also occur in the printing or sealing of packaging, which cause products to be discarded. Shelf-life requirements from actors after production sometimes lead to products in stock not being sold on but discarded.

There are often economic incentives to ensure that products brought into production come out as food. By working proactively and ensuring that there is no waste in one’s own operations, much can be saved. There are many examples of producers who have tried to find new uses for raw materials that do not meet the requirements for the main product.

There are also conflicts of interest between economic and resource management; for example, with high energy prices, it may be more profitable to use residues for energy production than to search for new ideas to utilise the resource in various foods. New machines might be too expensive, serving as a barrier to investments in new innovations.

Measure and plan: All operations should measure and identify the causes of their FLW in order to gain knowledge about what is being discarded and the costs arising from FLW. There are direct costs incurred from product losses as well as indirect costs related to working hours to internally manage the waste and costs of waste management. Such a mapping can enable a better basis for identifying effective and profitable measures that reduce waste.

Improve forecasts and planning: Being able to determine how many ingredients are needed for upcoming production is important, especially when fresh or sensitive raw materials are used. Investments in better forecasting models aimed at maximising the utilisation of raw materials are fundamental. Production should be adapted to actual demand to avoid overproduction. This can be done partly by using data analysis to improve demand forecasting,

D. Ivanov, A. Tsipoulanidis, and J. Schönberger. 2019. Global Supply Chain and Operations Management: A Decision-Oriented Introduction to the Creation of Value. Springer.

but there is also the need for data sharing in both directions between producers and wholesalers.

Quality systems and development: There is a need for continuous development of quality systems for ordering, production processes, and inventory management to monitor inventory status in real time and ensure that products are efficiently rotated. If there are raw materials being discarded, new product development should be prioritised,

K. L. Thyberg and D. J. Tonjes. 2016. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 106: 110–123.

or the raw material should be delivered to other producers.

Improved packaging: Better packaging for specific foods plays a major role in reducing waste later on in the chain.

A. Halloran, J. Clement, N. Kornum, C. Bucatariu, and J. Magid. 2014. Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, Vol. 49, Part 1: 294–301.

From both an FLW and cost perspective, it is particularly important to protect food products with high environmental impact such as meat, fish, and dairy products. Technical development in this area has evolved significantly over the last 20 years and continues apace. Solutions involving modified atmosphere, absorbers and effective barriers provide a longer product shelf life. Sterilisation before filling at high temperature or vacuum packaging provides longer shelf life without preservatives. Time–temperature indicators should be implemented to monitor and ensure product quality throughout the distribution chain. However, new technical solutions should not complicate or prevent material recycling. In addition, there needs to be acceptance among consumers of different solutions.

K. Verghese, H. Lewis, S. Lockrey, and H. Williams. 2015. Packaging’s role in minimising food loss and waste across the supply chain. Packaging Technology and Science, Vol. 28: 603–620.

Choosing the right packaging is about qualified trade-offs between protection, manageability, and various environmental aspects, where data for life cycle analyses become particularly important. As mentioned earlier, there needs to be a greater focus on packaging appropriate amounts to avoid waste among consumers and develop communication about how long the food can be safely consumed.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of knowledge about how packaging should be designed to reduce waste later in the chain; thus, such designs are rarely in demand because knowledge about them is low throughout the chain. When external pressure is weak, internal driving forces often become weak. In addition, it often involves costs to invest in new packaging solutions, and companies tend to be unsure of the effects on sales.

H. Pålsson and E. Sandberg. 2022. Adoption barriers for sustainable packaging practices: A comparative study of food supply chains in South Africa and Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 374: 133811.

Importantly, perceived economic profitability tends to take precedence over sustainability goals.

B. de Koeijer, J., de Lange, and R. Wever. 2017. Desired, perceived, and achieved sustainability: trade-offs in strategic and operational packaging development. Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 10: 1–29.

Education and training: More staff need to be educated about the importance of reducing waste and how they can contribute to this through better handling of raw materials and products.

J. Parfitt, M. Barthel, and S. Macnaughton. 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 365, No. 1554: 3065–3081.

Management commitment is, as always, important for cultural creation and maintenance.

Product development and innovations: There is a need for a greater focus on what could be used for new products. Utilising residual streams in a better way is an important way of increasing our preparedness. For new products to become profitable, consumer insights needs to be considered in the process.

Collaboration with other actors: There should be increased collaboration with retailers to better understand consumer demand and adapt deliveries accordingly. Donating surplus food to charity organisations instead of letting it go to waste is one way. If donation is not possible, actors need to strive for the surplus to go towards animal feed, and if this is not possible, digestion or incineration (of dry foods) for energy use should be considered.

S. Lebersorger and F. Schneider. 2014. Food loss rates at the food retail, influencing factors and reasons as a basis for waste prevention measures. Waste Management, Vol. 34, No. 11: 1911–1919.

Case: Stryhns Gruppen

Stryhns Gruppen, a prominent producer and marketer of several food brands in Denmark and has made significant progress in reducing FLW and increasing sustainability. The company was one of the first to sign the voluntary agreement Danmark mod madspild in 2018 and with it set an ambitious goal to halve its FLW by 2030. The goal was anchored internally as part of its strategic CSR initiatives. By 2022, Stryhns Gruppen had exceeded this goal and managed to reduce the FLW of finished food by 75%.

This success was achieved through a series of innovative and systematic measures. With an initial inventory documenting where waste was occurring, the company could optimise its production lines and work processes. A large part of the FLW was traced to outdated production lines, where, for example, mayonnaise stuck to the bottom of tanks, and when production experienced operational stops. The findings led to investments in production line updates and the implementation of a so-called buffer zone that could save food in production during operational stops. The new production line enabled improved accuracy in forecasting, which also helped reduce waste. As there was still some FLW related to the business, the surplus production was donated to charitable organisations, such as FødevareBanken, amounting to 137,000 meals in 2022 alone. Moreover, all employees were actively engaged in efforts to reduce waste, which created a strong internal culture of responsibility and awareness.

The company’s successes in FLW reduction demonstrate how strategic goal-setting, problem-seeking, and innovative solutions can lead to significant environmental and economic benefits while positively contributing to society and customer trust.

Case: Stryhns Gruppen

Stryhns Gruppen, a prominent producer and marketer of several food brands in Denmark and has made significant progress in reducing FLW and increasing sustainability. The company was one of the first to sign the voluntary agreement Danmark mod madspild in 2018 and with it set an ambitious goal to halve its FLW by 2030. The goal was anchored internally as part of its strategic CSR initiatives. By 2022, Stryhns Gruppen had exceeded this goal and managed to reduce the FLW of finished food by 75%.

This success was achieved through a series of innovative and systematic measures. With an initial inventory documenting where waste was occurring, the company could optimise its production lines and work processes. A large part of the FLW was traced to outdated production lines, where, for example, mayonnaise stuck to the bottom of tanks, and when production experienced operational stops. The findings led to investments in production line updates and the implementation of a so-called buffer zone that could save food in production during operational stops. The new production line enabled improved accuracy in forecasting, which also helped reduce waste. As there was still some FLW related to the business, the surplus production was donated to charitable organisations, such as FødevareBanken, amounting to 137,000 meals in 2022 alone. Moreover, all employees were actively engaged in efforts to reduce waste, which created a strong internal culture of responsibility and awareness.

The company’s successes in FLW reduction demonstrate how strategic goal-setting, problem-seeking, and innovative solutions can lead to significant environmental and economic benefits while positively contributing to society and customer trust.

CSR.dk. 2022. Bæredygtighedsrapport fra Stryhns Gruppen viser markant fald i CO2-udledning i 2022.
Read more

Stryhns.dk. 2022. Bæredygtig værdiskabelse.
Read more

OneThird. 2022. Forebyggelse og reducering af madspild.
Read more

The next step in the chain concerns the logistics and distribution of the food. When the food has been produced and packaged in a way that consumers find appealing, wholesalers get involved and the food is being transported either to various storages, or directly to the customers or retailers. It involves activities such as logistics, transportation and warehousing. This step, while not being about processing the food itself, is complex and requires a great deal of attention to traceability to avoid FLW.

Logistics and supply chain management can influence the occurrence of FLW but can also be part of the solution to prevent it. The ever-increasing flow of fresh products that must be available everywhere and at all times, despite not being in season, is part of the fundamental problem leading to FLW in storage and distribution. Furthermore, many actors have simultaneously wanted to reduce additives that extend shelf life for health reasons.

One of the reasons for FLW in the logistics chain is overproduction, which then results in the product spoiling before it can be sold. FLW most often occurs because products are stored or transported at incorrect temperatures.

CC De Moraes, FH de Oliveira Costa, CR Pereira, AL Da Silva and I Delai. 2020. Retail food waste: mapping causes and reduction practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 256: 120124.

Even though waste at the wholesale level is relatively low, handling at this level can lead to waste in later stages. Lack of coordination between actors in the value chain means that food spoils before sale or is deemed to have too short a shelf life to be sold. Packaging can be damaged during storage and transport due to careless handling.

K. Liljestrand. 2017. Logistics solutions for reducing food waste. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 47, No. 4: 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-03-2016-0085 

The lack of training of employees in wholesale and retail is a significant cause of FLW throughout the production chain.

CC De Moraes, FH de Oliveira Costa, CR Pereira, AL Da Silva and I Delai. 2020. Retail food waste: mapping causes and reduction practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 256: 120124.

Supply and demand planning: With improved data analysis of sales data and seasonal variations, supply can be better adapted to actual demand, thereby reducing waste. By analysing previous losses, FLW can be reduced. This may involve ordering smaller quantities more frequently to ensure fresher stock. One approach developed to support production flow towards what is ordered instead of relying on forecasts is the so-called make-to-order system, which can be applied to reduce FLW.

Collaboration and information sharing: Implementing more efficient information sharing across the entire food supply chain can help in better predicting demand and managing inventory, reducing the risk of overproduction and spoilage. Collaborations can reduce lead times between wholesalers and “hospitality actors” and shops. In cases of overproduction, it is important to have good channels for how these products can be utilised as food directly or as inputs for new products.

Temperature control: Storage and transport of fresh products at the correct temperature need to be constantly monitored. Technical solutions are currently available to accomplish this.

Organised warehouse: A well-organised warehouse where all products are accounted for reduces the risk of food spoilage due to incorrect storage methods. There should be first-in, first-out (FIFO) systems to ensure product freshness and alarm systems for alerts about products approaching the date by which they must be moved to restaurants/institutional kitchens or retail.

Packaging design: It is important to note when FLW occurs due to packaging design, for example, with overly weak secondary packaging, so as to provide feedback to the food producer. Better visualisation of the damaged packaging helps with coordination and joint decision-making on how improvements can be made. To motivate changes in packaging design that reduce waste, a holistic approach involving a total cost analysis that takes into account the advantages and disadvantages for both wholesalers and shops is important.

Education and training: Improve the education of distribution employees through specific training or participation in workshops about how their practices affect FLW and what they can do to reduce it. At the same time, awareness needs to increase regarding how different stages affect each other’s FLW, which is why joint workshops may be warranted.

Case: Carlsberg

With the help of data-driven harmonisation of systems and forecasting techniques, the Danish brewing company Carlsberg has adapted its production to demand and thereby reduced overproduction. Investments in new packaging technology and upcycling of waste products have contributed to further waste reduction. Between 2015 and 2020, Carlsberg reduced its FLW by 22%.

Carlsberg, a brewing company in Denmark, has in recent years implemented several initiatives to reduce FLW as part of its sustainability work. These initiatives began as economic measures but have now become an integral part of the company’s long-term sustainability strategy.

One of the central projects is the implementation of new data systems that map FLW and improve forecasts for production and distribution. By using these systems, Carlsberg can better adapt its production to demand, which reduces the risk of overproduction and, thus, FLW. In addition, the company has invested in new packaging technology and the upcycling of waste products, which contributes to reducing the amount of waste generated.

To reach its goal of halving FLW by 2030, Carlsberg has also focused on collaboration with partners and ROI calculations related to investments in FLW reduction. These measures have yielded results: between 2015 and 2020, the company managed to reduce its FLW by 22%, thereby achieving almost half of its goal.

In summary, Carlsberg’s work shows how technical investments and data-driven decisions can lead to significant reductions in FLW and improved sustainability. By continuing these efforts, Carlsberg is well on its way to reaching its 2030 goal and contributing to a more sustainable future.

Carlsberg Group. 2022. Sustainability Report 2022. Carlsberg Group.

OneThird. 2022. Forebyggelse og reducering af madspild.
Read more

Case: Carlsberg

With the help of data-driven harmonisation of systems and forecasting techniques, the Danish brewing company Carlsberg has adapted its production to demand and thereby reduced overproduction. Investments in new packaging technology and upcycling of waste products have contributed to further waste reduction. Between 2015 and 2020, Carlsberg reduced its FLW by 22%.

Carlsberg, a brewing company in Denmark, has in recent years implemented several initiatives to reduce FLW as part of its sustainability work. These initiatives began as economic measures but have now become an integral part of the company’s long-term sustainability strategy.

One of the central projects is the implementation of new data systems that map FLW and improve forecasts for production and distribution. By using these systems, Carlsberg can better adapt its production to demand, which reduces the risk of overproduction and, thus, FLW. In addition, the company has invested in new packaging technology and the upcycling of waste products, which contributes to reducing the amount of waste generated.

To reach its goal of halving FLW by 2030, Carlsberg has also focused on collaboration with partners and ROI calculations related to investments in FLW reduction. These measures have yielded results: between 2015 and 2020, the company managed to reduce its FLW by 22%, thereby achieving almost half of its goal.

In summary, Carlsberg’s work shows how technical investments and data-driven decisions can lead to significant reductions in FLW and improved sustainability. By continuing these efforts, Carlsberg is well on its way to reaching its 2030 goal and contributing to a more sustainable future.

Carlsberg Group. 2022. Sustainability Report 2022. Carlsberg Group.

OneThird. 2022. Forebyggelse og reducering af madspild.
Read more

Retailers include the actors selling food directly to consumers, and could include supermarkets, markets and grocery shops. Being an important interface towards the households, the retailers hold an important role in the value chain for the work with reducing FLW, not simply in the store, but also in other parts of the value chain. The retailers must ensure that the products are available for the consumers, while avoiding that food is being thrown away. Activities the retailers engage in include for instance selling, displaying and marketing the products, all of which might have an important impact on FLW.

Knowledge about why waste occurs in retail is relatively extensive. Internationally, many studies have been conducted, several of which are from the Nordic countries. Generally, food chains in many countries have gained increasing levels of power and can set conditions upstream in the value chain while having a significant influence on consumer behaviour.

V. Kulikovskaja and J. Aschemann-Witzel. 2017. Food waste avoidance actions in food retailing: The case of Denmark. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 4: 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2017.1350244

Therefore, retail affects not only FLW in its own operations but also waste among suppliers and especially among consumers.

In recent years, retail has successfully worked to reduce waste in stores. It is increasingly common for products with short dates to be sold at discounted prices. Additionally, there are many initiatives to tackle the surplus that arises. Some stores have employed chefs who prepare lunch boxes using food that has a short shelf life remaining. In other stores, there has been an increase in donations. Although there is great benefit in donating food that is about to expire, retail needs to increasingly work with activities higher up in the waste hierarchy and simply work to prevent FLW altogether.

However, a study from 2023 showed that measures against FLW that are not perceived as economically profitable are not being implemented.

K Koskela-Huotari, K. Svärd, H. Williams, J. Trischler, F. Wikström. 2023. Drivers and Hinderers of (Un)Sustainable Service: A Systems View. Journal of Service Research, Vol. 27, No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467052311760

Improved ordering systems that reduce waste are economically profitable, as is selling products approaching their expiration date. Donating food can sometimes – though not always – reduce waste management costs.

It is considerably more difficult when FLW comes into clear conflict with satisfied customers and profitability maximisation. This includes measures such as limiting the product range

K Koskela-Huotari, K. Svärd, H. Williams, J. Trischler, F. Wikström. 2023. Drivers and Hinderers of (Un)Sustainable Service: A Systems View. Journal of Service Research, Vol. 27, No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467052311760

and removing items with high waste and ceasing campaigns that attract buyers to a store. In short, profit maximisation almost always trumps sustainability in internal operations.

Campaigns are used to attract consumers and encourage additional purchases. When a shop has special offers, it does not want to risk running out and, therefore, orders with a margin, as customers may be disappointed if the campaign product is sold out. Campaigns also drive waste for non-campaign products. For example, when two types of mixed salad are sold at a special price, other salad mixes are likely not to sell as much.

Shops naturally want satisfied customers and try to fulfil as many of their consumers’ needs as possible. Fresh in-store baked bread is offered even in the evening, leading to high waste figures. The desire to meet customer demand in full means that the product range is sometimes too large to avoid waste. Products are delivered in a certain quantity in a secondary package, which can be problematic for products with low turnover that do not sell before they become too old. Nevertheless, even the desire to sell more enables an unnecessarily wide range – from an FLW perspective – such as yoghurt flavours that come and go. The more varieties there are, the greater the difficulty in accurately predicting how much of each type should be ordered.

Consumers have high demands regarding the appearance of products, which means that many avoid fruits and vegetables that do not look perfect, leading to many fully edible goods being culled. The problem is exacerbated when consumers squeeze products, such as avocados and tomatoes, to determine the degree of ripeness, which leads to spoilage. In recent years, however, several retail chains in various trials have offered a range of imperfect goods at lower prices.

When shops receive goods, it sometimes happens that they do not meet the retailer’s requirements. This can involve damaged packaging that becomes difficult to sell or fruit or vegetables that have become too ripe, where the retailer estimates that not everything can be sold before it spoils. The shop can then choose to return the goods to the wholesaler/producer, often at no cost. To reduce this so-called credit waste, wholesalers and retailers sometimes try to agree on a reduced price, with the retailer attempting to sell off parts of the delivered goods instead of returning them to be discarded. For some shops and goods, crediting is extensive,

R. Ghosh and M. Eriksson. 2019. Food waste due to retail power in supply chains: Evidence from Sweden. Global Food Security, Vol. 20: 1–8.

and what the shops return essentially becomes food waste.

A common reason for waste is the lack of routines around information sharing among producers, distributors, and retailers. The ordering tools developed to help retailers order the right goods are working increasingly better, but the competence and engagement of shop employees also affect how well the tool functions. When products arrive at the shop, waste can be caused by staff lacking good routines for receiving, restocking, and rotating older products so that they are placed at the front. Sometimes, it is due to a lack of knowledge or lack of time to restock shelves from the back.

L. Mattsson and H. Williams. 2022. Avoidance of Supermarket Food Waste—Employees’ Perspective on Causes and Measures to Reduce Fruit and Vegetables Waste. Sustainability, Vol. 14: 10031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610031

The causes of waste in shops also depend on the product category and product level being handled. Considerably more knowledge is needed to handle fruit and vegetables than jars of jam.

C. Teller, C. Holweg, G. Reiner, and H. Kotzab. 2018. Retail store operations and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 185, No. 7: 981-997

There is also an economic trade-off between maintaining fewer working hours in the shop and using more staff time for measures that lead to reduced FLW. However, there is an untapped potential to invest more staff hours in the fruit and vegetable department, with economic profitability around waste reduction.

L. Mattsson, H. Williams, and J. Berghel. 2018. Waste of fresh fruit and vegetables at retailers in Sweden–Measuring and calculation of mass, economic cost and climate impact. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Vol 130: 118–126.

Correct storage of fresh goods at an appropriate temperature is crucial for shelf life. More and more shops have invested in better refrigeration for storage in shops so that sensitive goods are displayed in refrigerated counters. This contributes significantly to waste reduction.

Certain business models can influence the occurrence of waste, for example, when food producers “rent” shelves in the shop and are responsible for filling and clearing them. When different suppliers share the space, no one wants to risk their variety being out of stock when the customer comes to shop, which leads to excessive supply relative to demand. In addition, many shops have marketed a wide selection of fresh bread up until closing time to lure customers to their shop. This business model also means that the shops themselves cannot limit the range and sell off bread with a short date. The model also provides low economic incentives for retail to reduce bread orders. In Norway, it is estimated that 200 loaves are thrown away every minute throughout the year.

Nofima. 2023. Press Release. Every minute, 200 loaves of bread are wasted in Norway. 2023. https://nofima.com/press-release/every-minute-200-loaves-of-bread-are-wasted-in-norway-now-research-that-will-halve-that-number-begins/ (2024-08-14)

Retail seeks various ways to reduce bread waste; for example, different digital solutions have been developed to help shop staff with monitoring and ordering for bread baked in store. One of these solutions is from Link, introduced at the grocery chain Meny, which reduced bread waste by more than one million loaves

Link Retail. One million breads saved in 10 months, at the Norwegian grocery chain MENY. https://linkretail.com/one-million-breads-saved-in-10-months-at-the-norwegian-grocery-chain-meny/ (2024-08-14)

or 34%

European Supermarket Magazine. 2021. Norway’s Meny Cuts Food Waste From Bread by 34%. https://www.esmmagazine.com/fresh-produce/norways-meny-cuts-food-waste-bread-34-148333 (2024-08-14)

in 10 months. They have also communicated to customers that they have a smaller selection of bread in the evenings.

Better forecasts and ordering: Ordering systems have developed significantly, but further development is necessary. FLW should be measured at the product level to enable appropriate measures, and waste in connection with campaigns should be analysed as a matter of priority. Communication with customers needs to explain that products with high waste figures are not in the range.

Better storage: Investments in refrigerated counters make a major difference in reducing waste in retail.

Engagement and leadership: When management focuses on the issue and includes it in the daily follow-up on how the business is going, it helps staff create and maintain engagement in the issue.

Education and trust in staff: Educate staff on how to handle products to reduce waste, and appoint key individuals with extra responsibility and a mandate to reduce waste. This is especially important for departments where waste is particularly high, such as fruit and vegetables. Engage staff in suggesting measures to reduce waste. Give more mandate to staff to lower prices on goods with a short shelf life.

Dynamic pricing: For products approaching their expiration date, the shop can implement price reduction to reduce the risk of waste. When excess fruit or vegetables have been ordered, price reductions can also be used to reduce waste. However, it is important that retail does not use the opportunity to give discounts for additional purchases, as there is then a high risk that the consumer will not have time to consume products with short dates. Therefore, special sections or shelves should be introduced for these products to make them easier to find and encourage consumers to buy them. Substantial discounts in the evening can also reduce waste of in-store baked bread.

Right packaging for the right product: It is particularly important to keep track of how different packaging designs contribute to increased waste or prevent waste in the fruit and vegetable department. It is also about understanding customers and the sizes or quantities they need so that the range is adapted accordingly. For products that are sensitive to pressure, such as pears and avocados, packaging can provide protection and reduce waste in the shop.

Stop or limit the occurrence of campaigns for fresh goods: As mentioned above, campaigns generate FLW both in shops and households. Above all, campaigns on products with a high environmental impact should be avoided, such as meat.

Own kitchen: In larger shops, an in-house kitchen can be considered where products with short dates are prepared and offered as lunch boxes.

Offer food bags in existing digital forums: Examples of this include ToGoodToGo and Karma.

Collaboration with charity organisations: Establish collaboration with charity organisations to donate surplus food that would otherwise be discarded.

Shops can also take measures to reduce waste among consumers: Stop quantity discounts: Quantity discounts are highly likely to drive FLW among consumers, as they buy more than they actually need.

Stop or limit the occurrence of campaigns for fresh goods: As mentioned above, campaigns contribute to consumers buying in excess. Although this area is relatively unexplored, the purpose of campaigns is to attract increased sales. The larger the quantities purchased, the greater the probability that some goods will spoil before they are consumed.

Communication with consumers: Help consumers reduce their FLW. Inform consumers about the difference between the “best before date” and “use by date” to avoid fully edible products being discarded as well as how they can determine how different products are safe to eat. Try to influence the behaviour of squeezing fruits and vegetables in the shop through information. Explain that the shop provides a limited range and does not have in-store baked bread in the evening in an effort to reduce the environmental impact.

Case: REMA 1000

Beginning in 2015, REMA 1000 – a Norwegian grocery chain – has managed to reduce its FLW by 38%. While REMA 1000 did not invent anything revolutionary, it has worked with a variety of measures that together have paid off. It introduced discounts on products approaching their best-before date, tested labels to help consumers interpret freshness and dates, and developed new packaging solutions that increase the shelf life of food products.

While REMA 1000 has stores throughout Norway, in Denmark, it began its journey to stop FLW as early as 2008 alongside the independent organisation Stop Spild Af Mad. Among the first measures was to completely abolish quantity discounts. Since 2015, the company has implemented at least nine strategies to combat FLW. Measures include discounts on goods approaching expiration, using keep-it indicators to monitor food freshness, assigning specific roles in-store to efficiently manage the fruit and vegetable department, and introducing “often good after” labelling. In 2022, REMA 1000 began selling in all its stores leftover bread from the day at half price after 10:00 PM. In addition, the company has donated significant amounts of food to charity; in 2021, it saved 189 tonnes of food, which was sent to food banks. Moreover, the company is working on developing more sustainable packaging to extend the shelf life of food products.

Since REMA 1000 began its efforts, it has decreased FLW by 38%. However, the goal is to reduce its FLW by 50%. It recently introduced new tools and policies to further reduce its FLW. Among other things, it has signed a cooperation agreement with a supplier for the purpose of forecasting and to make better planned purchases to be able to achieve its ambitious goals.

REMA 1000. Mindre Matsvinn.
Read more

Case: REMA 1000

Beginning in 2015, REMA 1000 – a Norwegian grocery chain – has managed to reduce its FLW by 38%. While REMA 1000 did not invent anything revolutionary, it has worked with a variety of measures that together have paid off. It introduced discounts on products approaching their best-before date, tested labels to help consumers interpret freshness and dates, and developed new packaging solutions that increase the shelf life of food products.

While REMA 1000 has stores throughout Norway, in Denmark, it began its journey to stop FLW as early as 2008 alongside the independent organisation Stop Spild Af Mad. Among the first measures was to completely abolish quantity discounts. Since 2015, the company has implemented at least nine strategies to combat FLW. Measures include discounts on goods approaching expiration, using keep-it indicators to monitor food freshness, assigning specific roles in-store to efficiently manage the fruit and vegetable department, and introducing “often good after” labelling. In 2022, REMA 1000 began selling in all its stores leftover bread from the day at half price after 10:00 PM. In addition, the company has donated significant amounts of food to charity; in 2021, it saved 189 tonnes of food, which was sent to food banks. Moreover, the company is working on developing more sustainable packaging to extend the shelf life of food products.

Since REMA 1000 began its efforts, it has decreased FLW by 38%. However, the goal is to reduce its FLW by 50%. It recently introduced new tools and policies to further reduce its FLW. Among other things, it has signed a cooperation agreement with a supplier for the purpose of forecasting and to make better planned purchases to be able to achieve its ambitious goals.

REMA 1000. Mindre Matsvinn.
Read more

After households and agriculture, food service establishments are the third largest generator of FLW in the EU, although the data are still too limited and exist in aggregate form.

I. Katsarova. 2016. Tackling Food Waste. The EU’s Contribution to a Global Issue European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing Paper. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2016)593563 (2024-08-14)

This part of the value chain include actors that purchase food, prepare various meals and serve them to the customers. It could thus include both restaurants serving hot food, as well as cafes. In general, the more one can accurately measure and understand why food is wasted, the better the likelihood of employing appropriate measures for implementation. To do so, one must acknowledge the specific characteristics of restaurants and cafés. Thus, for these actors, it is a lot about balancing the time to measure and act against the already tight schedule in restaurant kitchens and specific demands in terms of food served.

K. Silvennoinen, S. Nisonen and O. Pietiläinen. 2019. Food waste case study and monitoring developing in Finnish food services. Vol. 97: 97-104.

Several factors cause food to be discarded in restaurants. Like waste in public meal operations, FLW in restaurants is divided into three categories: what occurs in the kitchen (kitchen waste), in serving (serving waste), and what is thrown away from the plate (plate waste). Most waste occurs in the kitchen due to excessive purchases, overproduction, and mistakes in handling and preparation. The second most discarded category is plate waste.

Wrap. 2013. Restaurants: Taking Action on Waste. https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2020-10/WRAP-Restaurants.pdf (2024-08-14)

Lack of knowledge is a recurring cause accounted for in the literature. Employees’ lack of experience with different methods and how to handle new menus and recipes affects both kitchen and serving waste. Being able to estimate consumption and make correct orders is also a challenge. Sometimes, FLW is not measured in a systematic and regular way, making it difficult to understand the importance of and where to implement measures to reduce FLW. Within the industry, people prefer not to talk about FLW because there is a belief that it can damage the restaurant’s reputation.

V. Filimonau, E. Todorova, A. Mzembe, L. Sauer and A. Yankholmes. 2020. A comparative study of food waste management in full service restaurants of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 258: 120775.

Customers’ consumption in restaurants also differs from that at home. Restaurant customers are not only at the restaurant to be full but also have expectations about the quality and appearance of the food. The quality of ingredients and products matters; using frozen bread for serving often results in more waste compared to when fresh bread is served. This increases waste in the kitchen because the restaurant only wants to serve what meets customers’ expectations regarding quality, both in terms of taste and appearance. Moreover, studies show that customers often do not notice their own FLW in restaurants because they see it as an exception to everyday consumption.

D. E. Matzembacher, P. Brancoli, L. M. Maia, and M. Eriksson. 2020. Consumer’s food waste in different restaurants configuration: A comparison between different levels of incentive and interaction. Waste Management, Vol. 114: 263-273.

Lack of communication also has a negative impact on waste. For instance, the kitchen may not be informed when customers complain about the food or when they have opinions on portion sizes. Sometimes, the review of expiration dates on different products and those who are to prepare the food with necessary rotation on a first-in-first-out (FIFO) basis does not work as intended. In recent years, consumer demand for special diets has increased. When the kitchen must handle vegan, vegetarian, and meat diets along with requirements for gluten and lactose-free, etc., more waste occurs because it is more difficult to match the servings with the demand.

Planning and purchasing: Plan menus carefully based on expected demand and seasonal ingredients. Use historical data for reservations and consumption to predict the amount of food needed. Use systems to monitor and record FLW at different stages (preparation, serving, guest leftovers). Collaborate with local suppliers to get fresher ingredients that last longer. Negotiate flexible deliveries based on need in order to avoid surpluses or shortages. In some cases, there is an opportunity to buy larger surplus batches from wholesalers, which can reduce FLW at that stage.

Storage: Store food properly to extend shelf life. Use correct temperatures in refrigerators and freezers and use airtight containers for storage. Label and organise ingredients by purchase date to ensure that older products are used first (the FIFO principle). Use apps and software to track inventory and predict needs. Implement systems that help monitor the shelf life of food and send reminders about when and which products need to be used.

Menu planning: Management strategies can affect all three categories of waste in restaurants. Management systems for various kitchen activities, such as ordering, tidiness in the kitchen, documentation, how menus are planned, and how recipes are used and improved. Design menus with dishes that share many of the same ingredients in order to reduce variation and, thus, waste.

Education: Management is important for how employees are trained and can develop and learn about FLW, among other things. Educate staff in the correct handling, storage, and use of food to minimise waste. In addition, chefs should be encouraged to be creative with leftovers and surpluses. For example, create a “dish of the day” with ingredients that need to be used soon.

Communication with guests: Offer different portion sizes to cater to different needs in order to reduce the amount of food left on plates. Inform guests about the restaurant’s efforts to reduce FLW. Offer them the possibility to take their leftovers home.

Donations and composting: Collaborate with charity organisations to donate edible food that would otherwise be discarded. Use composting for food waste that cannot be reused.

Case: Karma

Karma is a Swedish company that has successfully contributed to reducing FLW by connecting consumers with restaurants, cafes, and grocery stores with surplus food to sell. Karma has created a platform where food that would otherwise be thrown away is instead sold at reduced prices. The company provides an app that offers users the opportunity to buy leftover food at discounted prices, which not only reduces FLW but also provides economic benefits for both consumers and sellers. Karma also introduced smart refrigerators in collaboration with Electrolux, making it easier for stores to sell leftover food directly from the refrigerators, further improving user experience and FLW management efficiency.

Since its launch, Karma has gained over 1.4 million users and collaborates with over 9,200 partners. The app has contributed to saving over 1,200 tonnes of food and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 1,800 tonnes. This clearly shows the power of using relatively simple means to connect businesses with consumers in an efficient and smooth solution that can have a significant positive impact on the environment.

By offering a user-friendly platform where consumers can buy high-quality food at discounted prices and thereby reduce FLW, Karma has become a positive example of how technology can be used to promote sustainability and create economic incentives for both consumers and businesses.

SEAL Awards. 2018.
Read more
Read more
Read more

Case: Karma

Karma is a Swedish company that has successfully contributed to reducing FLW by connecting consumers with restaurants, cafes, and grocery stores with surplus food to sell. Karma has created a platform where food that would otherwise be thrown away is instead sold at reduced prices. The company provides an app that offers users the opportunity to buy leftover food at discounted prices, which not only reduces FLW but also provides economic benefits for both consumers and sellers. Karma also introduced smart refrigerators in collaboration with Electrolux, making it easier for stores to sell leftover food directly from the refrigerators, further improving user experience and FLW management efficiency.

Since its launch, Karma has gained over 1.4 million users and collaborates with over 9,200 partners. The app has contributed to saving over 1,200 tonnes of food and reduced carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 1,800 tonnes. This clearly shows the power of using relatively simple means to connect businesses with consumers in an efficient and smooth solution that can have a significant positive impact on the environment.

By offering a user-friendly platform where consumers can buy high-quality food at discounted prices and thereby reduce FLW, Karma has become a positive example of how technology can be used to promote sustainability and create economic incentives for both consumers and businesses.

SEAL Awards. 2018.
Read more
Read more
Read more

Public meals include professionally prepared and cooked food. Such meals are being served to a heterogeneous population, including schools, elderly care and hospital care. The servings could be both in the setting of a restaurant or cantina, or at home for people receiving meals through public meal programmes.

FLW in public meal operations, as in restaurants, is often divided into three categories: what occurs in the kitchen (kitchen waste), in serving (serving waste), and what is thrown away from the plate (plate waste).

Kitchen waste: This is the FLW that occurs in the kitchen in connection with the preparation, cooking, and storage of food. The food that is prepared and served is planned based on an estimate of how many will eat and their specific nutritional and energy needs. Kitchen waste is affected by the work in the kitchen itself and is lower than serving and plate waste. It is difficult to plan how much food will be eaten in preschools, schools, and nursing homes. How many students will reject today’s menu and go to the café instead? Which of today’s dishes will be the most popular? The more dishes offered, the more raw materials need to be kept in stock, and the greater the risk that a less popular dish will be left over.

Serving waste: Waste that occurs in connection with food being served is called serving waste. Shouldn't the food run out, but should be enough for everyone in a school, nursing home, etc., it is inevitable that there will be food left over. Some of what is left over may be used the next day; other food is discarded. Forecasting is an effective way of reducing serving waste.

C. Malefors, N. Sundin, M. Tromp, and M. Eriksson.  2022. Testing interventions to reduce food waste in school catering, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 177: 105997.

When food is not eaten up in schools or nursing homes, it may be because the estimate of the number of people present for that day does not match the actual number or that those who are supposed to eat have not eaten the portion they need, which has consequences for health and quality of life. In a Finnish study, FLW was measured in 51 operations, including schools, preschools, and workplace and student canteens, all of which used buffets to serve food. In all, 17.5% of the food produced became waste, and serving waste proved to be the most significant waste category (11.3%).

K. Silvennoinen, S. Nisonen and O. Pietiläinen. 2019. Food waste case study and monitoring developing in Finnish food services. Waste Management, Vol. 97: 97–104.

Plate waste: Food is also left on plates when guests have not enjoyed it or simply too much ended up on the plate, so-called plate waste. For public meals, more places seem to offer buffets than other establishments.

L. Heikkilä, A. Reinikainen, J.M. Katajajuuri, K. Silvennoinen, H. Hartikainen. 2016. Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector, Waste Management, Vol. 56: 446-453.

Buffets increase the risk of guests taking too much food and having to discard the surplus; however, set portion sizes dished out by staff can mean that some guests do not manage to eat everything. Other reasons may involve problems keeping a buffet attractive throughout the serving time, which leads to overproduction.

K. Silvennoinen, S. Nisonen and O. Pietiläinen. 2019. Food waste case study and monitoring developing in Finnish food services. Waste Management, Vol. 97: 97–104.

In schools, the extent of FLW depends on children’s age, crowding in the dining hall, and overproduction.

H. Steen, C. Malefors, E. Röös, and M. Eriksson. 2018 Identification and modelling of risk factors for food waste generation in school and pre-school catering units. Waste Management, Vol. 77: 172–184.

Staff work routines and knowledge are embedded in the social and material context, which means that one must consider the entire system in order to effectively identify and implement waste reduction measures. This includes understanding how the work environment, team dynamics, education, and physical resources interact and affect each other.

B. Hennchen. 2019. Knowing the kitchen: Applying practice theory to issues of food waste in the food service sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 225: 675–683.

In elderly care, as much food is prepared as the diet managers think the elderly should eat from a nutritional point of view. Nevertheless, for many reasons, the elderly often have poor appetites and eat considerably less than planned. In elderly care, pre-prepared meal boxes are sometimes delivered to the kitchens of the elderly and can be perceived as containing too much food, resulting in significant FLW.

Much of the FLW occurs due to lack of engagement and time. Employees in the restaurant industry and elderly care environments often receive low wages, have little professional education, and are too rarely involved in enacting waste reduction measures. Furthermore, staff turnover is often high, making it difficult to maintain work with various routines for measuring and reducing waste. Today, an increasing number of large-scale kitchens follow up and measure preparation and plate waste, and many schools have managed to reduce FLW.

Planning and purchasing: Plan menus carefully based on expected demand and seasonal or local ingredients. Use historical consumption data to predict the amount of food needed. Implement a system to record FLW in different parts of the operation (preparation, serving, guest leftovers). Introduce data systems where the kitchen receives daily updates on the number of students present in school. Simple measurement methods are crucial because measurements are otherwise abandoned during hectic periods. In addition, continuous feedback is needed to maintain employee motivation. Measurement results can be visibly displayed in the kitchens to maintain motivation. Collaborate with local suppliers to get fresher ingredients that last longer.

Storage: Store food properly to extend shelf life. Use correct temperatures in refrigerators and freezers and use airtight containers for storage. Label and organise ingredients by purchase date to ensure older products are used first (the FIFO principle). Use apps and software to track what is in stock. Implement systems that help monitor food shelf life and send reminders when products need to be used.

Menu planning: Management strategies can affect all three categories of waste in the operation. Management systems need to be in place for various kitchen activities, such as ordering, tidiness in the kitchen, documentation, how menus are planned, and how recipes are used and improved. Design menus with dishes that do not result in significant waste.

Education: Management play an important role in making sure that employees are trained and can develop in their daily operations. Staff should be educated in the planning, correct handling, storage, and use of food in order to minimise waste. In addition, chefs should be encouraged to be creative with leftovers and surpluses and create dishes with ingredients that need to be used soon. To effectively reduce FLW, staff engagement and motivation are crucial. To control FLW over time, one needs to ensure that the chosen methods are integrated into the usual routines so that they are not perceived as time-consuming.

Communication with guests: Guests should be informed about the food, where it comes from, and the value of the food. Inform guests about efforts to reduce FLW. Campaigns are effective tools for reducing plate waste in school canteens.

Donation and composting: Collaborate with charity organisations to donate edible food that would otherwise be discarded. Use composting for food waste that cannot be reused.

Purchase of goods with cosmetic flaws: Public kitchens can contribute to reducing waste upstream in the value chain of goods with cosmetic flaws, for example, “ugly fruits”. A coordinated purchasing channel for public kitchens would facilitate this measure.

Meal boxes: Surplus food can be sold in meal boxes, for example to the staff.

Case: Eura

The city has implemented a number of changes in its operations by investing in FLW reduction. In 2022, it conducted a pilot project at one of the municipality’s primary schools, Kiukainen, which yielded good results and generated great interest.

The school managed to reduce plate waste by 73% by, among other things, encouraging students to take only what they can eat and return for more if needed. Unnecessary food orders have decreased, and feedback on menu planning has increased. The project’s success is about working with attitudes, engagement, and collaboration.

Informational material has been produced about FLW and its environmental impact, which has influenced the school community. Because of the project, increased and open communication and information sharing have improved communication between schools and the central kitchen, yielding concrete results. Furthermore, the involvement of teachers and students in food service has strengthened collaboration. The municipality now strives for even broader participation from other schools and food service locations within the municipality.

Eura’s Food Waste Reduction Project: Achievements and Future Perspectives in Satakunta, Finland. 2024.
Read more

Case: Eura

The city has implemented a number of changes in its operations by investing in FLW reduction. In 2022, it conducted a pilot project at one of the municipality’s primary schools, Kiukainen, which yielded good results and generated great interest.

The school managed to reduce plate waste by 73% by, among other things, encouraging students to take only what they can eat and return for more if needed. Unnecessary food orders have decreased, and feedback on menu planning has increased. The project’s success is about working with attitudes, engagement, and collaboration.

Informational material has been produced about FLW and its environmental impact, which has influenced the school community. Because of the project, increased and open communication and information sharing have improved communication between schools and the central kitchen, yielding concrete results. Furthermore, the involvement of teachers and students in food service has strengthened collaboration. The municipality now strives for even broader participation from other schools and food service locations within the municipality.

Eura’s Food Waste Reduction Project: Achievements and Future Perspectives in Satakunta, Finland. 2024.
Read more

Case: Gothenburg Model

The Gothenburg model is a method developed on behalf of the Måltid Göteborg Group to reduce FLW in the public kitchens of Gothenburg. The model was introduced in January 2017 and has proven to be a powerful method for reducing both serving and kitchen waste. In just two years, the city of Gothenburg managed to halve its FLW from about 30 grams per portion to 15 grams per portion, corresponding to a reduction of over one million portions per year.

The implementation of the Gothenburg model involved extensive training of kitchen staff. Over 500 kitchens and 1,143 employees were trained, resulting in a significant reduction in FLW. A key to success was creating concrete, practical instructions that were easy to follow. The model included measures such as better menu planning, portion calculation, adapting meals to attendance, and proper storage of leftovers.

The model emphasises the importance of regularly measuring FLW to be able to follow up and adjust measures. By the end of the project, 95% of kitchens measured their FLW daily. This systematic measurement made it possible to identify and address specific problem areas. For example, it turned out that serving waste accounted for 80% of total FLW, while kitchen waste accounted for 20%.

Not only has the Gothenburg model had a positive impact locally, it has also inspired other municipalities and institutions around Sweden. The National Food Agency now plans to develop a national initiative based on this model, which will further spread these effective methods to reduce FLW across the country. The goal is to include more aspects, such as plate waste, and to adapt the methods for different types of public meals.

By reducing FLW, Gothenburg has not only contributed to a more sustainable environment but has also made significant economic savings. This shows how systematic and well-organised food management can lead to significant improvements both economically and environmentally.

Göteborgs Stad. 2022. Göteborgsmodellen för mindre matsvinn.
Read more

Livsmedelsverket. 2020. Handbok för minskat matsvinn – för verksamheter inom vård, skola och omsorg.
Read more

E. Backlund and K. Östergren. 2020. Implementering och resultat av Göteborgsmodellen för mindre matsvinn. RISE Rapport 2020:24.
Read more

Case: Gothenburg Model

The Gothenburg model is a method developed on behalf of the Måltid Göteborg Group to reduce FLW in the public kitchens of Gothenburg. The model was introduced in January 2017 and has proven to be a powerful method for reducing both serving and kitchen waste. In just two years, the city of Gothenburg managed to halve its FLW from about 30 grams per portion to 15 grams per portion, corresponding to a reduction of over one million portions per year.

The implementation of the Gothenburg model involved extensive training of kitchen staff. Over 500 kitchens and 1,143 employees were trained, resulting in a significant reduction in FLW. A key to success was creating concrete, practical instructions that were easy to follow. The model included measures such as better menu planning, portion calculation, adapting meals to attendance, and proper storage of leftovers.

The model emphasises the importance of regularly measuring FLW to be able to follow up and adjust measures. By the end of the project, 95% of kitchens measured their FLW daily. This systematic measurement made it possible to identify and address specific problem areas. For example, it turned out that serving waste accounted for 80% of total FLW, while kitchen waste accounted for 20%.

Not only has the Gothenburg model had a positive impact locally, it has also inspired other municipalities and institutions around Sweden. The National Food Agency now plans to develop a national initiative based on this model, which will further spread these effective methods to reduce FLW across the country. The goal is to include more aspects, such as plate waste, and to adapt the methods for different types of public meals.

By reducing FLW, Gothenburg has not only contributed to a more sustainable environment but has also made significant economic savings. This shows how systematic and well-organised food management can lead to significant improvements both economically and environmentally.

Göteborgs Stad. 2022. Göteborgsmodellen för mindre matsvinn.
Read more

Livsmedelsverket. 2020. Handbok för minskat matsvinn – för verksamheter inom vård, skola och omsorg.
Read more

E. Backlund and K. Östergren. 2020. Implementering och resultat av Göteborgsmodellen för mindre matsvinn. RISE Rapport 2020:24.
Read more

The largest proportion of FLW in wealthy countries occurs in households. This include all the individuals and families that buy food from retailers to prepare the meals at home. The FLW in this stage of the chain is particularly problematic from an environmental perspective because food has a higher environmental impact after processing, packaging, and distribution than earlier in the value chain.  

FLW in households is a complex and multifaceted problem

K. Schanes, k. Dobernig, and B. Gözet. 2018. Food waste matters–A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 182: 978–991.

that arises from a mix of personal values, knowledge, cooking experience, and interaction with situations and contexts.

J. Aschemann-Witzel, L. Randers, and S. Pedersen. 2022. Retail or consumer responsibility?—Reflections on food waste and food prices among deal-prone consumers and market actors. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3202

One explanation for the perceived lack of value in food may be that it has long been relatively cheap.

J. Aschemann-Witzel, I. de Hooge, P. Amani, T. Bech-Larsen, and M. Oostindjer. 2015. Consumer-Related Food Waste: Causes and Potential for Action. Sustainability, Vol. 7: 6457–6477. http://doi.org/10.3390/su7066457

In recent decades, households have assigned an increasingly smaller part of their disposable income on food.

Jordbruksverket. 2017. Jordbruket i siffror. https://jordbruketisiffror.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/hushallen-lagger-mer-pengar-pa-mat-samtidigt-som-matens-andel-av-den-totala-konsumtionen-minskar/ (2024-08-14)

Low prices may have influenced consumers against valuing food enough to take good care of it.

At the same time, there has long been a strong focus on low comparison prices, both from retailers and consumer organisations. This has led, among other things, to many people buying more in bulk packs, which is cheaper per kilogram of food. The result is clear: we buy more than we need, which leads to FLW.

Packaging design plays a significant role in the waste generated in the household. In a pioneering study, the of waste in households due to packaging was estimated to be around 50%.

H. Williams, J. Trischler, F. Wikström, and Z. Rowe. 2020. Avoiding Food Becoming Waste in Households – The role of packaging in consumers´ practices across different food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 265.

There is great potential to reduce FLW if consumers become more aware of the role of packaging and there is improvement around design.

A. Halloran, J. Clement, N. Kornum, C. Bucatariu, and J. Magid. 2014. Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, Vol. 49, Part 1: 294–301.

The two important ways of doing this is through the quantity per package and communication around date marking. The environmental impact of packaging needs to be balanced against the environmental impact of the FLW it prevents.

The focus of authorities on information campaigns or increasing awareness about FLW has failed to produce any meaningful results, as information and awareness alone do not target the daily practices of households that generate FLW. More knowledge about the problem has not led to changes in the practice itself, which is interconnected with the context and other activities in everyday life.

M. Hebrok and N. Heidenstrøm. 2019. Contextualising food waste prevention–Decisive moments within everyday practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 210: 1435–1448.

Hebrok and Heidenstrøm (2019) highlighted five practices that seem to be particularly significant in generating FLW: (1) lack of planning for purchases and meals; (2) storage that causes FLW; (3) deficiencies in assessing food quality and safety; (4) deficiencies in perceptions of food value; (5) difficulty finding opportunities for use and portion sizes.

M. Hebrok and N. Heidenstrøm. 2019. Contextualising food waste prevention–Decisive moments within everyday practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 210: 1435–1448.

Too few consumers take the time needed to plan what to serve, what to purchase, and how to handle leftovers.

M. Canali, P. Amani, L. Aramyanl, M. Gheoldus, and G. Moates. 2017. Food waste drivers in Europe, from identification to possible interventions. Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 1: 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010037

Even with good planning, there are factors that can affect whether there is waste or not. Some families strive to eat healthier and therefore buy more fresh fruit and vegetables than they actually consume. A relatively common phenomenon is that the person cooking the food may have an attitude that the table should never run out of food. This means that they often prepare more than is needed, which increases the risk of FLW. This is especially true when hosting guests.

It is sometimes difficult to plan meals for an entire family where both needs and taste preferences can look very different as well as change over time. In many families with small children, it can be a challenge to get them to eat the same foods as adults. Furthermore, teenagers tend to acquire new insights, and their interests can change how they want to eat if, for example, they embark on strength training and want to eat a lot of protein or when someone becomes aware of deficiencies in our animal handling and wants to be vegan. If in addition some in the family are sensitive to lactose or gluten and everyone works a great deal and has different commitments in the evening, it become complex and perhaps stressful to develop strategies for reduced FLW. If different dishes are cooked to satisfy everyone’s preferences, there is increased risk that food in opened packages and leftovers are forgotten in the overcrowded refrigerator. Individuals testify that leftovers sometimes end up in the freezer and are forgotten until they are discarded during the next freezer cleaning. Others have neither the desire nor the energy to take care of the leftovers, which are thrown directly into the garbage or compost bag. Some give the leftovers to their pets, which reduces the incentives to reduce FLW.

Some families live an “every-other-week life”, making it challenging to plan and adjust between weeks. One parent may suddenly have three flavours of yoghurt to consume or too many bananas that were not consumed when the children were there. Adjusting cooking to larger quantities one week and then cooking for a single person can be challenging, as much of the shopping and cooking are based on habit. Even when children move out, many testify to a long adjustment period to learn the new conditions. However, despite the difficulties of keeping together different wishes in a family, it is usually single households that throw away the most per capita.

J. Jörissen, C. Priefer, and K.-R. Bräutigam. 2015. Food waste generation at household level: Results of a Survey among Employees of Two European Research Centers in Italy and Germany. Sustainability, Vol. 7, No. 3: 2695–2715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032695

Another common reason for food being discarded is that consumers misinterpret the best-before date and discard products as soon as the date has passed. Too few have the knowledge and courage to use their senses to determine whether the food is edible. Knowledge about when food is edible is usually a better attribute among older generations, who also throw away less food per person on average.

Planning: Planning the week’s meals, checking what is already at home, and then creating a shopping list of what to buy are all central to reducing FLW.

The right amount from the store: If more food is bought than needed, the risk is obvious that some will be discarded. Buy the amounts that are actually used. It may be better to buy smaller package sizes even if they are more expensive per kilo because food that is not used and is discarded also means wasted money. One should avoid having too much fresh food at home, as these have a shorter shelf life. Proximity to stores also plays a big role in being able to buy smaller amounts more often.

Buying products with a close expiration date: Buying products with a close expiration date and at a reduced price helps the store reduce its waste and is good for the wallet, provided there is some flexibility in cooking so that the waste is not moved from the store to the household.

Proper storage of food: When food is stored properly, its shelf life is extended. Many foods last much longer at 4 degrees in the refrigerator than at 8 degrees. At the same time, some fruits and vegetables are damaged by overly low temperatures. It is important to acquire information about optimal storage temperature. It is easy for food to be left for too long in both the refrigerator and freezer. It is an important routine to regularly go through and use what is there.

Eating what has been bought: The amount of food cooked can be adjusted so that it always runs out, and bread and salad can be used as additions so that everyone is satisfied. Alternatively, there are ways of making use of leftovers. It is often the case that more vegetable parts can be used, for example, broccoli stems. Many parts of fruits and vegetables that are discarded can instead be used in cooking.

Use of leftovers: Plan to use generated leftovers for new meals. Vegetables that are starting to look unappealing can be used in stews; fruits can be used for smoothies; and much can be mixed in an omelette. Today, there are plenty of websites or apps that offer recipes based on ingredients you have at home. Store leftovers in a good place in the refrigerator so that they become visible and are not easily forgotten. If there are some leftovers during a week, a leftover day can be introduced when all leftovers are brought out.

Curiosity: Curiosity about what is discarded and why might be important. Noting and measuring one’s waste certainly arouses thoughts about which behaviours should be changed to reduce waste. The same is true in terms of reflecting on the value of food from an economic and resource perspective as well as in terms of the work effort behind getting the food. If there is respect for food, respectful behaviour often follows automatically. Knowledge is of course invaluable, primarily in terms of understanding the difference between the “best before” and “use by” dates, and one can taste and smell products with “best before” dates to determine whether the food is safe to eat.

Waste: FLW that still occurs should be submitted to the municipality’s collection of organic waste or composted so that the nutrients in the food can return to the soil.

Case: Frísskápur

Frísskápur is an Icelandic initiative aimed at reducing FLW whilst strengthening the local community. The initiative is part of a larger international community called FREEdge. The Icelandic initiative was started by Kamila Walijewska and Marco Pizzolato, who had previously been involved in other food-related sustainability projects. During the pandemic, they saw an increased need to manage FLW locally and, therefore, created Fredge, a communal refrigerator placed outside Andrými in Reykjavik, where anyone could come and collect or donate food at any time.

Frísskápur functions as a place where fresh produce, packaged goods, and even homemade dishes (properly labelled with dates and contents) can be shared. By providing a place for both individuals and local businesses to donate surplus food, Frísskápur contributes to reducing the amount of food that would otherwise have been discarded. The initiative has quickly become popular and received a positive reception, with over 7,700 members on a dedicated Facebook page that acts as the hub for the refrigerators, where active members can post and share updates when new items are available for collection.

This initiative inspires awareness and responsibility regarding FLW and promotes a culture of sharing and sustainability. Kamila and Marco hope that similar projects will emerge across Iceland, which would help reduce FLW on a larger scale and create stronger communities. Their work demonstrates how local and community-driven solutions can play a crucial role in reducing FLW.

Iceland Review. 2021. “We Take Food for Granted”: New Community Fridge Opens in Reykjavík.
Read more

Grapevine.is. 2022. Making Food Waste a Thing of The Past.
Read more

Case: Frísskápur

Frísskápur is an Icelandic initiative aimed at reducing FLW whilst strengthening the local community. The initiative is part of a larger international community called FREEdge. The Icelandic initiative was started by Kamila Walijewska and Marco Pizzolato, who had previously been involved in other food-related sustainability projects. During the pandemic, they saw an increased need to manage FLW locally and, therefore, created Fredge, a communal refrigerator placed outside Andrými in Reykjavik, where anyone could come and collect or donate food at any time.

Frísskápur functions as a place where fresh produce, packaged goods, and even homemade dishes (properly labelled with dates and contents) can be shared. By providing a place for both individuals and local businesses to donate surplus food, Frísskápur contributes to reducing the amount of food that would otherwise have been discarded. The initiative has quickly become popular and received a positive reception, with over 7,700 members on a dedicated Facebook page that acts as the hub for the refrigerators, where active members can post and share updates when new items are available for collection.

This initiative inspires awareness and responsibility regarding FLW and promotes a culture of sharing and sustainability. Kamila and Marco hope that similar projects will emerge across Iceland, which would help reduce FLW on a larger scale and create stronger communities. Their work demonstrates how local and community-driven solutions can play a crucial role in reducing FLW.

Iceland Review. 2021. “We Take Food for Granted”: New Community Fridge Opens in Reykjavík.
Read more

Grapevine.is. 2022. Making Food Waste a Thing of The Past.
Read more

Case: Fiksuruoka

The founder of Fiksuruoka worked in logistics for many years and began thinking about how to address the significant level of FLW in all sectors. The founder focused on consumers and wanted to make it as easy as possible for them to reduce FLW. Fiksuruoka purchases products from wholesalers and food manufacturers. The purchased products are typically those that would otherwise be discarded because (1) there is an approaching best-before date, (2) the product may have been removed from the range, or (3) the packaging may have changed in some way. The company then offers the products in an online shop, where customers choose and pay. The order is then delivered to the customer’s doorstep.

Together with its customers, Fiksuruoka has reduced FLW by 4.5 million kilograms. In four years, the company grew to a turnover of €12 million.

Fiksuruoka Brings Surplus Food to People’s Doorsteps. 2021.
Read more

Case: Fiksuruoka

The founder of Fiksuruoka worked in logistics for many years and began thinking about how to address the significant level of FLW in all sectors. The founder focused on consumers and wanted to make it as easy as possible for them to reduce FLW. Fiksuruoka purchases products from wholesalers and food manufacturers. The purchased products are typically those that would otherwise be discarded because (1) there is an approaching best-before date, (2) the product may have been removed from the range, or (3) the packaging may have changed in some way. The company then offers the products in an online shop, where customers choose and pay. The order is then delivered to the customer’s doorstep.

Together with its customers, Fiksuruoka has reduced FLW by 4.5 million kilograms. In four years, the company grew to a turnover of €12 million.

Fiksuruoka Brings Surplus Food to People’s Doorsteps. 2021.
Read more