Content uploaded by Niina Sundin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Niina Sundin on Apr 01, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mattias Eriksson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mattias Eriksson on Apr 01, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability assessment of surplus food donation: A transfer system
generating environmental, economic, and social values
Niina Sundin
a,
⁎, Louise Bartek
a
, Christine Persson Osowski
b
, Ingrid Strid
a
, Mattias Eriksson
a
a
Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7032, Uppsala 75007, Sweden
b
Department of Public Health Sciences, Mälardalen University, Sweden
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 28 December 2022
Received in revised form 19 March 2023
Accepted 23 March 2023
Available online 30 March 2023
Editor: Prof. Piera Centobelli
Retailers' food waste, often consisting of edible food, could be reduced, while simultaneously tackling food inse-
curity, through surplus food donations to vulnerable groups. However, sustainability assessments of food dona-
tions covering all three sustainability perspectives are scarce, hampering decision-makers in prioritizing
donation asa food waste managementmeasure. This Swedish case study assessed the environmental,economic,
and socialaspects of surplusfood donation and examined trade-offs betweenthe different sustainability perspec-
tives. Methods included life cycle assessment,net economic benefit calculation,social life cycle assessment based
on food security questionnaires, and nutritional assessments.The results showed that fooddonation was a way to
reduce food waste benefitting the environment and adding economic and social value, to vulnerable people in
particular. Despite substantial rebound effects offsetting some potential environmental savings, food bag dona-
tions outcompeted anaerobic digestion as a foodwaste managementoption in terms of environmentalmitigation
effect. Regarding trade-offs, accrued savings causing the rebound effects generatedimportant social value for the
donation recipients, by relieving their personal finances. Private and public investment was required to fund the
donation units, but positive economicvalue was generated through valorization of surplus food. Food bag dona-
tions also showed potential to alleviate recipients' food insecurity and to contribute positively torecipients' nu-
trition intake. To realizethe potential of surplus food donation, policy measures should be better aligned with the
waste hierarchy. Despite some trade-offs and inability to solve the underlying problems of food insecurity, food
donations have great short-term potential to contribute to a more sustainable society.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open
access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords:
Food waste management
Life cycle assessment
Rebound effect
Food security
Food rescue
Nutrition
1. Introduction
Despite the ambition to halve global food waste set out by United
Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, unacceptable levels
of food continue to be wasted worldwide, while global food insecurity is
increasing due to Covid-19, climate change, conflicts, and economic
shocks (UNEP, 2021;United Nations, 2022). Consumer wastage is re-
portedly more pervasive than previously believed, amounting to
930 million tons of food waste globally in 2019 (UNEP, 2021). The
vast amounts of food wastage become even more striking, given thein-
creasing number of people living in food insecurity. In 2021, a stagger-
ing 2.3 billion people suffered from food insecurity and 828 million
people faced hunger globally, a devastating setback to the goal of zero
hunger by 2030 (United Nations, 2022).
Access to adequate food is a basic human right (United Nations,
2010). A general assumption is that food insecurity does not exist in
high-welfare countries such as Sweden, due to their affluent living stan-
dards and social security systems. However, in 2020, 8.6 % of people in
the European Union (EU) were unable to afford a proper meal
(Eurostat, 2022). In the United Kingdom (UK), 6 % of the population
were living in food poverty in 2021 (Francis-Devine et al., 2022). In
Sweden, a recent survey showed that 1.9 % of its population did not al-
ways have enough food to eat (Borch and Kjærnes, 2016). Increasing at-
risk-of-poverty rate and a widening income gap were also reported in
2019 (SCB, 2019). In 2022, increasing food prices and inflation caused
an explosive increase in demand for food donations in Sweden
(Grönberg, 2022). Meanwhile, a vast amount of food waste is generated
in Sweden, both as metabolic food waste, i.e. due to overeating
(0.5 million tons/year) (Sundin et al., 2021), and through food dis-
cards (1.1 million tons/year) (Hultén et al., 2022). Approximately
Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: niina.sundin@slu.se (N. Sundin), louise.bartek@slu.se (L. Bartek),
christine.persson.osowski@mdu.se (C. Persson Osowski), ingrid.strid@slu.se (I. Strid),
mattias.eriksson@slu.se (M. Eriksson).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.03.022
2352-5509/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by ElsevierLtd on behalf of Institution of ChemicalEngineers. This is an openaccess article underthe CC BYlicense(http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Sustainable Production and Consumption
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc
100,000 tons of discarded food waste are generated annually by retail
alone (Hultén et al., 2022).
While retailers are responsible for a minor fraction of overall food
waste (e.g. 5 % in the EU, 9 % in Sweden), they are considered a key
contributor as their food waste consists of unsellable, but often edible,
food (Brancoli et al., 2019;Eriksson et al., 2014;Hultén et al., 2022).
One way to reduce this type of food waste, and simultaneously tackle
food insecurity, is surplus food donation to people in need, which is
well-aligned with the waste hierarchy advocated by the EU (European
Commission, 2017). According to the waste hierarchy, surplus food re-
distribution to people in need is the next best option after food waste
prevention (where potential surplus food is never produced, thereby
saving resources and energy). However, most food waste around the
globe is still treated using low-priority options such as incineration
(11 %), or landfill and dumping (70 %) (Sabour et al., 2020). There is
an increasing trend for retailers to followthe waste hierarchy, prioritiz-
ing food waste reduction and redistribution (Huang et al., 2021), but
only a fraction of edible surplus food is redistributed. The proportion
of donated surplus food within overall food waste was 4 % in the
United States (US) in 2021 and 3 % in the UK in 2020 (Feeding
America, 2022;WRAP, 2021). In Sweden, the fraction of donated food
is even smaller, e.g. 4500 tons or only 0.4 % of overall food waste
in 2021 (Lunde Dinesen, personal communication, 2022). The goal
in Sweden is to increase the amount of donated surplus food to
10,000 tons/year by 2025 (IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet, 2022).
Attempts have been made to stimulate food waste management ac-
tivities, such as surplus food donation, through regulatory and policy
measures. Guidelines for food donation were implemented in the EU
in 2017, but their execution differs significantly between member states
(Deloitte et al., 2020;European Commission, 2017). Fiscal incentives,
such as VAT exemptions and tax deductions, are more popular mea-
sures. However, Sweden is lagging behind in fiscal incentives and is
not aligned with the waste hierarchy, as its political ambition is to fur-
ther increase anaerobic digestion of waste (Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency, 2022). This is a response to the waste as a resource
narrative in the EU, which has turned attention from waste prevention
to renewable energy production technology such as anaerobic digestion
(Hultman and Corvellec, 2012). The preference for biogas production
over food donation has also been attributed to the framing of food loss
and waste as a waste issue in environmental and economic perspec-
tives, but neglecting the social perspective (Johansson, 2021).
Surplus food donations are mainly a focus of food waste prevention
policies, and it can thus be assumed that surplus donations are of great
benefit. However, only a few studies have evaluated the sustainability
impacts of food donations, with the economic and social dimensions,
in particular, remaining unscrutinized (Albizzati et al., 2019;
Bergström et al., 2020). The aim of the present casestudy was to bridge
this knowledge gap by assessing the environmental, economic, and so-
cial aspects of surplus food donation operations located in Uppsala,
Sweden, thus providing a holistic view of the various values generated
by food donation, including possible trade-offs between the three
aspects of sustainability.
2. Literature review
A considerable body of scientific evidence supports a shift toward
sustainable food systems for both human and planetary health
(Springmann et al., 2018). In efforts to achieve this, halving global
food waste is considered key (Willett et al., 2019). Food production is
resource-intensive, requiring water, land, energy, labor, and capital,
and thus wasting food means wasting these input resources. Food
waste accounts for approximately 10 % of global greenhouse gas emis-
sions (GHGE) (WWF-UK, 2021). For example, food that is lost and
wasted occupies approximately 30 % of agricultural land area and ac-
counts for 38 % of total energy usage in the global food system (United
Nations, 2022). In addition, the most commonly used food waste
management, landfill, is a major source of GHGE (Kormi et al., 2018).
Food losses and waste also have negative impacts on food security,
availability, and affordability, in terms of meeting sufficient caloric
needs, sufficient nutrition, and meeting the need for healthy diets for
the existing and growing world population (Kufuor et al., 2018). There-
fore, the total environmental, economic, and social implications of
global food waste come at a tremendous annual cost of 2.6 trillion
USD (FAO, 2014).
Studies on the environmental implications of food waste prevention,
the highest priority in the waste hierarchy, report significant emission
reductions (Redlingshöfer et al., 2020;Obersteiner et al., 2021). The re-
duction is especially great when waste prevention is compared with
lower-priority food waste management options, such as anaerobic di-
gestion, composting, or incineration (Bernstad Saraiva Schott and
Andersson, 2015;Oldfield et al., 2016;Eriksson et al., 2015). However,
studies assessing the lower-priority options in the waste hierarchy are
much more common (Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2012;Mondello
et al., 2017). Previous research has thus focused on choosing the
best food waste treatment method, rather than waste prevention
(Redlingshöfer et al., 2020).
In the waste hierarchy, food re-use for human consumption, and re-
use for animal feed, lie between prevention andlower hierarchy options
such as anaerobic digestion. Salemdeeb et al. (2017b) assessed animal
feed in comparison with composting and anaerobic digestion, and
confirmed its higher ranking in the waste hierarchy. On assessing the
environmental benefits of re-using potato protein side-streams, Bartek
et al. (2022) found that producing food instead of feed reduced the en-
vironmental impact and caused less damage to ecosystems. Albizzati
et al. (2021) found that food waste prevention followed by redistribu-
tion was the best valorization pathway to manage food waste. However,
similarly to Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2016), they pointed out that the
expected environmental benefits may not be realized if economic sav-
ings from food waste prevention and redistribution lead to additional
consumption that is high in emissions. The trade-offs mediated by re-
bound effects have been extensively investigated in terms of energy ef-
ficiency improvements (Sorrell and Dimitropoulos, 2007). However,
only a few studies have considered rebound effects in assessing food
waste management options (Albizzati et al., 2022;Sundin et al., 2022),
although rebound effects can arise if measures lead to reduced costs
for actors in the food chain (Reynolds et al., 2019). Studies investigating
household food waste prevention have found substantial rebound ef-
fects, ranging between 57 % and 78 % (Hagedorn and Wilts, 2019;
Lekve Bjelle et al., 2018;Salemdeeb et al., 2017a).
As in household food waste prevention, rebound effects may arise
when redistributing surplus food if recipients of donated food (hereaf-
ter simply ‘recipients’) accrue monetary savings. Rebound effects asso-
ciated with food donation have been reported to offset 51 % of the
potential GHGE savings, although the climate benefitoffooddonation
still outweighs the climate benefit of anaerobic digestion (Sundin
et al., 2022). Several studies investigating surplus food donation
compared with redistribution initiatives have found that surplus food
donations achieve higher GHGE reductions than initiatives such as
reprocessing or waste management (Bergström et al., 2020;Eriksson
and Spångberg, 2017;Moult et al., 2018). However, those studies did
not include rebound effects, which would likely reduce the reported
benefits.
The majority of studiesto date have focused on GHGE in their envi-
ronmental assessments, essentially confirming emission savings in the
order of the waste hierarchy, but fewer studies have included several
environmental impact categories. Brancoli et al. (2020) included 18 im-
pact categories in their investigation of surplus bread donation and con-
cluded that anaerobic digestion and incineration offered the lowest
environmental savings, particularly in a low-impact energy system.
Similarly, a study comparing food donation to lower hierarchy options
concluded that donation generated significant environmental benefits
as long as food rescue processes were run efficiently (Damiani et al.,
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
42
2021). Further, Albizzati et al. (2019) found that anaerobic digestion
and incineration were outcompeted in an environmental and economic
perspective by surplus food redistribution and use-as-feed.
Sustainability comprises the three-pillar concept of environmental,
social, and economic sustainability, also integrated into life cycle assess-
ment (LCA) methodology (Purvis et al., 2019). Complete sustainability
assessments, including all three perspectives, on surplus food donation
are scarce, as most studies have focused on the environmental or eco-
nomic aspects (Hecht and Neff, 2019). Further, a standardized approach
to sustainability assessment has been lacking (Caldeira et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, existing studies suggest promising effects, such as posi-
tive return on investment, decreased environmental burden, large
quantities of food rescued, and high stakeholder satisfaction (Caldeira
et al., 2019;Hecht and Neff, 2019;Reynolds et al., 2015). Among the
few complete sustainability assessments conducted on redistribution,
Albizzati et al. (2021) found that food waste prevention followed by re-
distribution was thebest pathway to manage food wasteacross all three
pillars of sustainability, wherea s Bergström et al. (2020), who compared
different redistribution initiatives such as food bag donation and soup
kitchens, concluded that these initiatives had different areas of strength
in terms of sustainability.
In the literature, social sustainability has received the least atten-
tion, although the social benefits of food donation are likely to be of
high relevance to recipients in particular. Social impact indicators
suggested in the evaluation framework for surplus food redistribu-
tion include number of meals donated, jobs created, people learning
new skills, and food-insecure people supported (Caldeira et al.,
2019). Effects such as community engagement, staff working
hours, and volunteer altruism have also been reported (Goossens
et al., 2019;Mirosa et al., 2016;Mousa and Freeland-Graves, 2017).
However, using social indicators such as these pla ces the focus on so-
ciety or workers/volunteers, rather than on recipients. Several social
impacts of high relevance have been identified for recipients of do-
nated food, such as improved purchasing power, food security, and
nutrition (Mousa and Freeland-Graves, 2019a, 2019b;Vittuari
et al., 2017;Wolfson and Greeno, 2020), but to date, these type of in-
dicators have rarely been included in social or sustainability assess-
ments of food donation. In addition, recipients as a stakeholder
group have rarely been included in economic assessments of food
donation activities (Cicatiello et al., 2016;SVA, 2013).
Empirical evidence on the environmental impacts of food waste
management options indicate superiority of surplus food donation
over lower hierarchy options. However, studies evaluating the sustain-
ability of food donation from all aspects of sustainability and including
recipients as a stakeholder group are scarce, hampering decision-
makers in prioritizing different measures (Goossens et al., 2019;Vieira
et al., 2022). Complete sustainability assessment of surplus food dona-
tion would provide a more comprehensive view of its overall impacts,
as trade-offs between the three aspects of sustainability are common
(UNEP, 2011).
3. Materials and methods
This sustainability assessment on surplus food donation was a case
study on the Swedish non-profit organization, Uppsala City Mission
(UCM). The operating model of UCM is to redistribute surplus food
from retailers to people in need. In addition to supporting vulnerable
people while preventing food waste, UCM provides job-trainingoppor-
tunities to people having difficulties entering the labor market. The
redistribution operations are funded by donations from private donors,
companies, foundations, the local municipality, and the state. The oper-
ations are run by a mixture of employed and voluntary labor working in
two sub-units, a food bag center and a soup kitchen. The soup kitchen
serves cooked meals free of charge to people whoare exposed to social
vulnerability. The food bag center redistributes weekly food bags for a
biannual 250 SEK (~25 EUR) membership fee to recipients whose
income must not exceed UCM's threshold for financial vulnerability,
9290 SEK/month (~910 EUR).
To represent an alternative prevalent food waste management in
Sweden when investigating the environmental impacts of surplus
food donation, a biogas plant located in Uppsala was chosen. This
plant treats approximately 48,000 tons of food waste annually to pro-
duce biogas and bio fertilizer (Uppsala Vatten, 2021).
Although the facilities included in this case study are located in cen-
tral Sweden, they are common both in Sweden and in Europe making
the case study generalizable to similar, fully operational units beyond
the specific location of the case study.
3.1. Life cycle assessment
To assess the environmental impact of food donation, an attribu-
tional LCA, where ISO standards 14,040–14,044 were used as guidelines
was performed (ISO, 2006a, 2006b). The environmental impacts of
three food waste management scenarios, involving food bag donations,
soup kitchen donations, and anaerobic digestion, were compared
(Fig. 1). In the scenarios, the functional unit (FU) of 1 kg surplus food
ready for dispatch at the retail gate was applied. Further, similarly to
Sundin et al. (2022), the environmental impacts associated with
substituted products and rebound effects were credited or added to
the overall results, respectively.
The system was modelled in SimaPro 9.2 software, using the ReC-
iPe2016 (H) method for midpoint and endpoint impact assessment
(Database & Support team PRé Sustainability, 2021). Datasets from
Ecoinvent 3.8 and Agri-footprint 5.0 (mass allocation) representing
European conditions were used to describe the system. At the midpoint
level, 18 impact categories were assessed. At the endpoint level, 16 of
the midpoint impact categories were aggregated to two endpoint cate-
gories: 1) Ecosystems, expressed as the loss of species over a certain
area and time (species.years) and 2) human health, expressed as
disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).
3.1.1. Food waste management scenarios
The three scenarios were modelled as parallel processes with retail
gate (surplus food ready for transport) as thestarting point. Sitelocation
for all scenarios was Uppsala, Sweden, and site-specific input data and
inputs were used when possible (see Appendix A). For the food bag
and soup kitchen scenarios, the following processes were included:
transport to charity, packaging, transport home, food waste treatment,
and energy for storage. For anaerobic digestion, the processes included
pre-treatment (including transport), and anaerobic digestion.
3.1.2. Substitution
In each of the scenarios, emissions from substituted products were
subtracted from the environmental impacts generated by the food
waste management scenarios. In the anaerobic digestion scenario, the
biogas produced was used to run the bus trafficinUppsala,thereby
substituting for natural gas, and the biofertilizer was used for cultiva-
tion, substituting for mineral fertilizer. For more details concerning the
input datasets, see Appendix B.
In the food donation scenarios, the substitution involved avoided
food purchases and therefore presumed avoided food production, due
to receipt of donated food. The substituted food was investigated with
the help of a single 24-h dietary recall survey, using FAO's dietary diver-
sity questionnaire (Kennedy et al., 2013), as described in detail in
Section 3.3.3, and composition analysis of 30 randomly selected food
bags collected in different seasons in 2020–22. The composition analy-
ses were conducted based on photographs of all food items included
in the bags. The net weights from packaged food items were used
when possible. Further, the number of fruit and vegetables found in
the food bags were multiplied by their standard gross weights (KF och
ICA provkök, 2000). For a complete list of food groups and items per
food bag in grams, see Table C.1 in Appendix C.
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
43
Accordingto the interview results, it was plausible that the food bags
substituted for foods from the most frequently consumed food groups
according to the average contentof the food bags (Fig. 2), as previously
observed by Sundin et al. (2022). Expensive luxury food items, such as
mango, chocolate, and ready-made meals, were excluded, and in total
90 % of food bagweight was assumed to be substituted and 10 % wasted.
Substitution of the soup kitchen donations was based on two meals
amounting to 850 g food/visitor/day consisting of coffee, bread, dairy,
meat, staple foods such as pasta, and some vegetables (Sundin et al.,
2022). For more details on the input datasets, see Appendix B.
3.1.3. Rebound effect
The reboundeffect refers to reductions in expected benefits from en-
ergy efficiency improvements by households because of related behav-
ioral responses in the form of greater energy use (Chitnis et al., 2013). In
the present study, a rebound effect was expected to arise from emis-
sions generated by re-spending of accrued savings due to receiving do-
nated food (Sundin et al., 2022)defined as the relationship between
potential emission savings (ΔH) and emission savings not realized
(ΔG) (Chitnis et al., 2014;Druckman et al., 2011):
Rebound effect ¼ΔG
ΔHð1Þ
To model ΔG for the food donation scenarios, the monetary savings
accrued per food bag received (165 SEK) and per daily soupkitchen visit
(25 SEK) were used, together with their associated consumption pat-
terns (Sundin et al., 2022). For the anaerobic digestion scenario, the po-
tential increase in profits from biogas sales (30,000 SEK) was assumed
to reduce subscriber fees, resulting in monetary savings for households
(Sundin et al., 2022) that were used for the average Swedish consump-
tion pattern (Grabs, 2015). For each consumption category, the
rebound-related emissions were modelled per product using the
equation:
Accrued savings SEKðÞ
Product price SEK
kg
Product per category %ðÞSpendings per category %ðÞ
ð2Þ
For a complete list of the consumption categories, datasets, and
prices used for the modelling, see Appendix D.
3.2. Economic impact assessment
To assess the economic impact of the food donation scenarios, their
net economic benefits were calculated based on the difference in eco-
nomic benefits created for society through the redistribution activities
and the overall cost of these activities (Caldeira et al., 2019). The bene-
fits and costs were investigated from a stakeholder perspective, where
the key stakeholders were either accountable for the cost or received
the benefit(Fig. 3).
3.2.1. Net economic benefits
The following elements were included in the net benefit calculation:
a) the economic value of avoided purchase of food;b) the avoided cost
of food waste disposal; and c) the cost of the action (Caldeira et al.,
2019). Avoided purchase of food was applied to recipients but not to
UCM, as their food donation activities depended on a free supply of sur-
plus food and therefore no purchasing of food was avoided. Due to high
Fig. 1. Systemboundary diagram illustratingthe three scenarios compared, and theirrespective products. The scenariosincluded system expansions for substituted products and rebound
effects stemming from thesubstitution. The positive (+) or negative (−) signs demonstrate the nature of the contribution of each sub-system to the overall environmental impacts.
Fig. 2. Average net weight composition (%) of the food bags by food group.
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
44
labor costs, volunteers are a necessary part of UCM's operating model.
UCM also receives compensation from the municipality to employ job
trainees in exchange for helping them to overcome employment bar-
riers. Therefore, the societal benefits created through employment and
job-training leading to employment were included as an additional ele-
ment (d) in the net benefit calculation. For covering the costs, different
types of investments were included, such as monetary gifts and grants
that enabled UCM to pay for their running costs (staff salaries, etc.),
but also investments that enabled UCM to avoid paying for costs, such
as receiving a leasing car free of charge (Fig. 3). The economic loss asso-
ciated with food waste that was not treated by anaerobic digestion but
donated was also included. However, the cost of donated surplus food
was omitted because the food had become unsellable, i.e. food waste
from the retail perspective. The net economic benefit was calculated
as a + b + d −c. For more details on each element, see Table E.1 in
Appendix E.
3.2.2. Efficiency
The efficiency of the food donation scenarios was evaluated by set-
ting the costs against their economic benefits, amount of food waste
prevented, ecological savings, and social benefits (Goossens et al.,
2019). For assessment of economic efficiency, the benefit-cost ratio
was calculated by dividing the benefits by the costs (Investopedia,
2020). The food waste prevention and ecological efficiencies were
calculated as the cost for reducing 1 ton of food waste and for abating
1 ton of carbon emissions (CO
2
eq.), through the ratio of cost to food
waste reduction potential or emission savings, respectively (Goossens
et al., 2019). Social efficiency was calculated as the cost of donating
one food bag or meal, by dividing the costs by the number of food
bags or meals donated.
3.3. Social impact assessment
To assess the social impacts of food donation, social life cycle assess-
ment (S-LCA) methodology was applied for the goal, scope, and stake-
holder definitions (UNEP, 2020). The goal of the assessment was to
examine the actual social impacts of food donation for the key stake-
holder categories, based on primary data. The scope was redistribution
by UCM of surplus food from the retail gate to the recipients, including
product end-use. The stakeholder categories chosen were consumers,
workers, and the local community, based on the operating model of
UCM. Based on categories,the key stakeholderswere identified as recip-
ients, employees, job trainees, volunteers, and the local community
(Table 1).
3.3.1. Impact categories and impact subcategories
While inspiration was drawn from the S-LCA handbook issued by
UNEP (2020), decisions on impact categories and subcategories
assessed were largely based on their deemed relevance concerning
the actual social and socio-economic impacts of the system studied, al-
though data availability also played a role. An overview of the chosen
stakeholder categories, stakeholders, impact categories, impact subcat-
egories, and their corresponding indicators is presented in Table 1.
The primary data used as indicators were collected from the
Fig. 3. Illustration of the costs (investments) and benefits associated with surplus food redistribution activities by Uppsala City Mission. The surplus food donated from retail was consid-
ered food waste and therefore boreno economic value on entering the system. Through the redistribution activities, enabled by external investments,surplus food was transformed into
food bags and cooked meals, creating economic benefits for stakeholders.
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
45
stakeholders through a food security questionnaire (Appendix F), a
dietary diversity interview (Appendix G), UCM staff interviews, UCM
annual reports, and previous scientific studies, and by conducting nutri-
tional calculationson the edible content of the food bags.
3.3.2. Food security questionnaire
Study participants were recruited by UCM staff during August 2020–
April 2021 as previously described by Sundin et al. (2022). Data were
collected from: 1) existing food bag recipients; 2) new food bag recipi-
ents; and 3) soup kitchen visitors. During the previous 30 days, the
existing recipients had to be food bag recipients, while new recipients
were not allowed to have received any of them. The questionnaire
was available in Swedish, Arabic, and English. The following participants
were recruited: 67 existing food bag recipients; 42 new food bag
recipients; and nine soup kitchen visitors. For the demographics of the
study participants, see Table H.1 in Appendix H. The participants were
informed verbally and in writing about thestudy and informed consent
was obtained from all participants, signed by them. No sensitive per-
sonal data was collected.
To investigate the food security status of the recipients, a self-
administered six-item food security questionnaire was used (USDA,
2012) (see Appendix F). The mean scores for new and existing food
bag recipients were compared, to evaluate whether food bags could
potentially contribute to improved food security status among the
recipients.
3.3.3. Dietary diversity questionnaire
The dietary diversity of the recipients was investigated by a 24-h
dietary recall survey using the FAO dietary diversity questionnaire
(Kennedy et al., 2013) (seeAppendix G8). To conduct thequestionnaire,
55 existing and 36 new food bag recipients were interviewed by nutri-
tionists over the telephone. In addition, the staff of the soup kitchen
conducted nine face-to-face interviews among their visitors. The partic-
ipants recalled their food and drink intakes from the previous day dur-
ing the interviews. The type of food and drink, their amounts, and the
ingredients of composite meals were noteddown. Based on the recalled
dietary data, nine food groups were recorded as either consumed or
non-consumed, to calculate an individual dietary diversity score
(WDDS) (Kennedy et al., 2013). The mean dietary diversity scores of
new and existing food bag recipients were compared to evaluate
whether food bags improved the individual dietary diversity of the
recipients.
3.3.4. Nutritional assessment of food bags
To assess the nutritional quality of the food bags, nutritional calcula-
tions were conducted based on the composition data obtained for the
edible content of the 30 sampled food bags, using Nutrition Data
(2022) software. The edible fractions of fruit and vegetables were calcu-
lated using literature values (De Laurentiis et al., 2018). The energy, nu-
trient, and dietary fiber contents of the food bags were expressed as
mean values. To assess the number of days on which the food bags
met daily reference intake values (DRI), the mean energy and macronu-
trient values were divided by the DRI values for women and men aged
31–60 years with an average physical activity level according to the
Nordic nutrition reference values (NNR (2012)) (Nordic Council of
Ministers, 2014). The macronutrient contents were also expressed as
energy percent (E%) values and compared against the NNR (2012) ref-
erence E% values. Lastly, micronutrientswere expressed as standardized
for energy, i.e. nutrient density (per MJ). The nutrient densities of die-
tary fiber and all vitamins and minerals were calculated by dividing
the mean nutrient values by the mean energy content of food bags
(43.4 MJ). The nutrient densities were compared against NNR (2012)
reference values for recommended nutrient density (per MJ) used for
diet planning purposes for groups aged 6–65 years with a heteroge-
neous sex and age distribution.
3.3.5. Nutrient-rich foods index
To assess the nutritional quality ofthe food bags using a single indi-
cator, the nutrient-rich food (NRF) index, more specifically the Sweden-
tailored NRF11.3 index, was used (Bianchi et al., 2020). The NRF index
assigns a nutrient density score based both on nutrients to be encour-
aged (qualitative nutrients, xin Eq. (3)) and nutrients to be limited
(disqualitative nutrients, yin Eq. (3))(Fulgoni et al., 2009). Eleven qual-
itative nutrients (protein, fiber, calcium, iron, folate, magnesium, potas-
sium, and vitamins A, C, D and E) and three disqualitative nutrients
(saturated fat, sodium, and total sugar) were considered in this study.
Table 1
An overviewof the chosen stakeholder categories, stakeholders, impact categories, impact subcategories and their corresponding indicators used in the social impact assessment offood
donation scenarios.
Stakeholder categories Stakeholders Impact categories Impact subcategories Indicators
Consumers Recipients Health and safety Food security High or marginal (0–1); Low (2–4); Very low (5–6)
Individual dietary diversity WDD score; min: 0; max: 9
Nutrient rich foods score (food bags) NRF11.3
Equal opportunities Gender ratio Male/female (%)
Economic security Accrued savings due to receiving donated food SEK/food bag or visit to soup kitchen
Customer satisfaction Service satisfaction % happy (4 or 5) (scale 1–5)
Increased life quality % positive (4 or 5) (scale 1–5)
Influence on health % improved (4 or 5) (scale 1–5)
Influence on personal economy % improved (4 or 5) (scale 1–5)
Workers Employees Working conditions Working time (full-time) Working hours/week
Job trainees Working time (part-time) Working hours/week
Volunteers Overtime Hours/week
Overtime payment Yes/no
Job positions Full-time positions
Fair salary SEK/month
Rehabilitation effectiveness Job trainees entering labor market (%)
Health and safety Sickness absence Long-term absences; >90 days
Employee turnover Turnover rate (%)
Workplace violence; external threats Number of incidents
Equal opportunities Gender ratio in work positions Female workforce (%)
Gender ratio in work positions Female managers (%)
Gender ratio in salary Ratio of basic salary of men to women
Local community Local community Social responsibility Surplus food redistributed t/year
Food bags or meals donated No/year
Poverty alleviation Food bag recipients or soup kitchen visits/year
Environment Food waste prevented t/year
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
46
Since the food bags were donated weekly, the mean nutrient values of
the food bags were first divided by seven (days) and then calculated
as percentage of daily values. The Codex Alimentarius reference values
(Lewis, 2019) were used as DRIs and maximum recommended intakes
(MRIs) for all nutrients except dietary fiber, for which the NNR (2012)
reference value was used. The percentages of daily values of qualitative
nutrients were capped at 100 % where applicable, to avoid overstating
their impact. The NRF11.3 score wascalculated as:
NRFx:y¼X1−xQualitative nutrient
DRI
−X1−yDisqualitative nutrient
MRI
ð3Þ
4. Results
The results showed that food donation to reduce food waste was of
benefit to the environment and also brought added economic and social
values, for the recipients in particular. Despite substantial rebound ef-
fects offsetting some of the potential environmental impact savings,
the overall environmental performance of food donation was superior
to that of anaerobic digestion. It is important to note, however, that
the environmental trade-offs caused by the rebound effects gave other
significant benefits, e.g. the accrued savings relieved the personal fi-
nances of the recipients and allowed purchases of necessities such as
clothing and healthcare. While contributions from several stakeholders
were necessary to fund the food donation scenarios, positive economic
value was generated in the food bag scenario and was mainly trans-
ferred to the recipients. The results suggested that food bags also had
potential to alleviate the food insecurity of the recipients, although
they did not fully solve the issue. Further, due to their high nutrient
density, food bags had the potential to improve nutrition intake by the
recipients.
4.1. Environmental impacts
With respect to environmental impact, the results indicated that the
food bag scenario generated the lowest impact for 17 out of 18 midpoint
indicators, including global warming, acidification, and land use.
For these 17 categories, the values obtained were negative, indicating
mitigation of the environmental impacts (Table 2).The anaerobic diges-
tion scenario generated the highest environmental impacts in 11 out of
18 midpoint impact categories. However, the impacts were still nega-
tive in 10 of the categories, indicating impact mitigation. The soup
kitchen scenario had the highest environmental impacts in seven
categories, while 11 categories had negative values indicating impact
mitigation.
When the midpoint indicators were aggregated to endpoint level
impacts,the food bag center continued to perform best in the ecosystem
damage and human health impact categories, while anaerobic digestion
had the highest impacts in both these categories (Table 2). The ecosys-
tem damage results were largely due to the GWP, land use, and terres-
trial acidification midpoint results, whereas GWP and fine particulate
matter results contributed the most to the human health results across
all scenarios (see Figs. I.1 and I.2 in Appendix I). In both categories, the
food bag scenario resulted in the lowest environmental impacts and
the anaerobic digestion scenario resulted in the highest.
Overall, the substitution effect was the largest contributor to the net
results obtained, while food waste management operations, such as
transport, played a minor role (Fig. 4 presents an example for GWP).
Some of the potential emission savings, largely due to the substitution
Table 2
Environmental impacts per 1 kg food waste at retail gate comparing three different food waste management scenarios, anaerobic digestion,redistribu-
tion via food bag center and redistribution via soup kitchen. Both the midpoint and endpoint levels are presented. The best environmental outcome for
each impactcategory is indicated by light green and for the worst by light pink.
Environmental
impact method
Impact category
Units
Anaerobic
digeson
scenario
Food bag
scenario
Soup
kitchen
scenario
Midpoint level
Global warming
kg CO2eq
−2.3 × 10−1
−7.7 × 10−1
−2.6 × 10−1
Stratospheric ozone depleon
kg CFC11 eq
−4.7 × 10−8
−6.8 × 10−6
−3.5 × 10−6
Ionizing radiaon
kBq Co-60 eq
2.1 × 10−2
−6.7 × 10−3
4.5 × 10−2
Ozone formaon. Human health
kg NOx eq
−1.3 × 10−4
−1.6 × 10−3
−2.0 × 10−4
Fine parculate maer formaon
kg PM2.5 eq
−5.9 × 10−5
−1.3 × 10−3
−3.4 × 10−4
Ozone formaon.
Terrestrial ecosystems
kg NOx eq
−1.4 × 10−4
−1.7 × 10−3
−2.0 × 10−4
Terrestrial acidificaon
kg SO2eq
−2.0 × 10−4
−7.8 × 10−3
−3.6 × 10−3
Freshwater eutrophicaon
kg P eq
−4.2 × 10−7
−1.8 × 10−3
−3.7 × 10−4
Marine eutrophicaon
kg N eq
3.9 × 10−6
−2.2 × 10−3
−1.5 × 10−3
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
kg 1.4-DCB
1.3 × 10−1
−1.3
3.2 × 10−1
Freshwater ecotoxicity
kg 1.4-DCB
4.6 × 10−5
−1.0 × 10−2
9.1 × 10−3
Marine ecotoxicity
kg 1.4-DCB
9.5 × 10−5
2.1 × 10−3
1.6 × 10−2
Human carcinogenic toxicity
kg 1.4-DCB
−1.8 × 10−4
−1.1 × 10−2
9.6 × 10−3
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity
kg 1.4-DCB
3.8 × 10−3
−1.3
−2.6 × 10−1
Land use
m2a crop eq
8.4 × 10−3
−1.8
−5.5 × 10−1
Mineral resource scarcity
kg Cu eq
−2.3 × 10−4
−3.4 × 10−4
2.3 × 10−3
Fossil resource scarcity
kg oil eq
−8.7 × 10−2
−9.5 × 10−2
1.0 × 10−2
Water consumpon
m3
6.9 × 10−4
−5.8 × 10−2
−7.7 × 10−3
Endpoint level
Ecosystem damage
species.years
−6.2 × 10−10
−2.1 × 10−8
−6.7 × 10−9
Human health
DALYs
−2.5 × 10−7
−1.9 × 10−6
−4.9 × 10−7
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
47
effect, were offset by the rebound effect. With respect to GWP, the re-
bound effect was 31 % (food bags), 64 % (soup kitchen), and 2 % (anaer-
obic digestion).
4.1.1. Sensitivity analysis
In sensitivity analysis, several parameters were altered to test their
impact on GWP. Changes tested included different allocation for Agri-
footprint datasets, alternative substitution products, and substitution
rates, along with adjustments in prices and savings (Fig. 5). Switching
the mass allocation method to economic allocation did not change the
results for anaerobic digestion, but changed the result for the food bag
and soup kitchen scenarios by 18 % and 86 %, respectively. However,
the overall order of the scenarios was not affected. Similarly, the
substitution of diesel instead of natural gas did not affect the overall re-
sults markedly with a 20 % change for anaerobic digestion, although an-
aerobic digestion results became slightly more climate negative than
the results for soup kitchen. The rebound effects of food donation sce-
narios were not sensitive to price changes (±15 %). However, the re-
bound effects showed high sensitivity to amount of accrued savings
(±SD = ±131 SEK for food bags; ±36 SEK for soup kitchen), and the
proportion of savings spent on food (0 %; 100 %), both of which led to
backfire effects in the soup kitchen scenario. The substitution effects
were sensitive to changes in the amount of food substituted (50 %;
70 %). The sensitivity of the above mentioned parameters were also
tested on land use with similar results as for GWP as shown in Fig. J.1
in Appendix J.
Fig. 4. Net global warmingpotential (GWP) impact, brokendown into contributing food waste management operations, substitution effect, and reboundeffect for the threescenarios (an-
aerobic digestion, redistribution via food bag center, and redistribution via soup kitchen).
Fig. 5. Globalwarming potential(GWP) results in sensitivity analyses in comparison with the basecase for the three scenarios (anaerobicdigestion, redistributionvia food bag center, and
redistribution via soup kitchen), expressed per kg donated food. The results were sensitive to changes in accrued savings, proportion of savings spent on food, and proportion of food
substituted.
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
48
4.2. The economic value of surplus food donation
4.2.1. Net economic benefits
The net economic result for the food bag scenario was positive
(1502 kSEK) indicating that positive economic value was generated
(Table 3). In contrast, the net result for the soup kitchen was negative
(−622 kSEK) indicating that the costs of this redistribution activity
exceeded the benefits generated. Overall, the net benefit calculations
highlighted the high level of investment required from different stake-
holders to run the redistribution activities.
4.2.2. Efficiency
The benefit-cost ratio of the food bag center was1.37 and that of the
soup kitchen was 0.75, where a value >1.0 indicates a positive net value
outcome (Table 4). As regards economic efficiency in food waste pre-
vention, the cost of preventing 1 ton of food waste was 28 kSEK for
the food bag center, but more than twice as much (64 kSEK) for the
soup kitchen. As regards ecological efficiency, the cost of 1 ton CO
2
e
abated was 27 kSEK for the food bag center and eight-fold higher
(216 kSEK) for the soup kitchen. As regards social efficiency, the cost
of donating one food bag was 292 SEK for the food bag center and the
cost of donating one meal was 25 SEK for the soup kitchen.
4.3. The social value of surplus food donation
Three key stakeholder groups, i.e. consumers (recipients), workers
(employees, job trainees, volunteers) and the local community were in-
cluded in the social assessment of surplus food donation. An overview of
the results with the chosen indicators per stakeholder and scenario is
presented in Table 5. Below, the most important results are described
separately for the recipient and worker stakeholder groups.
4.3.1. Recipients
When assessing the social values generated through surplus food re-
distribution for the recipients stakeholder group, the main values con-
sidered related to nutritional aspects such as food security and dietary
diversity status of the recipients, as well as the nutritional value of the
food bags. The results revealed that the mean food security score of
the new food bag recipients was 3.3, whereas the score of the existing
food bag recipients was 2.4. Although the score of the existing recipients
indicated better food security in comparison with new recipients, their
food security statuswas still low.For the soup kitchen visitors, the food
security status (score 4.3) was lower than for both categories of food
bag recipients.
Overall, there was no difference in the dietary diversity of the recip-
ients (5.5 for new food bag recipients; 5.3 for existing food bag recipi-
ents), although higher intake frequencies in some food groups
frequently provided by the food bags, such as white roots and tubers
(+70 %), vitamin A-rich tubers (+10 %) and green leafy vegetables
(+18 %), were observed for existing recipients. However, consumption
frequency of legumes, nuts, and seeds (−51 %), eggs (−15 %), and
sweets (−15 %) was lower for existing recipients than for new recipi-
ents. The dietary diversity score of the soup kitchen visitors was 3.4,
which was considerably lower than the score of the existing food bag
recipients (5.3).
The nutrient quality data for the food bags indicated overall good
quality. The bags contained macronutrients such as protein, carbohy-
drates, and fat, in proportions that were largely within the reference
values (Table 6). In addition, the bags were low in sugar and the fat
they contained was of good quality. The bags were also nutrient-dense
and in line with reference values for most vitamins and minerals, with
a high content of vitamins A, C, and E and niacin (Table 7). Further,
the bags were high in dietary fiber, and the salt content was below the
maximum reference value. Consequently, the nutrient-rich foods score
(NRF11.3) of the food bags was 729, indicating high nutrient density
(min −300; max 1100). The energy content of the food bags covered
the energy needs of an adult person aged 31–60 years, with an average
level of physical activity, for approximately four days.
4.3.2. Workers (employees, job trainees, and volunteers)
To assess the social values generated through surplus food redistri-
bution for the workers stakeholder (employees, job trainees, volunteers),
the main values investigated were related to their working conditions,
health and safety, and equal opportunities. The employees had normal
working hours, and fair salaries (above minimum wage), and there
had been no long-term sick leaves (Table 5). The turnover rate of em-
ployees was low (0), but that for food bag center volunteers was higher
(8). Approximately half of the job trainees received employment fol-
lowing their training period. The female managers at both units indi-
cated equal opportunities.
5. Discussion
This study investigated all three aspects of sustainability in relation
to surplus food donation in order to gain a holistic view. The results
Table 3
Acost-benefit analysis of Uppsala City Mission food bag center and soup kitchen for 2020.
Stakeholders Benefit/cost variable Food bag scenario
kSEK/year
Soup kitchen scenario
kSEK/year
Benefits
a
Recipients Accrued savings due to receiving donated food 2587 (47 %) 304 (16 %)
Retailers Avoided food waste treatment 34 (1 %) 8 (1 %)
Employees Employment (salaries, benefits) 1956 (35 %) 1326 (69 %)
Job trainees Employment due to job training 947 (17 %) 271 (14 %)
Total 5524 (100 %) 1909 (100 %)
Costs
b
Property owners Premises 180 180
Car leaser Vehicle 60 25
Private and public donors Gifts, grants, raised funds 2811 1872
Municipality Compensation paid for job trainees 656 241
Food waste treatment plant Loss of food waste
c
00
Volunteers Volunteer hours 226 213
Recipients Membership fees 89 0
Total 4022 2531
Net benefits [benefits-costs] 1502 −622
a
Values of outcomes createdthrough foodredistribution activities.
b
Funding covering for the cost linked to redistribution process.
c
Due to being a tax-funded company aiming at zero financial result, where deficits and surpluses are settled againstsubscriber fees, and due to the amount of lost food waste corresponding to
<0.5 % of the total volume of food waste treated, the value was considered negligible.
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
49
showed that food donation was a way to reduce food waste providing
benefits for the environment while adding social value but requiring
economic investments from several stakeholders. Food bag donation
generated the largest environmental impact savings in all but one of
the 18 midpoint categories considered in comparison with anaerobic di-
gestion, but also in both endpoint categories, ecosystem damage, and
human health, a novel contribution of the study. However, considerable
rebound effects (31 % for food bags; 64 % for soup kitchen) were found
to offset some of the potential GHGE savings but despite them, the over-
all results were still aligned with the waste hierarchy and with previous
findings in studies where rebound effects were not considered
(Eriksson and Spångberg, 2017;Moult et al., 2018). Further, the
midpoint-level results showed that redistribution offers higher overall
environmental savings in comparison with anaerobic digestion of food
waste, also suggested by some previous studies (Albizzati et al., 2019;
Brancoli et al., 2020;Damiani et al., 2021).
The net environmental gains generated by the two food donation
scenarios were greatly influenced by the substitution and rebound effects
(Fig. 4), rather than the actual process-related impacts. Meanwhile, sensi-
tivity analyses revealed high sensitivity of the net environmental results
to the amount of food substituted, but also to the amount of savings ac-
crued and the degree to which these savings were spent on food
(Fig. 5), thus, these results are best interpreted on their magnitude
level. Nevertheless, the aforementioned factors also explained some of
the differences in net environmental outcome between the two donation
scenarios, due to the units serving different socio-economic recipient
groups. Food bags were substituted to a higher degree than soup kitchen
meals, but food bag recipients spent their savings proportionally less on
food, leading to a lower environmental impact and thus lower rebound
effect. This difference between the recipient groups was also reflected
in the better food security and dietary diversity status of food bag recipi-
ents compared with soup kitchen visitors.
Table 4
Efficiency indicators of Uppsala City Mission food bag center and soup kitchen for 2020.
Efficiency dimension Indicator Food bag scenario Soup kitchen scenario
Economic benefits Benefit-cost ratio 1.37 0.75
Food waste prevention Cost of 1 ton food waste prevented
a
(kSEK) 28 64
Ecological savings Cost of 1 ton CO
2
e abated (kSEK) 27 216
Social benefits Cost of donating one food bag or meal
b
(SEK) 292 25
a
Effectiveness (amount of redistributed food eaten) derived from Sundin et al. (2022).
b
Corresponds to food bags donated by the food bag center or meals(400 g/portion) donated by the soup kitchen.
Table 5
An overview of the actual social impacts of the food bag center and soup kitchen of Uppsala City Mission based on 2020data. The foodsecurity and dietary diversity scores of food bag
recipients concerned those participants whohad received food donation during a minimum of 30 previous days.
Impact categories Impact subcategories Indicators Food bag scenario Soup kitchen scenario
Recipients Recipients
Health and safety Food security High or marginal (0–1); Low (2–4); Very low (5–6) 2.4 4.3
Individual dietary diversity WDD score; min: 0; max: 9 5.3 3.4
Nutrient-rich foods score (food bags) NRF11.3 729
Equal opportunities Gender ratio Male/female (%) 47/53 75/25
Economic security Accrued savings due to receiving donated food SEK/food bag or visit to soup kitchen 165 25
Customer satisfaction
a
Service satisfaction % happy (4 or 5) (scale 1–5) 87
Increased life quality % positive (4 or 5) (scale 1–5) 74
Influence on health % improved (4 or 5) (scale 1–5) 51
Influence on personal finances % improved (4 or 5) (scale 1–5)8 84
Impact categories Impact subcategories Indicators Food bag scenario Soup kitchen scenario
Employees Job trainees Volunteers Employees Job trainees Volunteers
Working
conditions
Working time (full-time) Working hours/week 40 40
Working time (part-time) Working hours/week 30 30
Overtime Hours/week 0 0
Overtime payment Yes/no Yes Yes
Job positions Full-time positions 4.25 7 15 1.75 1 24
Fair salary SEK/month 29,000 Compensation 0 27,000 Compensation 0
Rehabilitation effectiveness Job trainees entering labor market
(%)
50 100
Health and safety Sickness absence Long-term absences >90 days 0 0 0 0 0 0
Employee turnover Turnover rate (%) 0 50 8 0 100 0
Workplace violence; external
threats
Number of incidents 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equal
opportunities
Gender ratio in work positions Female workforce (%) 70 50
Gender ratio in work positions Female managers (%) 100 100
Gender ratio in salary Ratio of basic salary of men to
women
11
Impact categories Impact subcategories Indicators Food bag scenario Soup kitchen scenario
Local community Local community
Social responsibility Surplus food redistributed t/year 193 45
Food bags or meals donated #/year 13,756 9543
Poverty alleviation Food bag recipients or visits/year 250 12,175
Environment Food waste prevented t/year 144 40
a
Results based on Topor (2021).
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
50
Private and public investments were required to run the food dona-
tion units, but positive economic value was generated only in the case of
the food bag scenario. In contrast, previous assessments resulted in con-
siderably higher economic value due to differences in assumptions and
scope (Cicatiello et al., 2016;SVA, 2013), underscoring the importance
of interpreting such results within their context. Cicatiello et al.
(2016) allocated donated food full retail value, but excluded the costs
of volunteer labor and salaries from the scope of their assessment,
resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 4.6. Another study counted volunteer
time as an investment, but excluded the value of food, as it was consid-
ered waste, giving a benefit-cost ratio of 2.75 (SVA, 2013). In contrast to
both previous assessments, the present study included accrued savings
and salaries in the benefit-cost calculation, resulting in a ratio of 1.37 for
the food bag scenario but only 0.75 for the soup kitchen scenario, due to
a lower amount of accrued savings. This was also the main factor con-
tributing to the negative net benefit result for the soup kitchen
(−622), as the lower benefits generated did not cover the relatively
high labor costs in that scenario.
The economic value received by the recipients generated social
value by improving their personal finances, playing potentially an im-
portant role as a factor for increased choice among recipients
(Wolfson and Greeno, 2020). Furthermore, our results showed that
the donated food was well-balanced and nutrient-dense, due to a
large proportion of perishable foods, such as fruit, vegetables, and
dairy products similar to the findings by Mousa and Freeland-Graves
(2019a) and Vittuari et al. (2017). Some studies, however, identified a
nutrient imbalance in food donations but concluded that larger propor-
tions of perishable foods would resolve that issue (Brennan and
Browne, 2021;Simmet et al., 2017;Tse and Tarasuk, 2008). Moreover,
previous studies have identified a positive effect of food donations rich
in perishable foods on recipients' diets (Mousa and Freeland-Graves,
2019b;Nogueira et al., 2021b, 2021a). Thus, high nutrient density of
surplus food provides potential to contribute positively to recipients'
diets, further supported by the previous finding of high recipient accep-
tance of the donated food (Sundin et al., 2022).
The food donations also showed potential for alleviating recipients'
food insecurity, as found in previous studies (Mousa and Freeland-
Graves, 2019b;Wolfson and Greeno, 2020), although the recipients
were not food-secure according to the survey results. The average en-
ergy content of the food bags met the energy requirements of an aver-
age adult for four days. Considering that, on average, the recipients
were families of four (two adults and two children) receiving one food
bag/week, it is reasonable that the donations only had a relieving effect,
especially since the parents could be expected to prioritize their
children's food intakes. The school meal scheme provided to all children
free of charge in Sweden aims to cover one-third of children's nutri-
tional requirements (Osowski et al., 2015), and food donations can be
an important supplement to provision by the welfare state.
A strength of the present study lay in including all three aspects of
sustainability, to gain an understanding of trade-offs between these
and also a more comprehensive view of food donation. In addition to
discovering that the rebound effects contributed to other important
values, such as economic and social benefits for the recipients, the re-
sults showed that the soup kitchen did not generate as high environ-
mental gains or positive economic value as food bags did. However,
the economic assessment did not capture the value of donated food
that did not substitute for any food, which still likely played an impor-
tant role in helping the most vulnerable in society. It should also be ac-
knowledged that the soup kitchen contributed to the effectiveness of
the food bag center, annually salvaging 16 tons of its surplus food
with a very short shelf-life (Sundin et al., 2022), suggesting that a hybrid
model of redistribution combining direct and indirect donations could be
a key success factor. Further studies are, however, needed to understand
the interdynamics of such models and how to optimize these.
Another strength of the present study was the use of primary input
data in the assessments, due to access to UCM data. However, using
the ReCiPe method, representing European conditions, might not have
been able to fully capture the local conditions in the LCA. While no ran-
domized method was used for recruiting study participants, a strength
of the study was to recruit recipients instead of relying on charity
personnel's perceptions on issues concerning recipients, a method com-
monly applied in previous studies (Mirosa et al., 2016;Vittuari et al.,
2017). However, the low participant rate at the soup kitchen (due to
the Covid-19 pandemic) was a weakness and challenging to overcome,
Table 6
Energy andmacronutrient content of weeklyfood bags in comparison to reference values.
Energy and
macronutrients
Mean Reference
value
a
Days
meeting
RDI
b
E%
c
Reference
value E%
d
Energy kJ 43,439 8800/11000 4.9/3.9
Protein g 310 70/82 4.4/3.8 12 10–20
Carbohydrates g 1535 271/340 5.7/4.5 60 45–60
Sucrose g 185 7 <10
Total fat g 292 77/97 3.8/3 24
e
25–40
SFA g 103 9 <10
MUFA g 113 10 10–20
PUFA g 47 4
e
5–10
a
Reference daily intake(RDI) valuesfor energy of women/men of 31–60 years of age
corresponding toan average physicalactivity level,which have been usedas a basis for the
reference values of protein, carbohydrates and total fats (NNR, 2012).
b
Number of days the energy and macronutrient content of food bags meets the RDI of
women/men.
c
Percentage of macronutrient of the total energy content of food bags.
d
Reference values according to NNR (2012). For sucrose, the reference value refers to
added sugars, but the presented mean and E% include both added sugars and natural
sources of sucrose.
e
Value not meeting the reference value.
Table 7
Vitamin, mineral and fiber content of food bags in comparison to reference values.
Vitamins,
minerals and
fiber
Mean Reference
value
a
Number of
days meeting
reference
value
b
Nutrient
density
per MJ
Reference
value
c
Vitamin A (RE) RE 5205 800 6.5 120 80
Vitamin D μg 19 10 1.9 0.4
d
1.4
Vitamin E α-TE 69 9 7.7 1.6 0.9
Vitamin B1
(Thiamin)
mg 9 1.2 7.5 0.2 0.12
Vitamin B2
(Riboflavin)
mg 8 1.2 6.3 0.17 0.14
Niacin NE 170 15 11.3 3.9 1.6
Vitamin C mg 1394 100 13.9 32.1 8
Vitamin B6
Pyridoxine
mg 11 1.3 8.8 0.3 0.13
Vitamin B12 μg 9 2.4 3.9 0.2 0.2
Folate μg 2467 400 6.2 56.8 45
Phosphorus mg 6703 700 9.6 154.3 80
Iron mg 53 14 3.8 1.2
d
1.6
Calcium mg 3954 1000 4.0 91.0
d
100
Potassium g 24 3.5 6.9 0.6 0.35
Magnesium mg 2347 310 7.6 54.0 32
Sodium mg 9110 2000 4.6 209.7 245
Selenium μg 139 60 2.3 3.2
d
5.7
Iodine μg 478 150 3.2 11.0
d
17
Zinc mg 47 11 4.2 1.1
d
1.2
Dietary fiber g 190 25–35 7.6 4 3
a
Codex Alimentarius nutrient reference values for vitamins and minerals (where nutrient
reference values are based on the daily intake value that is estimated to meet the nutrient
requirement of 98 % of an apparently healthy individual, thus the RDI or RDA) for the general
population, identified as individuals older than 36 months (FAO and WHO, 2019). Sodium not
to be exceeded. Fiber according to NNR (2012).
b
Number of daysthe nutrient content of one food bag meets the reference value of
nutrient.
c
NNR (2012)reference valuesfor recommendednutrient density(per MJ) used for diet
planning purposes for groups of 6–65 years of age with a heterogeneous sex and age
distribution. Sodium not to be exceeded.
d
Value not meeting the reference value.
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
51
whereas telephone interviews were used to overcome this issue with
the food bag recipients. Further, it should be noted that the economic
and social assessments were not exhaustive and other valuable factors
could have been included, such as the monetary value of abating envi-
ronmental impacts or feeling shame as a recipient. Limitations of the
method itself should also be kept in mind when using the results for
decision-making.For example, the assessment did not consider any ini-
tial investment costs and the results are therefore only generalizable to
a donation scheme that is already operational, and not to establishment
of new food donation organizations. However, the potential of surplus
food donation can be generalized to other countries, as retail surplus
food even outside Sweden often consists of perishable foods (bread,
fruit, and vegetables) with high nutritional value (Schneider and
Eriksson, 2020).
UCM's swift food handling process has previously been identified as
a key to its success (Sundin et al., 2022) and also a prerequisite for real-
izing environmental gains of food donation (Damiani et al., 2021). High
recipient acceptance of redistributed food is another key factor, as food
acceptance can be complex (Leng et al., 2017;Sundin et al., 2023). In
fact, most of the values would not have been generated if the donated
food had been discarded instead of eaten by recipients, regardless of
the efficiency of the redistribution process. To maximize the benefits
of food donations, policymakers should seek to enable charities to
meet the dietary needs and preferences of recipients to the highest de-
gree possible. The more surplus food eaten, the higher the substitution
effect leading to accrued savings, while the lower the need to spend ac-
crued savings on complementary foods, the lower the rebound effect. In
a way, UCM is already addressing this by adapting food bags to the die-
tary preferences of recipients (e.g. lactose-free and vegetarian) (Sundin
et al., 2022). Another option could be to adjust the contents of food bags
according to the recipient's family size, in order to distribute the food in
a potentially fairer way.
The results showed multiple environmental benefits of food dona-
tion as a food waste management option compared with anaerobic di-
gestion. Food donation also imparted social values to vulnerable
groups while food and nutrients were salvaged for their intended pur-
pose, i.e. human consumption. However, while retailers are showing in-
creasinginterest in surplus food redistribution, at present only a fraction
is donated (Huang et al., 2021;Johansson, 2021). Lack of financialincen-
tive has been identified as a major barrier to surplus food donation
(Deloitte et al., 2020). This could be due to retailers' decision-making
being steered mainly by economic considerations, while environmental
and social factors play a minor role (Rosenlund et al., 2020). Under re-
cent Swedish legislation, retailers are exempted from paying VAT on
their food donations (Swedish Food Agency, 2022). However, as this
study showed, the economic value transferred to retailers due to surplus
food redistribution is negligible (1 % of total benefits). To provide eco-
nomic gains to retailers, an appropriate fiscal framework making sur-
plus food redistribution more cost-effective for retailers than disposal
must be implemented. A waste tax deduction could be one option,
as it could activate food redistribution while generating multi-
stakeholder benefits (Franco and Cicatiello, 2021). Alternatively, legisla-
tion must be used to enforce the use of higher-priority waste handling
options to save natural resources, as suggested by Eriksson et al.
(2023). These measures could be used in parallel, as edible food waste
could be redistributed and inedible food waste sent to anaerobic diges-
tion when prevention is not achievable (Johansson, 2021).
6. Conclusions
This study showed that surplus food donation was a way to reduce
food waste benefitting the environment, with added economic and
social value to vulnerable groups, in particular, in Sweden. While there
were some trade-offs, such as rebound effects, these were outweighed
by the benefits generated. However, the system for handling
surplus food donations required economic investments from various
stakeholders, as well as surplus food free of charge from retailers.
Food donation can be seen asa transfer system, where economic values
and retailers' food waste are transferred and converted by food centers
into environmental, economic, and social benefits. However, there is no
incentive for retailers to donate their surpluses resulting ina lack of win-
win. To realize the potential of surplus food donation, policy measures
should be better aligned withthe waste hierarchy so as to stimulate pre-
vention and reuse for human consumption. Although surplus food do-
nations organized by charities cannot be considered a long-term
solution, due to their inability to solve the root causes of food insecurity
and food wastage, their activities can alleviate both these issues simul-
taneously and therefore have short-term potential to contribute to a
more sustainable society.
Funding
This work was financially supported by the Swedish Research Council
for Sustainable Development (Formas), grant number FR-2020/0008.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Niina Sundin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data
curation, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing –
Original draft. Louise Bartek: Methodology, Data curation, Software,
Validation, Writing –review & editing. Christine Persson Osowski:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing –Review &
Editing. Ingrid Strid: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing –
Review & Editing. Mattias Eriksson: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Formal analysis, Writing –Review & Editing, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the staff at Uppsala City Mission
for their continuous support and contribution to the data collection.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.03.022.
References
Albizzati, P.F., Rocchi, P., Cai, M., Tonini, D., Astrup, T.F., 2022. Rebound effects of food
waste prevention: environmental impacts. Waste Manag. 153, 138–146. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.08.020.
Albizzati, P.F., Tonini, D., Astrup, T.F., 2021. A quantitative sustainability assessment of
food waste management in the European Union. Environ. Sci. Technol. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03940.
Albizzati,P.F., Tonini, D., Chammard, C.B., Astrup, T.F., 2019. Valorisation ofsurplus food in
the french retail sector: environmental and economic impacts. Waste Manag. 90,
141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.034.
Bartek, L., Sundin, N., Strid, I., Andersson, M., Hansson, P.-A., Eriksson, M., 2022. Environ-
mental benefits of circularfood systems: the case of upcycled protein recovered using
genome edited potato. J. Clean. Prod. 380, 134887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2022.134887.
Bergström, P., Malefors, C., Strid, I., Hanssen, O.J., Eriksson, M., 2020. Sustainability assess-
ment of food redistribution initiatives in Sweden. Resources 9, 27. https://doi.org/10.
3390/resources9030027.
Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., 2012. Review of comparative LCAs of food waste manage-
ment systems –current status and potential improvements. Waste Manag. 32,
2439–2455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.023.
Bernstad Saraiva Schott, A., Andersson, T., 2015. Food waste minimization from a life-
cycle perspective. J. Environ Manag. 147, 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2014.07.048.
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
52
Bianchi, M., Strid, A., Winkvist, A., Lindroos, A.-K., Sonesson, U., Hallström, E., 2020. Sys-
tematic evaluation ofnutrition indicators for use within food LCA studies. Sustainabil-
ity 12, 8992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218992.
Borch, A., Kjærnes, U., 2016. The prevalence and risk of food insecurity in the Nordic re-
gion: preliminary results. J. Consum. Policy 39 (2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10603-016-9316-x.
Brancoli, P., Bolton, K., Eriksson, M., 2020. Environmental impacts of waste management
and valorisation pathways for surplus bread in Sweden. Waste Manag. 117, 136–145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.043.
Brancoli, P., Lundin, M., Bolton, K., Eriksson, M., 2019. Bread loss rates at the supplier-
retailer interface –analysis of risk factors to support waste prevention measures.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 147, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.
027.
Brennan, A., Browne, S., 2021. Food waste and nutrition quality in the context of public
health: a scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 5379. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijerph18105379.
Caldeira, C., De Laurentiis, V., Sala, S., European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2019.
Assessment of Food Waste Prevention Actions: Development of an Evaluation Frame-
work to Assess Performance of Food Waste Prevention Actions.
Chitnis,M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S.K.,Jackson, T., 2014. Who rebounds most? Es-
timating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups.
Ecol. Econ. 106, 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.003.
Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S.K., Jackson, T., 2013. Turning lights into
flights: Estimating directand indirect rebound effects for UK households. Energy Pol-
icy, Special section: Long Run Transitions to Sustainable Economic Structures in the
European Union and Beyond. 55, pp. 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.
12.008.
Cicatiello, C., Franco, S., Pancino, B., Blasi,E., 2016. The value of food waste: an exploratory
study on retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 30, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2016.01.004.
Damiani,M., Pastorello, T.,Carlesso, A., Tesser,S., Semenzin, E., 2021. Quantifying environ-
mental implications of surplus food redistribution to reduce food waste. J. Clean.
Prod. 289, 125813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125813.
Database & Support team PRé Sustainability, 2021. SimaPro Database Manual –Methods
Library.
De Laurentiis, V., Corrado, S., Sala, S., 2018. Quantifying household waste of fresh fruit and
vegetables in the EU. Waste Manag. 77, 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2018.04.001.
Deloitte, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (European Commission),
ECORYS, Wageningen Economic Research, 2020. Food Redistribution in the EU: Map-
ping and Analysis of Existing Regulatory and Policy Measures Impacting Food Redis-
tribution From EU Member States. Publications Office of the European Union, LU.
Druckman, A., Chitnis,M., Sorrell, S., Jackson, T., 2011.Missing carbon reductions? Explor-
ing rebound and backfire effects in UK households. Energy Policy 39, 3572–3581.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.058.
Eriksson, M., Christensen, J., Malefors, C., 2023. Making food waste illegal in Sweden –po-
tential gains from enforcing best practice in the public catering sector. Sustain. Prod.
Consum. 35, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.003.
Eriksson, M., Spångberg, J., 2017. Carbon footprint and energyuse of food waste manage-
ment options for fresh fruit and vegetables from supermarkets. Waste Manag.
(Elmsford) 60, 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.008.
Eriksson, M., Strid, I., Hansson, P.-A., 2015. Carbon footprint of food waste management
options in the waste hierarchy –a Swedish case study. J. Clean. Prod. 93, 115–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.026.
Eriksson, M., Strid, I., Hansson, P.-A., 2014. Waste of organic and conventional meat and
dairy products—a case study from Swedish retail. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 83,
44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.011.
European Commission, 2017. Commission Notice —EU Guidelines on Food Donation.
Eurostat, 2022. 8.6% of people in the EU unable to afford proper meal. https://ec.europa.
eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220225-1 (accessed 9.22.22).
FAO, 2014. Sustainability Pathways: Food loss and waste [WWW Document]. http://
www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/food-loss-and-waste (accessed 1.21.21).
FAO and WHO, 2019. Sustainable healthy diets - Guiding principles. [WWW Document].
URL http://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf
Feeding America, 2022. How We Fight Food Waste in the US. https://www.
feedingamerica.org/our-work/our-approach/reduce-food-waste (accessed 8.11.22).
Francis-Devine, B., Zayed, Y., Gorb, A., Malik, X., Danechi, S., 2022. Food Poverty: House-
holds, Food Banks and Free School Meals (No. 9209). House of Commons.
Franco, S., Cicatiello, C., 2021. Levering waste taxes to increase surplus food redistribution
at supermarkets: gains and scenarios in italian municipalities. Waste Manag. 121,
286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.11.042.
Fulgoni III, V.L., Keast, D.R., Drewnowski, A., 2009. Development and validation of the
nutrient-rich foods index: a tool to measure nutritional quality of foods. J. Nutr.
139, 1549–1554. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.108.101360.
Goossens, Y., Wegner, A., Schmidt, T., 2019. Sustainability assessmentof food waste pre-
vention measures: review of existing evaluation practices. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3,
90. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00090.
Grabs, J.,2015. The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism. Amicroeconomic anal-
ysis of Swedish consumption behavior. Ecol. Econ. 116, 270–279. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.030.
Grönberg, A., 2022. Tusentals söker hjälp för att klara matinköpen. Upsala Nya Tidning.
[Swedish].
Hagedorn, W., Wilts, H., 2019. Who should waste less? Food waste prevention and re-
bound effectsin the context of the Sustainable Development Goals. GAIA - Ecological
Perspectives for Science and Society. 28, pp. 119–125. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.
28.2.10.
Hecht, A.A., Neff, R.A., 2019. Food rescue intervention evaluations: a systematic review.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236718.
Huang, I.Y., Manning, L., James, K.L., Grigoriadis, V., Millington, A., Wood, V., Ward, S.,
2021. Food waste management: a review of retailers’business practicesand their im-
plicationsfor sustainable value. J. Clean. Prod. 285, 125484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.125484.
Hultén, J., Sörme, L., Eriksson, M., 2022. Livsmedelsavfall i Sverige 2020 (No. 978-91-620-
8891–0), INFO-serien 8891. Naturvårdsverket, Bromma, Sweden [Swedish].
Hultman, J., Corvellec, H., 2012. The european waste hierarchy: from the sociomateriality
of waste to a politics of consumption. Environ.Plan. A 44, 2413–2427. https://doi.org/
10.1068/a44668.
Investopedia, 2020. How the Benefit-Cost Ratio Works [WWW Document]. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bcr.asp (accessed 4.1.22).
ISO, 2006a. ISO 14044:2006 [WWW Document]. ISO. https://www.iso.org/cms/render/
live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/03/84/38498.html (accessed 11.8.21).
ISO, 2006b. ISO 14040:2006 [WWW Document]. ISO. https://www.iso.org/cms/render/
live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/03/74/37456.html (accessed 11.8.21).
IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet, 2022. Matsvinnetska minska genom donationer [WWWDoc-
ument]. Matsvinnet ska minska genom donationer. https://www.ivl.se/press/
nyheter/2022-06-20-matsvinnet-ska-minska-genom-donationer.html (accessed
9.29.22). [Swedish].
Johansson, N., 2021. Why is biogas production and not food donation the Swedish polit-
ical priority for food waste management? Environ. Sci. Pol. 126, 60–64. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.09.020.
Kennedy, G., Ballard, Terri, Dop, Marie-Claude,2013. Guidelines for Measuring Household
and Individual Dietary Diversity. FAO, Rome.
KF och ICA provkök, 2000. Mått för mat, fourth ed. ICA Förlaget AB, Västerås. [Swedish].
Kormi, T., Mhadhebi, S., Bel Hadj Ali, N., Abichou, T., Green, R., 2018. Estimation of fugitive
landfill methane emissions using surface emission monitoring and genetic algorithms
optimization. Waste Manag. 72, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.11.
024.
Kufuor, J., Beddington, J., Adesina,A., Arnold, T., Graziano, J., Kalibata, A., 2018. Preventing
nutrient loss and waste across the food system: policy actions for high-quality diets.
Policy Brief No. 12.
Lekve Bjelle, E., Steen-Olsen, K., Wood, R., 2018. Climate change mitigation potential of
Norwegian households and the rebound effect. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 208–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.089.
Leng, G., Adan, R.A.H., Belot, M., Brunstrom, J.M., de Graaf, K., Dickson, S.L., Hare, T., Maier,
S., Menzies, J., Preissl, H., Reisch, L.A., Rogers, P.J., Smeets, P.A.M., 2017. The determi-
nants of food choice. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 76, 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S002966511600286X.
Lewis, 2019. Codex Nutrient Reference Values. FAO and WHO, Rome.
Martinez-Sanchez, V., Tonini, D., Møller, F., Astrup, T.F., 2016. Life-cycle costing of food
waste management in Denmark: importance of indirect effects. Environ. Sci.Technol.
50, 4513–4523. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03536.
Mirosa, M., Mainvil, L., Horne, H., Mangan-Walker, E., 2016. The social value of rescuing
food, nourishing communities. Br. Food J. 118, 3044–3058. https://doi.org/10.1108/
BFJ-04-2016-0149.
Mondello, G., Salomone, R., Ioppolo, G., Saija, G., Sparacia, S., Lucchetti, M.C., 2017. Com-
parative LCA of alternative scenarios for waste treatment: thecase of food waste pro-
duction by the mass-retail sector. Sustainability 9, 827. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su9050827.
Moult, J.A., Allan, S.R., Hewitt, C.N., Berners-Lee, M., 2018. Greenhouse gas emissions of
food waste disposal options for UK retailers. Food Policy 77, 50–58. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.04.003.
Mousa, T.Y., Freeland-Graves, J.H., 2019a. Impact of food pantry donations on diet of a
low-income population. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 70, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09637486.2018.1466271.
Mousa, T.Y., Freeland-Graves, J.H., 2019b. Food security of food recipients of a food pantry
and soup kitchen. Public Health Nutr. 22, 1451–1460. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1368980018003658.
Mousa, T.Y., Freeland-Graves, J.H., 2017. Motivations for volunteers in food rescue nutri-
tion. Public Health 149, 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.04.004.
Nogueira, A., Alves, F., Vaz-Fernandes, P., 2021a.The contribution of up-cycled food waste
to a balanced diet of low-income households. Sustainability 13, 4779. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13094779.
Nogueira, A., Alves, F., Vaz-Fernandes, P., 2021b. The nutritional content of rescued food
conveyed by a food aid organization. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 12212.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212212.
Nordic Council of Ministers, 2014. Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2012: Integrating
Nutrition and Physical Activity. Copenhagen. fifth ed. 10.26530/OAPEN_483279.
Nutrition Data, 2022. Om oss [WWW Document]. Nutrition Data. https://nutritiondata.
se/om-oss/ (accessed 4.8.22).
Obersteiner, G., Gollnow, S., Eriksson, M., 2021. Carbon footprint reduction potential of
waste management strategies in tourism. Environ. Dev. 39, 100617. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100617.
Oldfield, T.L., White, E., Holden, N.M., 2016. An environmental analysis of options for
utilising wasted food and food residue. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 826–835. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.035.
Osowski, C.P., Lindroos, A.K., Barbieri, H.E., Becker, W., 2015. The contribution of school
meals to energy and nutrient intake of Swedish children in relation to dietary guide-
lines. Food Nutr. Res. 59, 27563. https://doi.org/10.3402/fnr.v59.27563.
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., Robinson, D., 2019. Three pillarsof sustainability: in search of concep-
tual origins. Sustain. Sci. 14, 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5.
Redlingshöfer, B., Barles, S., Weisz, H., 2020. Are waste hierarchies effective in reducing
environmental impacts from food waste? A systematic review for OECD countries.
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
53
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 156, 104723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.
104723.
Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V.K., Evans, D., Koh, L.,
CarlssonKanyama, A., Katzeff, C., Svenfelt, Å., Jackson, P., 2019.Review: consumption-
stage food waste reduction interventions –what works and how to design better in-
terventions. Food Policy 83, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.01.009.
Reynolds, C.J., Piantadosi, J., Boland, J., 2015. Rescuing food from the organics waste
stream to feed thefood insecure: an economicand environmental assessment of aus-
tralian food rescue operations using environmentally extended waste input-output
analysis. Sustainability 7, 4707–4726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044707.
Rosenlund, J., Nyblom, Å., Matschke Ekholm, H., Sörme, L., 2020. The emergence of food
waste as an issue in Swedish retail. Br. Food J. 122, 3283–3296. https://doi.org/10.
1108/BFJ-03-2020-0181.
Sabour, M.R., Alam, E., Hatami, A.M., 2020. Global trends andstatus in landfilling research:
a systematic analysis. J. Mater. Cycl. Waste Manag. 22, 711–723. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10163-019-00968-5.
Salemdeeb, R., Font Vivanco, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J., 2017a. A holistic ap-
proach to theenvironmental evaluation of food waste prevention. Waste Manag. 59,
442–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.042.
Salemdeeb, R., Kim, M.H., Balmford, A., Al-Tabbaa,A., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J., 2017b. Envi-
ronmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative
analysis of food waste management options. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 871–880. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.049 Towards eco-efficient agriculture and food sys-
tems: selected papers addressing the global challenges for food systems, including
those presented at the Conference “LCA for Feeding the planet and energy for life”
(6-8 October 2015, Stresa & Milan Expo, Italy).
SCB, 2019. At-risk-of-poverty rate increasing [WWW Document]. Statistiska
Centralbyrån. http://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/
household-finances/income-and-income-distribution/income-and-tax-statistics/
pong/statistical-news/income-and-tax-statistics-income-report-2017/ (accessed
8.18.21).
Schneider, F., Eriksson, M., 2020. Food Waste (And Loss) at the Retail Level. Routledge
Handbook of Food Waste. Earthscan, pp. 114–128. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780429462795-10.
Simmet, A., Depa, J., Tinnemann, P., Stroebele-Benschop, N., 2017. The nutritional quality
of food provided from food pantries: a systematic review of existing literature.
J. Acad. Nutr.Diet. 117, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2016.08.015.
Sorrell, S., Dimitropoulos, J., 2007. UKERC Review of Evidence for the Rebound Effect
Technical Report 5: Energy, Productivity and Economic Growth Studies (No.
UKERC/WP/TPA/2007/013).
Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B.L., Lassaletta, L., de
Vries, W., Vermeulen, S.J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K.M., Jonell, M., Troell, M., DeClerck,
F., Gordon, L.J., Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., Godfray,
H.C.J., Tilman, D., Rockström, J., Willett, W.,2018. Options for keeping the food system
within environmental limits. Nature (London) 562, 519–525. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41586-018-0594-0.
Sundin, N., Malefors, C., Danielsson, M., Hardiyanti, M., Persson Osowski,C., Eriksson, M.,
2023. Investigating goalconflicts in menu planning in Swedish school catering on the
pathway to sustainable development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 190, 106822. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106822.
Sundin, N.,Persson Osowski, C., Strid, I., Eriksson, M., 2022. Surplus fooddonation: effec-
tiveness, carbon footprint, and rebound effect. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 181, 106271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106271.
Sundin, N., Rosell, M., Eriksson, M., Jensen, C., Bianchi, M., 2021. The climate impact of ex-
cess food intake - an avoidable environmental burden. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 174,
105777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105777.
SVA, 2013. SecondBite. Food Distribution Activities. Social Return on Investment Report.
Summary Report. https://socialvalueuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SecondBite
%20SROI%20Summary%20Report_Final.pdf (accessed 11.16.21).
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. Ökad utsortering och biologisk
behandlingavmatavfall-Sverigesmiljömål. https://sverigesmiljomal.se/
etappmalen/okad-utsortering-och-biologisk-behandling-av-matavfall/ (accessed
5.19.22). [Swedish].
Swedish Food Agency, 2022. Tydligare regler om moms på donerad mat. https://www.
livsmedelsverket.se/foretagande-regler-kontroll/nyheter-for-livsmedelsforetag/nyheter-
for-foretag/tydligare-regler-om-moms-pa-donerad-mat (accessed 12.13.22). [Swedish].
Topor, O.S., 2021. Vardag, värdighet och det lilla extra i en utsatt situation Om
Stadsmissionens Matkasseverksamhet. 56 [Swedish].
Tse, C., Tarasuk, V., 2008. Nutritional assessment of charitable meal programmes serving
homeless people in Toronto. Public Health Nutr. 11, 1296–1305. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S1368980008002577.
UNEP, 2021. UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2021 [WWW Document]. UNEP - UN Envi-
ronment Programme. http://www.unep.org/resources/report/unep-food-waste-
index-report-2021 (accessed 8.18.21).
UNEP, 2011. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Towards a Life Cycle Sustain-
ability Assessment. 86.
UNEP, U.N.E., 2020. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisa-
tions. 2020.
United Nations, 2022. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022. https://unstats.
un.org/sdgs/report/2022/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2022.pdf
(accessed 8.5.22).
United Nations, 2010. The Right to Adequate Food.
Vatten, Uppsala, 2021. Hållbarhetsredovisning 2020. https://www.uppsalavatten.se/
globalassets/dokument/om-oss/ars–och-hallbarhetsredovisning/hbr_2020_uppsala-
vatten–avfall-ab_org.pdf (accessed 6.21.21). [Swedish].
USDA, 2012.U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form Economic
Research Service, USDA. https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/8282/short2012.pdf
(accessed 2.23.22).
Vieira, L.M., Domingues, Í., Matzembacher, D.E., 2022. Food waste redistribution and im-
plications for achieving the sustainable development goals: the case of a food bank
in the Municipality of São Paulo, Brazil. In: Lazaro, L.L.B., Giatti, L.L., Valente de
Macedo, L.S., Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. (Eds.), Water-Energy-Food Nexus and Climate
Change in Cities, Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer International Pub-
lishing, Cham, pp. 309–321 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05472-3_17.
Vittuari, M., De Menna, F., Gaiani, S., Falasconi, L., Politano, A., Dietershagen, J., Segrè, A.,
2017. The second life of food: an assessment of the social impact of food redistribu-
tion activities in Emilia Romagna, Italy. Sustainability 9, 1817. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su9101817.
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T.,
Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L.J., Fanzo, J.,
Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J.A., Vries, W.D., Sibanda, L.M., Afshin, A., Chaudhary,
A., Herrero, M., Agustina, R., Branca, F., Lartey, A., Fan, S., Crona, B., Fox, E., Bignet,
V., Troell, M., Lindahl, T., Singh, S., Cornell, S.E., Reddy, K.S., Narain, S., Nishtar, S.,
Murray, C.J.L., 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on
healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.
Wolfson, M.D., Greeno, C., 2020. Savoring surplus: effects of food rescue on recipients.
J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 15, 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2018.1512921.
WRAP, 2021. Surplus food redistribution in the UK 2015 to 2020 [WWW Document].
WRAP. https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/surplus-food-redistribution-uk-2015-
2020 (accessed 8.11.22).
WWF-UK, 2021. Driven to Waste Global Food Loss on Farms.
N. Sundin, L. Bartek, C. Persson Osowski et al. Sustainable Production and Consumption 38 (2023)
54
