Setting the scene for an EU initiative on food waste reduction targets : outcomes of consultation activities and analysis of efforts on food waste reduction.
Date: 2023-06-14
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU initiative, domestic waste, fight against wastage, food consumption, food safety, food waste, foodstuff, research report, waste recycling

ISSN 1831-9424 

Setting the scene for an EU initiative on 
food waste reduction targets  

Outcomes of consultation activities and analysis of efforts on food waste 
reduction  

De Laurentiis, V, Mancini, L, Casonato, C, 
Boysen-Urban, K, De Jong, B, M’Barek, R, Sanyé 
Mengual, E, Sala, S  

2023 

EUR 31560 EN 

 
 
ISSN XXXX-XXXX 

This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It 
aims  to  provide  evidence-based  scientific  support  to  the  European  policymaking  process.  The  contents  of  this  publication  do  not 
necessarily  reflect  the  position  or  opinion  of  the  European  Commission.  Neither  the  European  Commission  nor  any  person  acting  on 
behalf of  the  Commission  is responsible  for  the  use  that  might  be  made  of  this publication.  For  information  on  the  methodology  and 
quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should 
contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of 
any  opinion  whatsoever  on  the  part  of  the  European  Union  concerning  the  legal  status  of  any  country,  territory,  city  or  area  or  of  its 
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Name: Serenella Sala 
Address: Via E. Fermi, 2417, Ispra (VA), Italy 
Email: Serenella.Sala@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: 0039 0332786417  

EU Science Hub 
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu 

JRC133967 

EUR 31560 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-68-04609-8 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/13859  KJ-NA-31-560-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023  

The  reuse  policy  of  the  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  12  December 
2011  on  the  reuse  of  Commission  documents  (OJ  L  330,  14.12.2011,  p.  39).  Unless  otherwise  noted,  the  reuse  of  this  document  is 
authorised  under  the  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0  International  (CC  BY  4.0)  licence  (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.  

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the European Union permission must be sought directly from 
the copyright holders. The European Union does not own the copyright in relation to the following elements: 
- Cover page illustration, © Jchizhe / stock.adobe.com 

How  to  cite  this  report:  De  Laurentiis,  V,  Mancini,  L,  Casonato,  C,  Boysen-Urban,  K,  De  Jong,  B,  M’Barek,  R,  Sanyé  Mengual,  E,  Sala,  S, 
Setting the scene for an EU initiative on food waste reduction targets - Outcomes of consultation activities and analysis of efforts on food 
waste reduction, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, doi:10.2760/13859, JRC133967. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents  

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................1 

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................2 

1 

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................3 

2  Public consultation on food waste reduction targets .......................................................................................6 

2.1  Analysis of the responses .........................................................................................................................6 

2.1.1 

Concern about food waste ............................................................................................................6 

2.1.2 

Level of agreement on food waste reduction targets ..................................................................7 

2.1.3  Measures to reduce food waste ..................................................................................................10 

2.1.4  Who needs to take action ............................................................................................................12 

2.1.5 

Challenges for the food waste reduction initiatives ...................................................................13 

2.1.6 

Benefits of reducing food waste .................................................................................................15 

2.1.7 

Purchasing and consumption habits ...........................................................................................16 

2.1.8 

Implementation of effective measures to reduce waste ...........................................................17 

2.2  Additional insights from the position papers .........................................................................................18 

3  Targeted consultation and data collection on food waste prevention actions ..............................................19 

3.1 

Insights from stakeholders’ data collection ...........................................................................................19 

3.1.1  Questionnaire...............................................................................................................................19 

3.1.2 

Sample .........................................................................................................................................19 

3.1.2.1 

Response rate ......................................................................................................................19 

3.1.2.2 

Initiative types .....................................................................................................................21 

3.1.2.3 

Geographical distribution ....................................................................................................22 

3.1.2.4 

Stakeholders and phase of the supply chain addressed by the initiatives ........................22 

3.1.3 

Results .........................................................................................................................................23 

3.1.3.1 

Cost analysis .......................................................................................................................23 

3.1.3.2 

Social benefits .....................................................................................................................26 

3.2 

Insights from Member States data collection ........................................................................................29 

3.2.1  Questionnaires .............................................................................................................................29 

3.2.2 

Sample .........................................................................................................................................29 

3.2.3 

Results .........................................................................................................................................31 

4  Analysis of prevention efforts undertaken by Member States ......................................................................34 

4.1  Classification of policies for food waste prevention ..............................................................................34 

4.2  Policies’ uptake across the EU ................................................................................................................35 

4.2.1  Overarching National Policies ......................................................................................................36 

4.2.2 

Consumer level actions ...............................................................................................................36 

4.2.3 

Food donation facilitation ...........................................................................................................36 

4.2.4 

Supply chain efficiency ................................................................................................................36 

i 

4.2.5 

Financial instruments ..................................................................................................................37 

4.3  Evaluation of policies ..............................................................................................................................37 

5  Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................40 

References ............................................................................................................................................................41 

List of abbreviations and definitions ....................................................................................................................43 

List of figures ........................................................................................................................................................44 

List of tables .........................................................................................................................................................46 

Annexes .................................................................................................................................................................47 

Annex 1. Survey for stakeholders ...................................................................................................................47 

Annex 2. Survey for Member States ...............................................................................................................58 

Annex 3. Timelines of policy implementation of selected Member States ....................................................61 

ii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract  

This  report  describes  part  of  the  research  carried  out  to  support  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  legislative 
proposal amending Directive 2008/98/EC, in relation to the part focusing on setting legally binding food waste 
reduction targets. It illustrates: 

—  the outcome of the public consultation on the revision of the Waste Framework Directive, for the part 
concerning  food  waste,  which  showed  a  high  level  of  agreement  with  setting  legally  binding  food 
waste reduction targets 

—  the  results  of  targeted  consultation  and  data  collection  on  food  waste  prevention  initiatives  from 
stakeholders  and  Member  States  (MSs),  trough  the  submission  of  two  questionnaires,  aimed  at 
collecting quantitative data on costs and results of food waste prevention initiatives 

—  the  results  of  an  analysis  of  policy  initiatives  on  food  waste  prevention  undertaken  by  EU  MSs,  in 
terms  of  efforts  and  results  achieved,  which  showed  some  discrepancies  between  formal 
commitment to SDG target 12.3 and concrete measures implemented.  

The high heterogeneity of the food waste prevention initiatives collected is reflected in the high variability of 
the  reported  cost of food waste reduction. Few  MSs  have applied an evidence-based  policymaking strategy 
with  medium-  or long-term  outlooks,  while  the  majority  have  put  in  place  sporadic  initiatives.  The  evidence 
gathered  suggests  that  further  efforts  are  needed  to  monitor  food  waste  quantities  and  to  evaluate  the 
effectiveness of country level food waste prevention initiatives.  

1 

Acknowledgements  

This report is a deliverable of the project “PREVENT-FW-IA - Scientific and technical support for EU action on 
food  waste  prevention”,  which  is  an  Administrative  Arrangement  (AA)  N.  36128-2021  SI2.858764  between 
the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC).  

Authors 

Land Resources and Supply Chain Assessments Unit (JRC D3): 

Valeria De Laurentiis  

Lucia Mancini 

Cecilia Casonato 

Esther Sanyé Mengual 

Serenella Sala 

Economics of Agriculture Unit (JRC D4): 

Robert M’Barek 

Kirsten Boysen-Urban 

Beyhan de Jong 

2 

 
 
 
1 

Introduction  

According to EU legislation, food waste is defined as: “all food as defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 
178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU, 2002) that has become waste” (EU, 2008). The 
definition of 'food' laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 encompasses food as a whole, along the entire 
food supply chain from production until consumption. Food also includes inedible parts, where those were not 
separated from the edible parts when the food was produced, such  as bones attached to meat destined for 
human consumption. Hence, food waste includes parts of food intended to be ingested and parts of food not 
intended  to  be  ingested.  ‘Waste’  means  any  substance  or  object  which  the  holder  discards  or  intends  or  is 
required  to  discard  (EU,  2008).  According  to  Article  2  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  178/2002  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council, food shall not include feed, live animals unless they are prepared for placing 
on the market for human consumption and plants prior to harvesting (EU, 2002). 

Food  waste  arises  at  all  stages  of  the  food  supply  chain:  (a)  primary  production;  (b)  processing  and 
manufacturing; (c) retail and other distribution of food; (d) restaurants and food services; (e) households. Food 
waste arising at consumption includes waste generated both in- and out-of-home. Therefore, stages (d) and 
(e) are jointly addressed as “consumption” stage in this report. 

In  Q1  2023,  Eurostat  published  updated  results  of  the  EU-wide  monitoring  of  food  waste  levels,  measured 
according to a common methodology. In 2020, total food waste reached nearly 59 Mt (131 kg per person per 
year).  Roughly  10%  of  food  made  available  to  EU  consumers  (at  manufacturing,  retail,  food  services  and 
households) is estimated to be wasted. Over half of food waste (53%) is generated by households (more than 
31  Mt).  The  second  biggest  share  (20%)  is  the  processing  and  manufacturing  sector  (around  12  Mt).  The 
remaining  shares  –  representing  altogether a  quarter  of  the  total  food  waste  –  originate  from  the  primary 
production  sector  (10%;  6  Mt),  restaurants  and  food  services  (9%;  more  than  5  Mt)  and  retail  and  other 
distribution of food sectors (7%; more than 4 Mt). (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Food waste estimations in the EU (2020) (tonnes of fresh mass).  

Source: Eurostat (2023) (online data code: env_wasfw) 

Data collected at MS level reported total food waste, without distinguishing between food types. However, by 
combining it with the results of the food waste model developed by the JRC (De Laurentiis et al., 2021), it is 
possible to provide an assessment of the composition of food waste (Figure 2). Here, it is possible to see how 
the largest part is composed of fruit (27%) and vegetables (20%), 13% are cereals while meat and potatoes 
represent 10% each. 

3 

 
 
  
Figure 2. Food waste generated in the EU27 by food group. Mt in fresh weight. 

Source: Adapted from Sanchez Lopez et al. (2020), based on data from Eurostat (2023) and De Laurentiis et al., (2021) 

Looking  at  the  food  waste  levels  by  Member  State  (expressed  as  kg/inhabitant),  Figure  3  provides  an 
overview and shows significant variations in the levels of food waste per capita. Several factors explain the 
differences  in  food  waste  amounts  reported  by  MSs.  These  include,  amongst  others:  the  size  of  the 
manufacturing base; whether the country is a net food exporter or importer; the share of disposable income 
allocated  to  food;  population  flux  (e.g.,  due  to  tourism,  migration);  cultural  differences  and  food  habits.  In 
particular,  countries  with  a  small  population  producing  large  quantities  of  food  for  exporting  purposes 
reported high values of per capita food waste (e.g. Cyprus, Belgium, Denmark). In addition, as 2022 was the 
first  reporting  year,  some  differences  may  decrease  as  MS  gain  experience  in  food  waste  monitoring  over 
time. 

 Figure 3. Food waste by sector of activities by Member State, 2020, kilograms per inhabitant. 

Legend: 1: estimated data; 2: definition differs in some figures; 3: definition differs or estimates in some figures; 4: 
Estimates in some figures. Source: Eurostat (2023) (online data code: env_wasfw) 

The Farm to Fork Strategy adopted as part of the European Green Deal aims to reduce the environmental and 
climate footprint of the EU food system and facilitate the shift to healthy and sustainable diets (EC, 2020). 
With  a  supply-chain  perspective,  the  Strategy  addresses  also  food  waste  generation,  including  a  target  to 
halve  food  waste  “The  Commission  is  committed  to  halving  per  capita  food  waste  at  retail  and  consumer 
levels  by  2030”.  Such  target  is  in  alignment  with  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs)  (UN  General 

4 

 
 
Assembly, 2015) target 12.3 “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels 
and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses” (1). 

Towards  achieving  this  goal,  the  Commission  announced  the  proposal  of  EU-level  targets  for  food  waste 
reduction.  This  initiative  also  builds  on  Directive  851/2018/EC  amending  Directive  2008/98/EC  on  waste, 
which obliges the Commission to examine data on food waste provided by MSs with a view to considering the 
feasibility of establishing a Union-wide food waste reduction target to be met by 2030. Such proposal would 
be part of the revision of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste.  

This  technical  report  describes  the  preparatory  work  carried  out  to  support  the  impact  assessment  of  the 
policy  initiative  on  EU-level  targets  for  food  waste  reduction.  In  particular,  it  provides  an  overview  of  the 
consultation activities, which include: 

—  a  public  consultation  (open  to  everyone,  through  an  EU  survey)  aimed  at  getting  the  views  and 
opinions of citizens, companies, organizations and other stakeholders on the problem of FW and on 
the related policy proposal 

—  a  targeted  consultation  for  MSs  and  other  stakeholders  on  the  food  waste  prevention  initiatives in 
place, with a focus on collecting quantitative data on the cost and effectiveness of these initiatives. 

Moreover, an analysis of policy initiatives undertaken by MSs to prevent food waste is presented. The aim of 
the  analysis  was  to  delineate  the  current  status  of  food  waste  prevention  across  the  different  MSs  and 
evaluate the possible resources required to reach the FW reduction targets. This analysis showed that there is 
a lack of an evidence-based and coordinated approach to food waste prevention in MSs, which was identified 
as one of the problem drivers leading to food waste generation in the EU. 

1 

Tackling food waste is also in line with the priorities of the Bioeconomy Strategy (COM/2018/673) that aims at the deployment of a 
sustainable European bioeconomy that, inter alia, “can turn bio-waste, residues and discards into valuable resources and can create 
the innovations and incentives to help retailers and consumers cut food waste by 50% by 2030”. 

5 

                                                        
 
2  Public consultation on food waste reduction targets 

In the context of the Waste Framework Directive revision, which aims to increase the level of protection of the 
environment and public health from the impacts of waste management, the European Commission carried out 
a  public  consultation.  The  aim  was  to  seek  opinions  and  insights  about  the  problem,  the  feasibility  and 
possible  impacts  of  alternative  actions;  gather  examples  of  best  practices  and  views  on  the  subsidiarity  of 
possible actions. As part of this impact assessment, the Commission also examined policy options related to 
the setting of EU-level targets for food waste reduction.  

The questionnaire developed was intended to reach out to interested or concerned stakeholders. Stakeholders 
could provide feedback by responding to the questionnaire and by  uploading a document if they wished. The 
consultation period started on 24 May 2022 and ran until 24 August 2022. The questionnaire was available 
on  the  Have  your  Say  platform  in  all  EU  languages.  There  were  731  responses  to  the  survey  during  the 
consultation  period  and  207  respondents  uploaded  written  contributions.  Section  2.1  summarizes  the  main 
outcomes  of  the  public  consultation  for  the  part  related  to  food  waste,  while  Section  2.2  summarizes  the 
main outcomes of the position papers provided in the consultation by various respondent. 

2.1  Analysis of the responses 

This section illustrates the outcome of the public consultation for each of the questions related to food waste. 

2.1.1  Concern about food waste  

Question:  Regarding  the  volumes  of  wastes  generated,  please  indicate  to  what  extent  are  you  concerned 
about the following. 

Figure 4. Answers provided to the question on the level of concern about waste flows 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

89% of the  respondents declared to  be  concerned or  very concerned about the amount of food  waste. The 
option “municipal waste” shows a similar share (88% are concerned or very concerned about its quantities), 
whereas almost 80% of the respondents declared to be concerned or very concerned about the amounts of 
textile waste. Finally, almost all the respondents (98%) reported being concerned or very concerned about the 
“impact on the environment” of waste generated (Figure 4).  

Considering  the  stakeholder  groups,  stakeholders  showing  no  concern  for  the  amount  of  food  waste 
generated belong only to the categories business association and companies (n=12 out of 131) and EU citizen 
(n=10 out of 260) (Figure 5). 

6 

 
Figure 5. Stakeholder analysis of replies to the question on food waste reduction targets 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

2.1.2  Level of agreement on food waste reduction targets  

Question:  To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  following  statements  on  possible  EU  measures  to  improve 
waste prevention? 

The  level  of  agreement  concerning  the  setting  of  legally  binding  food  waste  reduction  targets  is  generally 
high, with 74% of replies expressing agreement or strong agreement with the proposal (Figure 6). As shown 
in Figure 7, NGO, consumer and environmental organizations expressed the highest support (relative to the 
group size) as 73 respondents out of 82 (i.e. 89%) either agree or strongly agree with the proposal, followed 
by EU citizens (228 out of 262, i.e. 87% of them agree or strongly agree on the proposal). The consensus is 
lower in the case of business associations and companies (130 out of 240, i.e. 54% expressed agreements or 
strong agreement). When delving into the opinion of companies (Figure 8), the level of agreement is similar 
among  different  company  size  groups.  In  all  groups  more  than  half  of  the  respondents  reported  to  either 
agree  or  strongly  agree  with  the  proposal,  while  a  small  share  (between  4%  and  15%)  reported  to  either 
disagree  or  strongly  disagree  with  the  proposal.  The  largest  share  of  disagreement  was  reported  by  small 
companies (where, however, only two respondents reported to disagree or strongly disagree with setting food 
waste reduction targets). Across different types of “public authority” (n=29), Figure 9 shows that the level of 
consensus on setting food waste reduction targets is generally high. All types were in favour of such measure 
with consensus above 70% (considering the sum of the options “agree” and “strongly agree”). Disagreement 
was only reported by two stakeholders belonging to local authorities. 

7 

 
Figure 6. Answers provided to the question on the level of agreement with policy measures 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Figure 7. Stakeholder analysis of question on the level of agreement with food waste reduction targets 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

8 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8. Analysis of responses provided by the companies, by company size. Numbers above the bars indicates the total 
number of replies for each category 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Figure 9. Analysis of responses provided by the “public authority” group, by type and level of the entity. Numbers above 
the bars indicates the total number of replies for each category 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

9 

 
 
 
 
2.1.3  Measures to reduce food waste  

Question: Which measures do you consider to be the most effective in reducing food waste? Please indicate 
for each measure below, its possible level of impact. 

Figure 10. Answers provided to the question on the most effective measures to reduce food waste 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Figure 10 shows that the options “improving efficiency along the food supply chain”, “education and training” 
and  “facilitating  donation  of  surplus  food”  are  considered  the  most  effective  ones  to  reduce  food  waste 
(respectively 64%, 55% and 51% of the respondents consider them very impactful). A high level of support is 
also  shown  for  the  options  “measuring  food  waste  to  track  progress”  and  “setting  food  waste  reduction 
targets”,  with  respectively  82%  and  80%  of  the  respondents  regarding  them  as  either  “very  impactful”  or 
“moderately impactful.  

Figure 11 provides further insight on the views of stakeholders concerning food waste prevention measures. 
93%  of  the  citizens  think  that  “improving  efficiency  along  the  food  supply  chain”  is  a  very  or  moderately 
impactful measure, while the option “education and training” and “facilitating donation of surplus food” have 
been identified as very or moderately impactful by 89 and 88% of the citizens, respectively.  

“Improving  efficiency  along  the  food  supply  chain”  is  the  option  with  highest  rates  in  all  the  stakeholder 
groups,  with  the  exception  of  “others”.  However,  in  the  case  of  companies  and  business  organizations  the 
shares of respondents considering the various measures “very impactful” or “moderately impactful” are lower, 
being  at  maximum  56%  for  “improving  efficiency  along  the  food  supply  chain”  and  55%  for  “best  practice 
sharing”. For the  group “NGOs, consumers and environmental organizations” the second option  with  highest 
share  of  very  and  moderately  impactful  replies  is  “setting  food  waste  reduction  targets”  (87%).  The  group 
“academy  and  research”  the  options  “using  surplus  food  and  by-products”,  “fiscal  incentives”  and  “clearer, 
more  understandable  date  marking”  have  all  the  same  rate  of  very  and  moderately  impactful  replies  as 
“improving efficiency along the food supply chain”, i.e. 88%. Instead, fiscal incentives do not have high rates in 
the  case  of  business  organizations  and  companies  (42%  of  the  respondents  considered  this  option  very  or 
moderately impactful).  

In  the  case  of  the  group  “others”,  which  include  also  trade  unions  and  non-EU  citizens,  the  option  with  the 
highest share is “sharing of best practices”.  

10 

 
Figure 11. Heat map showing the shares (%) of replies “very impactful” and “moderately impactful” for each proposed 
measure out of the total number of respondents, by group of stakeholders. The last row indicates the total number of 
respondents for each stakeholder group. Table 1 below shows the legend for the measures 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Table 1 Legend of food waste reduction measures listed in Figure 11 

Number  Measure 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Improving efficiency along the food supply chain (e.g. better management of supply and demand)  

Education and training (citizens, food business operators etc.) 

Measuring food waste to track progress  

Setting food waste reduction targets 

Best-practice sharing 

Facilitating donation of surplus food 

Consumer-targeted campaigns 

Using surplus food and by-products (e.g. for animal feed) 

Digital tools and apps (e.g., to facilitate redistribution of surplus food) 

Fiscal incentives (e.g., corporate tax credits for food donation) 

Clearer, more understandable date marking 

Packaging innovation (e.g., to extend shelf-life) 

Public/private partnerships: voluntary agreements of food business operators to reduce food waste in the supply 
chain 

Other regulatory initiatives 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

11 

 
 
2.1.4  Who needs to take action 

Question: Fighting food waste requires action from multiple actors across the food supply chain and beyond. 
According to you, who needs to take more action to reduce food waste? (Please select up to 5 actors from the 
list below) 

Figure 12. Answers provided to the question on actors that need to take more action to reduce food waste. Percentage of 
respondents selecting each actor 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

The  surveyed  stakeholders  tend  to  identify  the  actors  “other”,  “consumers”  and  “retailers  and  other 
distributors” as those who need to take more action to reduce food waste, followed by “food manufacturers” 
and “hospitality and food services” (Figure 12). No information was provided by the respondents on who they 
intended when selecting the option “other”. The relevance given to consumers is in line with evidence showing 
that  this  group  is  responsible  with  the  largest  share  of  food  waste  generation.  On  the  contrary,  the  least 
selected actor categories are “food banks” and “other non-governmental organizations”.  

The heat map (Figure 13) displays the most selected options from the different categories of stakeholders. 
The  most  selected  options  by  EU  citizens  is  “other”  (74%),  “retailers  and  other  distributors”  (71%)  and 
“consumers”  (68%).  “Consumers”  is  the  most  selected  option  also  by  the  stakeholder  group  companies  and 
business organizations (82%), public authorities (90%), academia (86%) and others (91%). For the group of 
NGOs, consumer and environmental organization, instead, the most selected actors are “food manufacturers” 
(78%) and hospitality and food services (70%). 

The actor “consumers” is identified as the most relevant actor to take action by large (55%) and micro (58%) 
companies (Figure 14). Instead, small companies selected in “food manufacturers” as actor for reducing food 
waste  in  most  cases  (65%).  The  group  of  medium  companies  shows  the  highest  shares  for  the  actors 
“retailers and distributors”, “consumers” and “other” (63% each). 

12 

 
 
Figure 13. Heat map showing the shares of respondents selecting each actor category (rows), by group of stakeholders 
(columns). The last row indicates the total number of respondents for each group of stakeholders. 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Figure 14. Analysis of replies of question on actors who need to take more action to reduce food waste from companies, 
by company size. Numbers above the bars indicates the total number of replies for each company size  

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

2.1.5  Challenges for the food waste reduction initiatives 

Question:  Food  waste  reduction  initiatives  may  encounter  several  challenges.  For  each  of  the  items  listed 
below, please indicate how important you consider these challenges to be. 

According to the respondents, the most important challenge for the reduction of food waste concern the fact 
that consumers need to adapt to new habits (Figure 15) identified as challenge 2 in table 2. Indeed, counting 
the replies “very important” and “important”, this is the first option for citizens (90% of all replies from this 
stakeholder), companies and business organizations (61%), public authorities (88%), academia and research 
institute  (88%)  and  other  (87%)  (Figure  16).  Instead,  in  the  stakeholder  group  NGOs,  consumer  and 
environmental organizations, 76% of the respondents identified as “very important”/“important” the challenge 
that  “businesses  need  to  make  food  waste  prevention  part  of  their  business  operations”  (challenge  1).  This 
option obtained high shares also in other stakeholder groups, i.e. citizens (89%), public authorities (88%) and 
other  (84%).  Challenge  5  on  costs  associated  with  food  waste  prevention  has  the  lowest  share  in  various 
groups  of  stakeholders,  including  citizens  (50%),  companies  and  business  organizations  (36%),  NGOs, 
consumer and environmental organizations (38%), and other (55%).  

13 

 
 
 
Figure 15. Answers provided to the question on challenges encountered by food waste reduction initiatives 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Figure 16. Heat map showing the shares of replies “very important” and “important” for each challenge, by stakeholder 
category. The definition of each challenge is provided in Table 2 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Looking at company size (Figure 17), replies are similar given that challenge 2 on consumers’ habits is the 
one  with  the  highest  share  of  “important”  and  “very  important”  replies  in  the  large,  medium  and  small 
companies (60%, 70% and 100% respectively). For micro scale companies, instead, challenge 1 on business 
operations has the highest share (54%).  

Figure 17. Analysis of replies from companies on challenges encountered by food waste reduction initiatives, by company 
size. Shares of replies “very important” and “important”. 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

14 

 
Table 2. Description of challenges supporting Figure 17 

Number 

Challenge 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Businesses need to make food waste prevention part of their business operations 

Consumers need to adopt new habits in order to reduce food waste  

Ineffective cooperation between key players  

Consumers’ acceptance of possible reduction in food choices  

Ensuring sufficient action is taken at the pace needed to reach global commitments  

Ensuring no compromise on food safety 

Lack of evidence and best practice to identify the most effective actions 

Difficulty in collecting data on food waste levels and related impacts 

Difficulty in monitoring compliance with food waste targets 

10 

Costs associated with food waste prevention 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

2.1.6  Benefits of reducing food waste  

Question: The EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy seeks to enable the transition to a sustainable food system that is 
fair,  healthy  and  environmentally-friendly.  It  aims  in  particular  to  reduce  the  environmental  and  climate 
footprint of the EU food system, to protect citizens’ health and ensure the livelihoods of economic operators. 
Taking  action  to  reduce  food  waste  is  critical  to  achieving  sustainable  food  systems.  Please  indicate  if  you 
agree that reducing food waste can lead to the following benefits. 

Figure 18. Answers provided to the question on the benefits of reducing food waste 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Climate change mitigation and the reduction of other environmental impacts are the most important benefits 
deriving from reducing food waste, according to the survey respondents, as in both cases 64% of respondents 
strongly agreed with these statements (Figure 18).  

15 

The option “help reduce other environmental impact” is the option with the highest share of “strongly agree” 
and  “agree”  replies  in  all  stakeholder  groups  (Figure  19),  ranging  from  92%  of  citizens  and  62%  of 
companies  and  business  organization.  For  this  stakeholder  group  the  option  “help  mitigate  climate  change” 
has  the  same  share  (62%)  of  “strongly  agree”  and  “agree”  responses.  With  the  exception  of  the  group 
academia  and  research  (which  counts  only  8  replies  in  total),  the  other  stakeholder  groups  also  show  high 
shares  for  the  climate  mitigation  options  (89%  of  citizens  and  NGOs,  environmental  and  consumer 
organizations, 78% of public authorities, 82% of others).  

Interestingly, business associations and organizations tend to  disagree with the suggestion that food  waste 
reduction  could  bring  savings  for  food  business  operators  (45%).  This  general  tendency  could  either  be 
explained by a low level of awareness of the potential savings associated with food waste reduction, or by the 
fact that these stakeholders have evidence that efforts to reduce food waste would not be worthwhile from 
an economic perspective. 

Figure 19. Heat map showing the shares of replies “agree” and “strongly agree” to each benefit, by group of stakeholder 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

In  all  the  companies’  categories  “help  mitigate  climate  change”  and  “help  reduce  other  environmental 
impacts” are the options receiving the highest share of “strongly agree” and “agree” replies (Figure 20). For 
medium  and  small  companies,  also  “contribute  to  food  security”  has  a  high  share  (67%  and  65%, 
respectively).  

Figure 20. Analysis of replies provided by companies, by company size. Shares of replies “strongly agree” and “agree”. 

2.1.7  Purchasing and consumption habits 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Question: Please indicate if and how frequently you do the following when you purchase and consume goods 
(these questions are intended for individuals or households so please reply in your personal capacity) 

When asked about purchasing and consumption habits, 74% of the respondents mentioned that they either 
always  or  often  plan  their  food  shopping  to  avoid  food  waste.  This  option  showed  the  highest  share  of 
positive replies (sum of “always” and “often”) compared to other waste reducing habits (Figure 21). As this 
question  concerned  the  respondents  in  their  personal  capacity  the  analysis  of  stakeholders  cannot  be 
performed.  

16 

 
 
 
Figure 21. Answers provided to the question on purchasing and consumption habits 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

2.1.8 

Implementation of effective measures to reduce waste 

Question: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 

38% of the  respondents agrees or strongly agrees with the  statement “My employer has in  place effective 
measures to prevent waste generation in the workplace”, while this percentage is slightly lower when referring 
to the EU (24%) and countries (20%) ( 

Figure 22). This shows that, according to the survey respondents, business and authorities show significant 
room for improvement for putting in place waste reduction measures. It should be noted that this question is 
referred to waste in general rather than to food waste. 

Figure 22. Answers provided to the question on the implementation of effective measures to reduce waste 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

17 

 
 
 
2.2  Additional insights from the position papers 

The review of position papers sent within the consultation on the revision of the Waste Framework Directive 
resulted  in  53  documents  concerning  food  waste  or  including  considerations  about  this  topic.  The  total 
number of submitted position papers was 202. Almost half of the comments on food waste (26) came from 
business  associations,  12  from  non-profit  organizations,  eight  from  companies  and  seven  from  public 
authorities.  

18  stakeholders  are  in  favour  of  applying  targets  to  the  whole  supply  chain,  thus  including  the  primary 
production. In some cases, they stress the need to avoid rebound effects in the various phases of the supply 
chain  (i.e.  that  reduction  in  a  certain  step  could  result  in  food  waste  increases  in  another  step)  and  to 
recognize  responsibility  for  all  the  actors  of  the  supply  chain.  Two  stakeholders,  instead,  disagree  on  the 
inclusion of the primary production or consider that the target should be lower compared to the consumption 
phase  (where  the  biggest  part  of  the  food  waste  is produced).  The  arguments  for  this exclusion  regard  the 
markets  dynamics  (e.g.  low  agricultural  prices  making  commercialization  not  convenient;  unfair  trading 
practices and unbalanced market power between various actors).  

Ten respondents support the setting of ambitious targets (50%) and the alignment with the SDG target; while 
six comments concerned the need to take into account previous efforts in the food waste reduction (in two 
cases  it  is  suggested  to  adopt  a  different  baseline  year,  prior  to  2020).  Concerning  the  waste  prevention 
actions,  some  papers  stressed  the  importance  of  prioritizing  the  most  impacting  actions  in  terms  of 
environmental impact reduction or climate change mitigation, using a food waste hierarchy approach. Some 
related  comments  concerned  the  importance  of  waste  management  options  which  increase  circularity,  e.g. 
composting  and  valorisation  (e.g.  to  feed  production)  which  might  have  higher  environmental  benefits  than 
prevention actions.  

Several stakeholders (17, mainly business associations) stressed the role of packaging for the prevention of 
food  waste,  including  innovative  packaging,  which  can  extend  the  shelf-life  of  food  products.  The  need  to 
properly address food safety and hygiene is also mentioned by six stakeholders. Concerning the actions and 
policy  initiatives  that  the  EU  should  undertake,  rules  on  date  marking  and  actions  for  the  awareness 
increasing  and  education  are  the  most  mentioned.  The  need  for  a  harmonized  food  waste  definition  and  a 
better  monitoring  system  was  acknowledged  by  several  stakeholders  and  four  suggested  to  provide  fiscal 
incentives to spur food waste prevention and incentivize food donation. Policy coherence between food waste 
and other related policies (e.g. on labelling, climate action, Common Agricultural Policy) is also recommended.  

18 

3  Targeted consultation and data collection on food waste prevention 

actions 

This section presents the outcome of the data collection performed in the timeframe March-June 2022, which 
aimed at collecting information on food waste prevention initiatives undertaken both at national level and by 
individual  stakeholders.  The  data  collection  focused  on  costs  of  the  initiatives,  the  amounts  of  food  waste 
prevented  as  a  result  of  the  initiatives,  social  benefits  and  other  features  of  the  existing  initiatives.  The 
purpose of the data collection was to (i) support the assessment of the impact of setting binding food waste 
reduction  targets  for  MSs,  and  to  (ii)  complement  publicly  available  information  to  assess  current  efforts 
undertaken by MSs to prevent food waste, as part of the analysis presented in Section 4. 

The data collection consisted of two parts: 

—  A  survey  for  all  stakeholders  implementing  food  waste  prevention  initiatives,  through  an  EU 

survey form (excluding initiatives run at Member State level) (Annex 1).  

—  A survey for the EU MSs concerning the actions implemented at national level (Annex 2). 

3.1 

Insights from stakeholders’ data collection 

This  section  details  the  data  collection  of  initiatives  on  food  waste  prevention  through  a  survey  to 
stakeholders  providing  an  overview  of  the  questionnaire,  the  sample  and  the  main  outputs,  including  an 
analysis of data quality and sample representativeness. 

3.1.1  Questionnaire 

The questionnaire for stakeholders involved in food waste prevention initiatives was composed of three parts. 
The first one focused on general information, including questions on the aim of the initiative, its geographical 
scope, typology, stakeholders involved, phases of the supply chain addressed, etc. The second part aimed at 
receiving  quantitative  data  on  the  costs  of  the  initiatives and amount  of  avoided  food  waste.  This  was  the 
core  of  the  survey,  which  aimed  at  collecting  data  to  support  the  assessment  of  the  impact  of  the  policy 
options.  In  order  to  contextualise  the  amounts  of  food  waste  avoided,  the  level  of  food  waste  generated 
before  the  initiative  was  enquired,  and,  in  the  case  of  initiatives  implemented  by  food  producers  and  food 
manufacturers,  this  part  included  also  a  question  on  the  annual  sales  volume.  In  addition,  to  support  an 
assessment  of  the  environmental  benefits  linked  to  the  food  waste  avoided,  questions  were  posed  on  the 
composition of the avoided food waste and on the waste treatment option that would have been  used  had 
the  food  been  wasted.  The  last  part  focused  on  social  benefits,  e.g.  on  the  jobs  created  by  the  initiatives, 
training opportunities and volunteer work. The survey is presented in Annex 1. 

Some  respondents  were  contacted  by  email  in  order  to  have  explanations  or  to  confirm  the  information 
provided.  Six  interviews  have  been  held  with  selected  stakeholders,  with  the  aim of  sharing  additional  data 
and insights on their initiatives. When a web site of the initiative was available, data reported in the survey 
was compared with information published online. 

3.1.2  Sample 

This section  describes the features of the sample of initiatives obtained from the survey to stakeholders. It 
details  the  response  rate  to  the  various  questions,  the  type  of  initiatives,  the  stakeholders  involved,  the 
geographical distribution and supply chain stage(s) covered by the initiative. 

3.1.2.1  Response rate  

The survey collected replies on 62 initiatives, with various level of completeness in the answers provided for 
each question. In some cases, the replies were limited to qualitative information on the initiatives and did not 
provide quantitative data on costs or amounts of food waste. 

Figure 23 shows the response rates for each question included in the survey. All the respondents provided 
general information on the initiatives, thus describing their aim, duration, geographical coverage, stakeholders 
involved,  supply  chain  steps  where  the  food  waste  is  prevented.  Few  respondents  provided  information  on 
their sales volume, as this question was relevant only for few of the stakeholders taking part in the survey. 
Costs to set up and maintain the initiatives were disclosed for more than 70% of the initiatives.  

19 

Some  questions  focused  on  the  amounts  and  values  of  avoided  food  waste.  Depending  on  the  type  of 
initiative,  three  different  questions  appeared.  For  food  redistribution  initiatives,  for  instance,  the  amount  of 
food redistributed was enquired. Looking at the cumulative response rate for the three conditional questions, 
almost 70% of the respondents provided data on the amounts of avoided food waste. The overall response 
rate  for  questions  on  the  value  of  avoided  food  waste,  instead,  was  34%.  Only  29%  of  the  respondents 
provided  a  figure  on  the  amount  of  food  waste  generated  before  the  initiative  took  place.  Few  initiatives 
(15%)  reported  the  composition  of  avoided  food  waste  in  the  dedicated  table.  The  question  on  waste 
treatment, aimed at knowing which type of treatment would have been used for the food waste prevented by 
the initiative, was replied by 65% of the respondents, but some of them selected the option “unknown”. 

Questions on social benefits show high response rates (up to 90%). Three conditional questions addressed the 
food redistribution initiatives only: they regarded the number of meals redistributed and the beneficiaries of 
the  redistributed  food  (food  banks,  charities,  households,  etc.).  The  third  conditional  question  allowed  to 
specify if other types of beneficiaries were addressed. 

The  remaining  questions  focusing  on  social  benefits  regarded  the  use  of  volunteers  (92%  replied),  the  jobs 
created by the initiatives (60%) and the training offered (53%). 49% of the  respondent replied to the open 
question of the additional social benefits provided by the initiatives (results are discussed in section 3.1.3). 

Figure 23. Response rate for each question of the survey. Questions with * are conditional, i.e. appeared only for certain 
types of initiatives. 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

An  overview  of  the  response  rate  for  each  group  of  questions  is provided  in  Figure  24, this information  is 
displayed  for  all  initiatives  together,  for  all  the  redistribution  initiatives  (as  this  was  the  most  reported 
typology, counting 30 initiatives out of 62) and for all the remaining initiatives. Food redistribution initiatives 
show  higher  response  rates  on  food  waste  prevented  (both  in  terms of  amounts and  values)  and  on  social 
benefits.  Response  rates  for  the  question  on  the  amount  of  food  waste  before  the  initiative  took  place  is 
instead  lower  for  the  redistribution  type  compared  to  the  others.  This  is to  be  expected, as  stakeholders in 
charge of redistribution activities are usually different from those generating the surplus food that would be 
in the position to monitor its generation before the initiative started. 

20 

 
 
 
 
Figure 24. Response rates by main type of initiative (numbers above bars indicates the number of replies) 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

3.1.2.2 

Initiative types 

Multiple options could be selected when answering to the question on the type of initiative reported. Based on 
the replies provided and on the description of the initiative, the authors assigned to each a “prevalent type” 
(Figure  25).  All  the  options  available  were  selected  at  least  once  except  for  “measures  to  receive 
sustainability loans offered by private institutions”. Surplus food redistribution was the most selected option 
(30  initiatives).  Improving  operational  efficiency  and consumer  targeted  initiatives are  the  second  and  third 
biggest group with nine and eight initiatives each. 

Figure 25. Number of initiatives by initiative type 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

21 

 
 
3.1.2.3  Geographical distribution 

The survey received replies from 15 EU countries and five non-EU countries (Figure 26). The biggest group is 
formed by initiatives operating in more countries (named as “multinational” in the figure below) e.g. including 
the initiatives implemented by multinational companies in various venues around the world. 

Figure 26. Number of initiatives by country 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

3.1.2.4  Stakeholders and phase of the supply chain addressed by the initiatives 

The  initiatives  reported  via  the  survey  involve  a  variety  of  stakeholders.  Retailers,  municipalities  and 
consumers  were  the  most  mentioned  (Figure  27)  and  have  been  selected  by  approximately  half  of  the 
respondents. Waste collection companies, opinion leaders and food services in the health care sector are the 
least selected, mentioned by six to nine initiatives.   

For the majority of the initiatives (43), the stage of the supply chain where food waste is prevented is retail 
and  distribution.  Of  these,  27  were  categorised  as  surplus  food  redistribution  initiatives  (Table  3).  Only  15 
initiatives aim at tackling food waste at household level (Figure 28). 

Figure 27. Number of initiatives and type of stakeholder involved (multiple options allowed) 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

22 

 
Figure 28. Number of initiatives by targeted life cycle stage (multiple options allowed) 

Table 3. Number of initiatives by type and stage of the supply chain where food waste is prevented (multiple options 
allowed for the latter) 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Primary 
production 
1 
1 
1 
4 
0 
0 
17 

Processing 
and 
manufacturing 
1 
2 
1 
4 
1 
0 
16 

Retail and 
distribution  
3 
4 
0 
2 
2 
1 
27 

Restaurants 
and food 
services 
4 
3 
0 
6 
3 
1 
15 

Households 
4 
2 
1 
0 
1 
1 
5 

1 
1 

1 
0 

1 
3 

1 
0 

0 
1 

Initiative type 
Consumer targeted initiatives  
Digital tools 
Gleaning 
Improving operational efficiency  
Mixed 
School programmes 
Surplus food redistribution  
Taking part in voluntary/framework 
agreements 
Valorisation of surplus food and by-products  

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

3.1.3  Results 

3.1.3.1  Cost analysis 

The second part of the survey aimed at gathering quantitative data on the initiatives, in order to explore the 
economic efficiency of food waste interventions. More than 70% of the respondents provided information on 
the  costs  of  setting  up  the  initiatives  and  annual  costs  to  maintain  them.  A  smaller  share  (24%)  provided 
details on the type of stakeholder bearing these costs. Figure 29 shows the main outcomes of the survey in 
terms  of  total  annual  costs  and  annual  food  waste  prevented.  Given  the  high  variability  of  the  data,  a 
logarithmic scale was set in order to better visualize the results, which range from 4000  € to more than 37 
million € in terms of costs, and from 2 to almost 54000 tonnes in terms of food waste prevented annually.  

Aggregated  data  on  costs  of  the  initiatives  and  amounts  of  prevented  food  waste  declared  by  the 
respondents are provided in Table 4, where it is possible to see that the average cost per tonne of avoided 
food waste is 44488 €, but when excluding outliers (i.e. values above 8000 €), the average value is 986 € per 
tonne.  

23 

 
In  some  cases,  the  respondents  declared  to  have  zero  costs  as  the  initiative  fully  relies  on  the  work  of 
volunteers  or  the  food  waste  reduction  project  is  managed  internally  in  a  company,  without  additional 
resources  needed.  Concerning  the  stakeholders  funding  the  initiatives,  the  most  cited  entities  are  private 
donations (including in-kind donations), charities and foundations, public institutions (e.g. Ministry of Health), 
EU institutions. 

In order to have a term of comparison for these results, Figure 30 provides an overview of cost and avoided 
food waste retrieved from a literature review on food waste prevention at consumer level (Garcia Herrero et 
al., 2023). The data on costs of the initiatives found in literature is relatively scarce, as only two studies report 
both  data  on  avoided  food  waste  and  cost,  allowing  the  calculation  of  the  cost  per  tonne.  Three  additional 
data points can be derived by the study performed by Caldeira et al., (2019) assessing the efficacy of food 
waste  prevention  actions.  The  average  cost  per  tonne  of  avoided  food  waste  is  60  €  per  tonne,  with  a 
maximum  value  of  160  €  per  tonne  (Table  5).  This  value  is  significantly  lower  than  the  average  cost  per 
tonne resulting from our sample (even when outliers are removed in the calculation of the average value). 

Figure 29. Annual costs and prevented food waste of the initiatives reported, by type of initiative. 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Table 4 Summary table of costs of the initiatives providing quantitative data via the survey (in brackets, values excluding 
outliers, i.e. higher than 8 thousand €) 

Unit 

Min 

Mean  

Max 

Annual costs  
Yearly amount of avoided food 
waste  

thousand €/year 
thousand 
tonnes/year 

0 

1730 

37432 

0.001 

11.3 

265 

Data points 
(n)  

50 

42 

Total cost per tonne of food waste 
avoided  

€/tonne 

8.5 

4448 
(986) 

66667 
(6789) 

35 (31) 

24 

 
 
Figure 30. Annual costs and prevented food waste of initiatives from the literature, by type of initiative 

10000000

l

)
e
a
c
s
g
o

l

,
€
(

r
a
e
y

r
e
p
t
s
o
c
l

a
t
o
T

1000000

100000

10000

1000

100

10

1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

Prevented FW (tonnes per year, log scale)

Surplus food redistribution

Consumer targeted initiatives

Table 5 Summary table of costs of initiatives reported in (Garcia Herrero et al., 2023) and (Caldeira et al. 2019) 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Unit 

Min 
value 

Mean value 

Max 

Annual cost  

thousand 
€/year 

0.10 

10595 

5070 

Yearly  amount  of  avoided  food 
waste 

thousand 
tonne/year 

0.008 

38.38 

183.3 

Total  cost  per  tonne  of  food  waste 
avoided 

€/tonne 

0.1 

60 

165 

of 

N° 
data 
points 

5 

5 

5 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Figure  31  shows  the  distribution  of  the  total  costs  per  tonne  of  food  waste  prevented  of  the  initiatives 
gathered through the survey, considering the redistribution initiatives (which are the biggest group) compared 
with the entire set of initiatives and the others (non-redistribution). The graph does not show the outliers and 
the distribution is right  skewed, with the  mean greater than the  median. The set “other initiatives” presents 
the greatest variability, with values ranging from o 8.5 € per tonne to 30.6 thousand € per tonne (however, in 
Figure 31 outliers were removed).  

In  general,  results  from  the  sample  show  a  high  variability  in  cost  per  tonne  of  food  waste  reduction. 
Furthermore,  the  average  values  of  cost  per  tonne  of  food  waste  reduction  are  much  higher  than  those 
reported in literature (which, however, are very few data points). The high costs reported across all initiative 
types can be explained considering the following reasons: 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

- 

In  some  cases  (e.g.  for  some  redistribution  initiatives),  the  main  objective  of  the  initiative  is  to 
support people in need and provide food or help the professional reinsertion of unemployed people: 
food waste is therefore a secondary benefit of these actions.  

In  the  case  of  school  campaigns  education  activities  are  carried  out  in  addition  to  food  waste 
measurements in the canteen. Long terms benefits can be expected in terms of behavioural change, 
as  well  as  consequential  domestic  reduction  in  food  waste.  However,  food  waste  reduction  is 
measured only in the school canteens and does not capture long term or domestic reductions.  

Figure 31. Distribution of total annual costs of initiatives per unit of avoided food waste (excluding outliers above 8000 
€/tonne) 

3.1.3.2  Social benefits 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

While responding to an ethical principle, food waste prevention actions can have additional social benefits in 
terms of employment generation (if the initiatives put in place to  reduce food waste  allows the creation of 
new jobs) and social cohesion (e.g. through the involvement of citizens in volunteer work which can result in a 
more  intense  sense  of  community  and  social  life).  In  the  case  of  food  redistribution  initiatives,  positive 
impacts can be observed especially in terms of supporting deprived households, reducing marginalization and 
improving food security. 

Table  6  shows  results  for  four  quantitative  indicators  calculated  using  data  from  the  survey.  On  average, 
each initiative involved 23 thousand volunteers, even though the variability is high, with values ranging from 
0  to  582  thousand  involved,  reflecting  the  heterogeneity  of  the  sample.  The  volunteer  hours  used  in  each 
initiative ranges from 0 to 16.5 million hours per year. The number of new jobs created in the initiative is on 
average 19.6 with a maximum value of 106, in the case of a company developing food waste reduction tools 
(in this case, the initiative coincides with the  company itself). If these  figures are divided  by the amount of 
food waste avoided, on average 121 volunteer hours enabled to prevent one tonne of food waste. 

26 

 
 
 
Table 6 Overview table on social benefits - All initiatives (FW: food waste) 

Indicator 

Unit 

Total  Min 

Mean 

Max 

N°  of 
data 
points 

Number of volunteers involved 

thousand volunteers 

674 

Annual volunteer hours  

million hours/year 

17.1 

Number of jobs created  

N 

705 

N° of volunteer hours/tonne of prevented FW   hours/tonne  

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

0 

0 

0 

0 

23.2 

582 

31 

0.9 

16.5 

23 

19.6 

106 

38 

121.0 

1276 

18 

Table  7  shows  indicators  related  to  food  redistribution  initiatives  only.  As  described  in  section  3.1.2.2  this 
type of initiative was the most selected one, counting 30 initiatives in total. The 15 redistribution initiatives 
that  provided  quantitative  data  on  number  of  meals  redistributed  report,  in  total,  235  million  of  meals 
redistributed  annually,  which  results  in  an  average  of  16  million  meals  per  initiative  (Table  7).  The  annual 
costs for these initiatives range from 0 to more than 37 million € and the average cost per meal redistributed 
was 1.1 €, ranging between close to 0 and 7.2 € per meal (2). 

The average number of people reached annually by the redistribution initiatives is 0.59 million. This typology 
of  initiative  strongly  relies  on  volunteers,  making  use  on  average  of  1.22  million  volunteer  hours  per  year, 
based on information reported for 14 initiatives. Based on the 10 initiatives that provided both information on 
volunteer  hours  and  on  meals  redistributed,  on  average  each  meal  required  0.02  volunteer  hours.  The 
initiatives  redistributed  the  surplus  food  to  charity  organizations 
in  23  cases  and  directly  to 
households/citizens in need in 13 cases. 10 initiatives provide surplus food to food banks and 9 initiatives use 
food sharing applications (Figure 32). 

Figure 32. Recipients of redistributed food (number of initiatives, multiple answers allowed) 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

2  

In some cases very low costs, divided by the number of meals, result in unitary cost per meal close to 0 

27 

  
                                                        
 
Table 7 Overview table on social benefits - Food redistribution initiatives 

Indicator 

Unit 

Min 

Mean 
value 

Max 

N°  of  data 
points 

Meals  redistributed  per 
initiative 

million meals/year 

 0.009 

 16 

 128 

Annual costs 

thousand €/year 

0(1) 

2960 

37432 

Cost / n° of meals 

€/meal 

Number 
reached 

of 

people 

million 
persons/year 

~ 0.00 

0.027 

Number of volunteers 

thousand persons 

~ 0.00 

Annual volunteer hours 

million hours/year 

0 

Volunteer  hours  /  n°  of 
meals 

hours/meal 

0.00 

1.10 

0.59 

4.64 

1.22 

0.02 

7.22 

1.67 

60 

16.5 

0.12 

15 

23 

12 

8 

19 

14 

9 

1  

In some cases zero costs were reported, stating that, for instance, all activities are carried out by volunteers, who offer their 

time, labour and transportation with no cost for the initiative. 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

As additional social benefits, several initiatives provided training to employees or volunteers, on food safety 
and hygiene, food operations and other topics (Figure 33).  

Figure 34 summarises the replies given on additional social benefits, classified into four areas. The one with 
the  highest  frequency  concerns  food  security  and  poverty  reduction,  followed  by  benefits  related  to 
awareness  raising  and  education  and  social  cohesion.  Three  initiatives  mentioned  economic  benefits  for 
producers and consumers. 

Figure 33. Type of training provided as part of the initiative (number of initiatives) 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

28 

 
 
Figure 34. Additional social benefits provided by the initiative (number of initiatives) 

3.2 

Insights from Member States data collection 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

3.2.1  Questionnaires 

The survey on food waste reduction initiatives (available in Annex 2) was sent to MSs in March 2022. Based 
on the country profiles published in the EU Food Loss and Waste Prevention Hub (3), the survey listed all the 
relevant food loss and waste prevention initiatives carried out by each Member State. The survey included two 
tables in a word file to be filled in by the MS representative with the following information: 

—  initiatives start and end dates 

—  stage of the supply chain addressed 

—  geographical scope (if applied at national or regional level)  

—  amount and value of food waste prevented 

—  links to websites, if available 

—  data on costs of the initiatives, including total, fixed and variable costs (i.e. linked to the amounts of 

food waste prevented).  

—  indication of the type of figures disclosed (if estimated or measured).  

3.2.2  Sample 

The survey received replies from 20 MSs (4), with a total of 145 initiatives reported. Based on the description 
of  the  initiatives  provided  in  the  survey,  we  assigned  an  initiative  “macro  type”  using  the  classification 
proposed in Caldeira et al., (2019) (Table 8), to which “monitoring” was added as an additional type of action 
given that MSs are supposed to measure the amount of food waste and the effect of food waste reduction 
policies following the requirement of Directive 851/2018/EC. Data on their overall costs was provided for 18% 
of the initiatives reported, while 13% of them included data on the amounts of reduced food waste – with 6% 
providing both (Figure 35). 

3  

4  

https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu-food-loss-waste-prevention-hub/eu-member-states  

AT, BE, BG, HR, CZ, DK, EE, FI, DE, EL, HU, LT, PO, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE 

29 

 
                                                        
 
 
Table 8 Classification of food waste prevention initiatives based on Caldeira et al. 2019 and number of initiatives 
reported by MSs, by macro-type 

Macro type 

Action type 

Behavioural change 

Awareness/educational campaign 

Digital tools (for behavioural change) 

School programmes 

Awards 

Supply chain efficiency 

Training & guidelines 

Public procurement 

Process innovation 

Digital tools (for supply chain efficiency) 

Price discount 

Imperfect product sale 

Innovation of products - packaging 

Innovation of products - date marking 

Redistribution 

Surplus food redistribution 

Food valorisation 

Gleaning 

Digital tools 

Animal feed 

Governance 

Voluntary agreement 

Value added processing 

Regulatory framework/policy 

Fiscal incentives 

National food waste prevention programme 

Monitoring 

Monitoring 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Number of MS 
initiatives 

51 

33 

21 

2 

28 

10 

The most frequent type of initiative among the reported ones is the behavioural change (34%), followed by 
initiatives on supply chain efficiency (23%) and governance (19%). EE and PT were the countries reporting the 
highest number of initiatives (Figure 36).  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 35. Number of initiatives reported by MS by type and quantitative data disclosure. FW: food waste 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Figure 36. Food waste prevention initiatives by type and Member State 

3.2.3  Results 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

The respondents could specify if the data reported in the survey was a measurement or an  estimation. The 
shares of data that was measured is 86% for costs and 45% for prevented food waste (Figure 37).  

The annual amount of prevented food waste per initiative shows a high variability and ranges from 32 tonnes 
to 60 thousand tonnes, while the annual costs of the initiatives range from 300 € to 3550 thousand € (Table 
9). As a results, costs per tonne of food waste prevented also show high variability (calculated for the  nine 
initiatives that provided both information on amounts of food waste prevented and costs), as shown in Figure 
38. In this case, the average value is equal to 1708  €/tonne, ranging between 7 and 11449 €/tonne (Table 
9).  

31 

 
 
Figure 37. Shares of measured and estimated data for costs (a) and food waste prevented (b) 

Table 9 Overview table of MS initiatives and related variables 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Unit 

Min 

Mean 
value  

Max 

Data points (n) 

Annual cost   

thousand €/year 

0.3 

210 

3550 

Yearly amount of FW prevented  

thousand 
tonnes/year 

0.032 

7 

60 

55 

19 

Total cost per tonne of FW prevented 

€/tonne 

7 

1708 

11449 

9 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

The limited amount of quantitative data disclosed through this survey suggests that the monitoring of  food 
waste prevention initiatives effectiveness is generally poorly implemented at national level. Various reasons 
can  be  envisaged  to  explain  this.  For  behavioural  change  initiatives,  measurable  immediate  effects  are 
difficult  to  obtain  as  impacts  can  be  expected  in  the  medium-long  term  only.  In  some  cases,  respondents 
explained  that  even  if  a  monitoring  of  the  total  reduced  food  waste  was  performed,  it  was  not  possible  to 
establish how much food waste was prevented individually by each action implemented by the MS.  

Figure  39  compares  the  average  cost  per  tonne  of  food  waste  prevention  initiatives  as  derived  from  the 
surveys for stakeholders (considering the various types of initiatives), from the survey for MS and from the 
literature.  The  latter  (which  refers  mainly  to  initiatives  implemented  in  the  UK)  show  a  much  lower  value 
compared to those resulting from the survey. Given this high variability of costs and the heterogeneity of the 
initiatives replying to the survey (e.g. in terms of scope and size), the results of the analysis were not used in 
the modelling exercise performed to assess potential impacts of the policy initiative on food waste reduction 
targets.  

32 

 
  
 
Figure 38. Total (i.e. fixed + variable) annual costs and prevented food waste of the initiatives replying to the survey for 
MSs, by type of initiative 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Figure 39. Overview of initiatives costs as results of the stakeholder survey (distinguishing between three main groups of 
initiatives), MS survey and from literature review. In brackets, number of data points for each type of initiative; outliers 
(values above 8000 Euro/tonne) have been excluded.  

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

33 

 
 
 
4  Analysis of prevention efforts undertaken by Member States 

The  objective  of  this  analysis  is  to  define  the  current  state  of  food  waste  prevention  policies  in  the  EU,  to 
explore  whether  there  is  substantial  information  on  effective  policy  implementation  and  finally  to  collect 
evidence of the food waste reductions achieved as a result of the policy initiatives, when this information was 
provided.  

A recent report by the UN (United Nations Environmental Program, 2021) calls on governments to follow the 
“Target-Measure-Act”  approach  promoted  by  the  high-level  coalition  Champions  12.3  as  a  proven  way  (for 
both  governments  and  companies)  to  achieve  rapid  and  concrete  results  regarding  food  waste  prevention 
(Champions  12.3,  2022).  Targets  set  ambition  and  can  help  guide  effective  action  based  on  food  waste 
diagnostics (that is, carrying  out a baseline assessment of food waste levels and identifying “hotspots” and 
suitable corresponding solutions). The 2022 progress report warns that global progress by governments and 
companies on achieving SDG Target 12.3 is slower than necessary.  

The analysis of the status of food waste prevention policy was established by extracting information for each 
MS from the EU Food Waste and Prevention Hub (European Commission, 2020), complementing the available 
information with what was reported in the survey to MSs (Section 3.2) Additional information was extracted 
from  a  survey  carried  out  in  2020  by  the  German  Presidency  (Council  of  the  European  Union,  2020).  The 
survey  focused  on  EU  Platform  recommendations  and  contributions  to  the  progress  assessment  and  on 
implementation  of  the  2016  Council  Conclusions  on  Food  Losses  and  Food  Waste.  The  need  to  collate 
information  from  different  sources  to  establish  this  overview  arose  from  the  uneven  compilation  of  the 
information on the EU Food Waste and Prevention Hub from MSs. After defining a classification of the policy 
initiatives  retrieved  (presented  in  Section  4.1)  the  level  of  ambition  of  current  policies  was  determined  by 
scoping  the  aforementioned  sources  and  charting  a  schematic  overview  of  all  the  different  initiatives 
undertaken by each MS (as presented in Section 4.2). A classification of the ambition of the MSs’ food waste 
prevention policies was established based on the single policies collected in the overview and considered two 
main criteria: reliance on an evidence-based “Target-Measure-Act” approach and timeline of implementation. 
The review included also an assessment of quantitative results achieved by the implemented policies, in an 
attempt to establish  whether these  policies had any effect on the actual food  waste levels monitored. This 
classification  is  presented  in  Section  4.3.  The  analysis  presented  in  this  section  is  limited  primarily  by  the 
inaccessibility of information from institutional sources for the various MSs. By starting from the EU Platform 
Prevention  Hub,  it  was  possible  to  snowball  to  the  primary  source  of  the  MSs  strategies  or  legislative 
documents, but often links were broken and the search inconclusive. It is also acknowledged that many of the 
primary  documents  are  not  in  English  language  and  some  misinterpretation  might  have  occurred  in  the 
translation process. 

4.1  Classification of policies for food waste prevention  

First of all, a distinction is due on the nature of the national policy introduced by each MS: national food waste 
prevention strategies are considered separately from national waste prevention plans, which also include food 
waste  prevention.  The  difference  lies  in  the  policy  implementation  mechanism,  as  the  former  is  associated 
with  a  greater  ambition  and  relevance,  while  the  latter is the  consequence  of  the  reception  of  the  updated 
Waste Framework Directive. Starting from this general disclaimer, the policies were categorized as follows: 

—  national  policies  &  monitoring:  national  waste  prevention  plans,  national  food  waste  prevention 

strategies, target setting and monitoring of food waste levels; 

—  consumer targeted actions: covering the actions aimed at reducing consumer food waste or changing 

behaviours; 

—  facilitation  of  donations:  combining  all  the  initiatives,  regulatory  or  not,  that  create  an  enabling 

environment for surplus food donation; 

—  improvement  of  supply  chain  efficiency:  various  actions  that  are  aimed  at  improving  relations 
between  food  supply  chain  stakeholder,  as  well  as  the  implementation  of  innovations  which  can 
overcome the technical challenges of food waste reduction; 

—  economic instruments: tax incentives, direct aid or financing. 

34 

4.2  Policies’ uptake across the EU 

An overview of the coverage of each policy initiative across the different MSs is presented in Figure 40.  

Figure 40. Overview of food waste policies and actions at MS level (1,2) 

Notes: (1) Apart from the category “Monitoring according to Delegated Act (2022)” the total reference number is considered to be 28, as the regions of Flanders and Wallonia were mapped separately (2) In darker 
hue, the policies of which the implementation was clear (legislative documents or reports available) and in lighter hue, the number of policies for which implementation status was unclear but some evidence was 
found (i.e. on websites or on the prevention hub).  

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

35 

 
The  analysis  showed  how  all  MSs  have  adopted  varied  legislative  and  non-legislative  national  measures  to 
reduce  food  loss  and  waste  and  continue  to  integrate  them  in  their  national  strategies  or  relevant  legal 
frameworks  as  part  of  an  ongoing  policy  process.  In  many  cases,  the  distinction  between  the  political 
commitment to SDG 12.3 and concrete implementation of policies to reach it is difficult to discern. Generally, 
it can be affirmed that the policy actions that are implemented mostly concern “soft” regulation (facilitating 
self-regulation  from  businesses)  or  education,  as  they  are  prioritizing  consumer/stakeholder  awareness 
raising  above  restriction,  while  “hard”  regulations  such  as  legally  binding  rules  and  bans  are  generally  not 
implemented.  The  following  sections  describe  in  detail  the  uptake  of  the  different  groups  of  initiatives 
resulting from the analysis. 

4.2.1  Overarching National Policies  

15  MSs  have  put  in  place  specific  strategies,  three  of  which  are  either  in  a  draft  stage  or  have  unclear 
implementation status, while in 18 MSs food waste prevention is an action within a national waste prevention 
plan. In some cases, MSs (FR, GE, IE, PT, SL) have implemented both.  

Although the majority (20) MSs have confirmed their political commitment to SDG Target 12.3, few MSs have 
actually  taken  an  evidence-based  approach  in  setting  targets,  implementing  actions  to  address  specific 
hotspots,  and  monitoring  their  effectiveness.  12  MSs  have  included  targets  that  are  either  more  ambitious 
than SDG 12.3 or differ slightly in the milestone figures and timeline. The apparent lack of evidence reported 
by MSs on the success of their strategies in reducing food waste at national level may indicate the need to 
further emphasise and promote the use of measurement tools and evaluation frameworks to support MSs in 
adopting a more evidence-based approach to inform their decision-making. 

4.2.2  Consumer level actions 

Food waste at the consumption stage is the  hotspot in  food supply chains across Europe, therefore actions 
targeting consumers are especially important. However, policies implemented to target consumer food waste 
revolve  mostly  on  awareness  campaigns  (implemented  by  26  MSs),  whose  effectiveness  in  fostering 
behaviour change is debatable (Reynolds et al., 2019; Simões et al., 2022; Stöckli et al., 2018). Furthermore, it 
is  often  unclear  how  awareness  campaigns  are  designed,  whom  is  targeted,  whether  their  outreach  is 
monitored,  and  effects  evaluated.  In  addition,  four  MSs  put  in  place  awareness  campaigns  specifically 
addressing  date  marking  misunderstanding,  which  is  a  driver  of  consumer  food  waste  and  emerged  as 
common content for consumer-targeted messages. Behavioural change interventions, meaning those actions 
that  elicit  changes  in  consumers’  attitudes  and  behaviours  beyond  the  mere  provision  of  information,  are 
concretely implemented  by three  MSs with three others recognizing the relevance of  such interventions but 
without a detailed action plan in place. School programmes are also a popular policy initiative, implemented 
by 18 MSs by including food waste education in school curricula, either nationwide or through pilot projects. 

4.2.3  Food donation facilitation 

All MSs have taken different measures at national level to encourage food donation, which is often the first 
step in the establishment of national food waste prevention programmes. Some have taken measures and/or 
established guidance to clarify the roles and responsibilities of food business operators and food banks and 
other  charity  organisations,  also  by  setting  up  stakeholder  fora.  Some  MSs  (e.g.  CZ,  FR,  PO,  and  HU)  have 
made  donation  of  surplus  food  mandatory  for  specific  sectors,  typically  retail.  In  fewer  cases  (e.g.:  SE,  IE), 
redistribution  is  facilitated  by  the  organization  of  common  digital  platforms.  13  MSs  also  employ  fiscal 
incentives through the reduction or exemption of VAT on food donated. The application of the waste hierarchy 
enshrined  in  the  Waste  Framework  Directive,  foresees  human  consumption  as  the  most  favourable 
destination of surplus food that would have been wasted after prevention, therefore the category is included 
in between food donation and supply chain efficiency. 

4.2.4  Supply chain efficiency  

Most  MSs  have  put  in  place  structured  processes  to  engage  and  consult  with  different  actors  in  the  food 
supply chain and other stakeholders (e.g. platforms, voluntary agreements). 18 MSs mention the organization 
of a voluntary agreement between stakeholders. According to (Burgos et al., 2019) a voluntary agreement is a 
policy measure that can drive food waste reduction by bringing supply chain stakeholders together towards 
common objectives, which can be collectively established by the members of the agreement. The nature of a 
voluntary  agreement  is  quite  flexible,  therefore  Figure  33  shows  eight  MSs  with  an  established 

36 

implementation  plan,  while  the  remaining  10  represent  the  MSs  that  are  going  to  implement  a  voluntary 
agreement in the future, do not provide clear plans or do not have a whole supply chain approach. 

Other MSs have put in place efforts to facilitate stakeholder collaboration through sector specific platforms. 
Initiatives  to  improve  supply  chain  efficiency  and  prevent  food  waste  from  all  stages  include  a  variety  of 
policy instruments: issuing guidelines for specific stages and sectors (six MSs), enabling professional training 
(11  MSs),  promoting  circularity  and  industrial  synergies  to  increase  the  correct  application  of  the  food  use 
hierarchy (13 MSs), in few cases (three MSs) legislation targeting Unfair Trading Practices (implementation of 
Directive (EU) 2019/633). 

4.2.5  Financial instruments 

17  MSs  employ  financial  instruments,  such  as  fiscal  incentives  and  economic  support,  to  encourage  food 
waste prevention. Concrete examples include providing incentives such as VAT exemption from donated food. 
Another type of financial support, such as fostering research and innovation, is also provided to help players 
take action in their operations. Direct financial aid to stakeholders to set up waste prevention initiatives is also 
mentioned by four MSs (FR, ES, NL, HR), sometimes related to the direct financing of research and innovation 
projects or support to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Sustainable public procurement and food waste 
related criteria for tenderers are indicated by three MSs only and without very clear information. 

4.3  Evaluation of policies  

Evaluation  of  national  strategies  is  scarce,  especially  in  quantitative  terms:  most  strategies  have  been 
implemented  in  the  past  two  to  five  years,  and  in  some  cases,  it  is  not  clear  whether  they  are  fully 
implemented  or  represent  aspirational  objectives.  SE,  NL,  AT,  FR  and  DE  seem  to  have  established  the 
capacity,  or  at  least  the  awareness,  for  evaluation,  together  with  a  more  transparent  dissemination  of 
monitoring  and  evaluation  efforts.  FR  provides  an  evaluation  of  its  legislation  on  facilitation  of  food  waste 
redistribution  (EY  consulting,  2019).  In  NL,  the  organization  Samen  tegen  Voedselverspilling  provides 
information  on  the  success  of  its  voluntary  agreement  and  various  initiatives  linked  to  it;  furthermore,  the 
collaboration  with  educational  institutions  also  entails  the  availability  of  scientific  literature  on  some 
initiatives conducted in this country, as reported by de Visser-Amundson et al., (2020) and van Dooren et al., 
(2020). AT has published a qualitative evaluation of its past food waste prevention strategy (which ran from 
2013 to 2019), but it does not provide information in terms of food waste quantities associated to specific 
actions.  DE  has  developed  a  dedicated  platform  for  sharing  information  on  the  progress  of  its  stakeholder 
dialogues, but as the food waste prevention strategy is quite recent, there is no evidence of its performance 
yet. In DK, the voluntary agreement run by the Danish Think Tank “One\Third” has published a report in which 
the development of food waste generated by its members has been monitored from 2015 to 2020. 

This analysis showed how monitoring and evaluation is not yet a widespread practice, even for the countries 
that have a medium to high level of policy commitments to reducing food waste. This outcome is in line with 
the conclusions of the above-mentioned Champions 12.3 report (2022). As a consequence, little data could be 
gathered on the quantitative results of policy initiatives in terms of observed food waste reductions. The only 
MSs for which quantitative data was retrievable from publicly shared information are NL and SE. This scarcity 
led  to  the  inclusion  of  the  UK  (although  this  country  is  no  longer  a  MS)  in  the  table,  as  one  of  the  few 
countries  with  a  consistent  track  record  in  food  waste  data  monitoring  and  sharing.  The  data  that  was 
retrieved is displayed in Table 10. 

In many cases, the data is not representative of all the actors in the MS’s food supply chain but reports only 
the  information  gathered  through  a  voluntary  agreement’s  monitoring,  therefore  it  might  refer  to  a  non-
representative sample of the food supply chain’s stakeholders. The UK is the country with the most reliable 
data  for  food  waste  reduction  associated  to  its  Waste  Reduction  Roadmap.  NL  has  monitored  food  waste 
quantities and are able to report reductions at household and retailer level, but not for the other steps in the 
supply chain. These results highlight the scarcity of data on food waste occurring at primary production and 
processing stages.  

37 

 
 
Table 10: Available quantitative information on food waste (FW: food waste) 

Retail and 
distribution 

Country 

FW reduction 

Reference 
time 

Food 
services 

FW reduction  

Household 

Reference 
time 

FW reduction  

Reference 
time 

NL 

SE 

UK 

3.60%1 

2018-2022 

29%2 

2010-2019 

8%4 

2018-2021 

3.00%3 

2018-2020 

21%5 

17.8%6 

2007-2012 

2007-2018 

Source: 1 WUR, (2022), 2 Stichting Voedingscentrum (2019), 3 Naturvårdsverket, (2022),5 Champions 12.3,(2017) 4,6 WRAP (2022).  

In  parallel  to  the  analysis  described,  timelines  for  the  implementation  trajectories  of  selected  MSs  were 
drafted  (provided  in  Annex  3).  The  timelines  present  the  start  of  the  policy  initiatives  and  of  monitoring 
activities  and  important  milestones  found  in  official  documentation.  Evaluation  of  measures  was  included 
when available.  

Building on the evidence collected and displayed in the previous paragraphs and in the timelines illustrating 
the  implementation  of  food  waste  prevention  efforts,  MSs  were  classified  according  to  the  ambition  of  the 
action and timeline of implementation, as illustrated in Table 11. The classes include: 

—  high  level  actions  performed  by  very  few  MSs  who  have  implemented  measures  according  to  the 

“Target-Measure-Act” approach even before EU mandates;  

—  two classes for mid-level actions based on the clarity of the MS commitment to SDG 12.3;  
—  a lower category for those MS that do not have a clear action plan for food waste prevention. 

Table 11: Classification of MSs policy ambition  

Type of 
action 

Timeline  of 
implementati
on  

Member 
States 

1)  High 
actions 

level 

2a)  Mid-to-high  level 
actions 

2b)  Low-to-mid  level 
actions 

3)  Low 
actions 

level 

Evidence-based 
policy, 
implementing a 
Target-Measure 
Act-approach 

Overall strategy/plan in 
line with SDG 12.3 but 
implementation is in 
progress with 
limited/partial evidence 
of monitoring and 
evaluation 

National level actions in 
early stage of 
development and 
limited to certain areas, 
monitoring and 
evaluation of actions 
are unclear  

Sporadic and 
limited 
measures with 
little or no 
documentation 
of results 
available 

5 to 10 years 

< 5 years 

2 to 5 years 

NA 

NL*, DE*, FR* 

FI, IE, PT, IT, ES*, SE*, BE 
(Flanders*  and  Brussels 
capital), HR, AT* 

BG,  EL,  SL,  CZ,  LV,  LT, 
EE, SK, DK*, LU, HU 

CY, MT, PL, RO 

Notes: (*) denotes MSs for which a timeline of policy implementation is provided in Annex 3 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Three front-runner MSs (NL, DE, FR) are those that have taken an evidence-based approach in setting targets, 
implementing  actions  to  address  specific  hotspots,  and  monitoring  their  effectiveness,  following  the 
recommended “Target-Measure-Act" approach. While the majority of other MSs have actions in place, it seems 
that only nine of these have developed national strategies/roadmaps or plans in line with the SDG 12.3, even 
though  with  limited  or  partial  evidence  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  their  effectiveness.  Other  11  MSs 
report  on  actions  undertaken  at  national  level;  however,  these  appear  to  be  still  at  an  early  stage  of 
development and/or are limited to certain areas only (e.g. voluntary agreements, redistribution and awareness 
campaigns),  whilst  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  actions  are  either  not  defined  or  unclear.  Significantly,  for 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
this  group  of  MSs,  overall  coordination  of  efforts  at  national  level  is  unclear.  For  the  remaining  four  MSs, 
actions have been implemented only very recently, and measures are sporadic and/or limited, with little or no 
documentation of results available. Overall, based on the nature and level of activity in the MSs presented in 
Table  11  and  on  the  few  quantitative  results  collected  (Table  10)  it  seems  that  only  3  MSs  are  well 
positioned to make a significant contribution to SDG Target 12.3. 

According  to  the  analysis  presented,  all  MSs  have  reported  implementing  a  waste  prevention  program,  in 
accordance with the Waste Framework Directive. In addition, the majority has committed to SDG Target 12.3 
of halving food waste at retail and consumer level while reducing food waste at all other levels of the food 
supply chain. National governments have initiated various policies addressing food loss and waste prevention. 
However, the level of ambition of the policy action, the degree to which  measures have been implemented, 
and results obtained seem to be very heterogeneous. 

39 

5  Conclusions 

This report  describes  part of the study conducted  by JRC to support the impact assessment of a legislative 
proposal on setting binding food waste reduction targets.  

The  public  consultation  allowed  to  investigate  the  public  opinion  concerning  the  food  waste  policy  initiative 
and to understand the level of consensus regarding the policy options setting food waste reduction targets. 
The development of policy options in the impact assessment process, including the definition of the targets 
format and way of expressing them, took into account the results of the consultation. The public consultation 
showed that the level of consensus on food waste reduction targets is generally high, especially in the case of 
citizens  and  organizations  (of  consumers,  NGOs,  environmental).  Views  from  SMEs  do  not  show  significant 
differences  compared  to  those  of  large  companies,  on  topics  such  as  setting  food  waste  reduction  targets, 
benefits of reducing food waste, associated challenges and actors who need to take action.  

The  targeted  consultation  included  a  data  collection  performed  at  Member  State  and  stakeholder  level, 
through the submission of dedicated surveys. It aimed at collecting quantitative data on costs of the waste 
prevention initiatives and amounts of prevented food waste. Moreover, the survey for stakeholders included 
questions on social benefits and other features of the initiatives (e.g. types of stakeholders involved, supply 
chain stage addressed, resources needed to run the initiative). The survey for stakeholders received 62 replies 
and  allowed  to  collect  quantitative  data  for  about  50%  of  the  initiatives.  The  most  commonly  reported 
initiative  type  was  the  surplus  food  redistribution  taking  place  at  the  retail  stage,  although  most  of  the 
initiatives have multiple purposes and aim at reducing food waste at various stages of the supply chain. The 
high heterogeneity in the types of initiative and the multi-purpose nature of some of them resulted in a high 
variability in terms of amounts of prevented food waste and costs. In particular, costs per tonne of prevented 
food  waste  are  very  variable  and on  average  significantly  higher than  the  values  reported  in  the  literature. 
Possible  reasons  include  the  fact  that,  in  some  cases,  initiatives  are  funded  to  support  citizens  and 
households  in  need,  or  provide  professional  reinsertion  to  unemployed  people,  and  therefore  food  waste 
reduction is an additional outcome of the initiative. The outcome of this consultation was used in the impact 
assessment  to  support  the  assessment  of  the  policy  options’  impact,  in  particular  regarding  the  possible 
effects  on  employment.  The  high  variability  of  the  costs  of  initiatives  submitted  via  the  survey  to 
stakeholders,  however,  prevented  the  use  of  this  information  in  the  MAGNET  (Modular  Applied  GeNeral 
Equilibrium Tool) model (5), which was used to assess the impact of the policy options.  

The survey submitted to  MSs received  20 replies presenting a total of 145 initiatives but only few of them 
disclosed quantitative data on amounts of food waste prevented and related costs (and only  nine initiatives 
provided  information  on  both).  In  some  cases,  respondents  stressed  the  difficulty  of  allocating  food  waste 
reductions  to  a  particular action.  Moreover,  the  quantification  of  prevented  food  waste  resulted  particularly 
challenging  in  the  case  of  initiatives  promoting  behavioural  change,  which  can  have  longer  term  effects  in 
consumers’  habits.  Information  collected  via  this  survey  supported  the  assessment  of  efforts  currently 
undertaken by MSs to prevent food waste. 

The  analysis  of  national  initiatives  on  food  waste  prevention  establishes  the  current  state  of  food  waste 
prevention policies in MSs. Results suggest a general lack of evidence-based policy making, and in most cases 
a significant deficiency in monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the initiatives that have been put 
in place. There is a divide between formal commitment to internationally set targets, such as SDG 12.3, and 
the application of ambitious policy measures. Furthermore, there is scarce information on monitoring efforts, 
even though this might change in the future thanks to the introduction of the mandatory reporting in 2018. 
The  results  of  the  analysis  emphasize  that  voluntary  action,  as  it  developed  now,  might  not  be  enough  to 
significantly reduce food waste amounts in line with the target set by SDG 12.3.  

In the context of the policy impact assessment, this analysis contributed to the problem definition and helped 
understanding the problem drivers for what concerns the lack of evidence-based and coordinated approaches 
in MSs. Furthermore, the information collected in this analysis and in the surveys to MS was used to develop 
an analysis of the feasibility of reaching the food waste reduction targets set out in the three policy options.  

5  

The analysis performed using the MAGNET model in support to the Impact Assessment is presented in De Jong et al., (2023). 

40 

                                                        
 
References  

Burgos, S., Colin, F., Venice, G., & Mahon, P. (2019). Voluntary Agreements as a collaborative solution for food 
waste reduction. 

Caldeira, C., De Laurentiis, V., Corrado, S., van Holsteijn, F., & Sala, S. (2019). Quantification of food waste per 
product  group  along  the  food  supply  chain  in  the  European  Union:  a  mass  flow  analysis.  Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 149(August 2018), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.011 

Champions 12.3. (2017). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste. 

Champions 12.3. (2022). SDG TARGET 12.3 ON FOOD LOSS AND WASTE: 2022 PROGRESS REPORT An annual 
update  on  behalf  of  Champions  12.3.  https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/22_WP_SDG 
Target 12.3_2022 Progress Report_v3_0.pdf 

Council  of  the  European  Union.  (2020).  Food  losses  and  food  waste:  assessment  of  progress  made  in 
implementing 
2016. 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11665-2020-INIT/en/pdf 

conclusions 

adopted 

Council 

June 

the 

28 

on 

De  Laurentiis,  V.,  Caldeira,  C.,  Biganzoli,  F.,  Serenella,  S.,  &  European  Commission.  Joint  Research  Centre. 
level. 
Building 
(2021). 
https://doi.org/10.2760/316306 

food  waste 

accounting 

balancing 

national 

system 

for 

at 

a 

de Visser-Amundson, A. (2020). A multi-stakeholder partnership to fight food waste in the hospitality industry: 
a  contribution  to  the  United  Nations  Sustainable  Development  Goals  12  and  17.  Journal  of  Sustainable 
Tourism, 0(0), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1849232 

De Jong B, Boysen-Urban K, De Laurentiis V, Philippidis G, Bartelings H, Mancini L, Biganzoli F, Sanyé Mengual 
E, Sala S, Lasarte-López J, Rokicki B, M’barek R. Assessing the economic, social and environmental impacts of 
food  waste  reduction  targets.  A  model-based  analysis.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, 2023, doi:10.2760/77251, JRC133971.  

EC - European Commission. (2020). A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly 
food system. COM/2020/381 final. 

EU. (2002). Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 
laying  down  the  general  principles  and  requirements  of  food  law,  establishing  the  European  Food  Safety 
Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food saf. 

EU.  (2008).  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and of  the  Council  of  19  November  2008  on 
waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance). 

European 
EU 
https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu-food-loss-waste-prevention-hub/ 

and  Waste 

Commission. 

(n.d.). 

Food 

Loss 

Prevention 

Hub. 

2019. 

Eurostat. (2023). Food waste and food waste prevention – estimates.  

EY consulting. (2019). Evaluation of the application of the provisions of the law of 11 February  2016  on  the  
fight against  food waste,  and  the implementing   decree   of   28 December 2016. 

García  Herrero,  L;  Casonato,  C;  Caldeira,  C;  De  Laurentiis,  V;  Bruns,  H;  Nohlen,  H;  Sala,  S,  (2023).  Scoping 
consumer food waste: an evaluation framework of prevention interventions. JRC Interim report. 

Leverenz, D., Schneider, F., Schmidt, T., Hafner, G., Nevárez, Z., & Kranert, M. (2021). Food waste generation in 
germany  in  the  scope  of  european  legal  requirements  for  monitoring  and  reporting.  Sustainability 
(Switzerland), 13(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126616 

(2020).  Kamerbrief  over 

LNV. 
en  het 
https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-8f8abddf297d0ecc6477dcd25ef3c4ce6ac4ee9b/pdf 

voedselagenda  2016-2020 

evaluatie 

voedselbeleid. 

Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation. (2021). Bilan du 2e Pacte national de lutte contre le gaspillage 
alimentaire (2017-2020). 

Naturvårdsverket. 
oss/publikationer/8800/978-91-620-8891-0/ 

Livsmedelsavfall 

(2022). 

i  Sverige  2020.  https://www.naturvardsverket.se/om-

Reynolds,  C.,  Goucher,  L.,  Quested,  T.,  Bromley,  S.,  Gillick,  S.,  Wells,  V.  K.,  Evans,  D.,  Koh,  L.,  Kanyama,  A.  C., 
Katzeff, C., Svenfelt, Å., & Jackson, P. (2019). Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions – 

41 

What  works 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.01.009 

how 

and 

design 

to 

better 

interventions. 

Food 

Policy, 

83, 

7–27. 

Sanchez  Lopez,  J.,  Caldeira,  C.,  De  Laurentiis,  V.,  Sala,  S.,  Brief  on  food  waste  in  the  European  Union, 
Avraamides, M. editor. European Commission, JRC121196, 2020. 

Simões, J., Carvalho, A., & Gaspar de Matos, M. (2022). How to influence consumer food waste behavior with 
interventions?  A  systematic 
Journal  of  Cleaner  Production,  373,  133866. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133866 

literature 

review. 

Soethoudt, H., & Vollebregt, M. (2019). Monitor Voedselverspilling: update 2009-2019: Hoeveel kilo gaat er in 
Nederland verloren? https://doi.org/10.18174/558030 

Stichting  Voedingscentrum.  (2019).  Synthesis  report  on  Food  Waste  in  Dutch  Households  in  2019. 
https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/Assets/Uploads/voedingscentrum/Documents/Professionals/Pers/Persmappen/
Verspilling 2019/VC_Synthesis report on food waste in Dutch households 2019.pdf 

Stöckli,  S.,  Niklaus,  E.,  &  Dorn,  M.  (2018).  Call  for  testing  interventions  to  prevent  consumer  food  waste. 
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.029 

UN  General  Assembly.  (2015).  Transforming  our  world:  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development.  In 
New York: United Nations. 

United Nations Environmental Program. (2021). FOOD WASTE INDEX REPORT 2021. 

van  Dooren,  C.,  Mensink,  F.,  Eversteijn,  K.,  &  Schrijnen,  M.  (2020).  Development  and  Evaluation  of  the 
Eetmaatje Measuring Cup for Rice and Pasta as an Intervention to Reduce Food Waste. Frontiers in Nutrition, 
6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00197 

WRAP.  (2022).  Food  Waste  Reduction  Roadmap  -  Progress  report.  https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/food-
waste-reduction-roadmap-progress-report-2022 

(2022).  Minder 

WUR. 
resultaten/onderzoeksinstituten/food-biobased-research/show-fbr/nederlandse-supermarkten-maken-
voedselverspilling-inzichtelijk-f00dwa5-1.htm 

voedselverspilling 

supermarkten. 

https://www.wur.nl/nl/onderzoek-

in 

42 

 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions  

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

EU 

FI 

FW 

HR 

HU 

JRC 

LT 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

European Union 

Finland 

Food waste 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Joint Research Centre 

Lithuania 

MAGNET  Modular Applied GeNeral Equilibrium Tool 

MS 

Member State 

NGO  

Non-Governmental Organization 

PO 

PT 

RO 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

SDG 

Sustainable Development Goal 

SE 

SI 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

SME 

Small and Medium Enterprise 

SK 

UK 

Slovakia 

United Kingdom 

WFD 

Waste Framework Directive 

43 

 
List of figures  

Figure 1. Food waste estimations in the EU (2020) (tonnes of fresh mass). .............................................................................3 

Figure 2. Food waste generated in the EU27 by food group. Mt in fresh weight. ...................................................................4 

Figure 3. Food waste by sector of activities by Member State, 2020, kilograms per inhabitant. .................................4 

Figure 4. Answers provided to the question on the level of concern about waste flows ...................................................6 

Figure 5. Stakeholder analysis of replies to the question on food waste reduction targets ............................................7 

Figure 6. Answers provided to the question on the level of agreement with policy measures ......................................8 

Figure 7. Stakeholder analysis of question on the level of agreement with food waste reduction targets ...........8 

Figure 8. Analysis of responses provided by the companies, by company size. Numbers above the bars 
indicates the total number of replies for each category............................................................................................................................9 

Figure 9. Analysis of responses provided by the “public authority” group, by type and level of the entity. 
Numbers above the bars indicates the total number of replies for each category ..................................................................9 

Figure 10. Answers provided to the question on the most effective measures to reduce food waste ................. 10 

Figure 11. Heat map showing the shares (%) of replies “very impactful” and “moderately impactful” for each 
proposed measure out of the total number of respondents, by group of stakeholders. The last row indicates 
the total number of respondents for each stakeholder group. Table 1 below shows the legend for the 
measures .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 

Figure 12. Answers provided to the question on actors that need to take more action to reduce food waste. 
Percentage of respondents selecting each actor ........................................................................................................................................ 12 

Figure 13. Heat map showing the shares of respondents selecting each actor category (rows), by group of 
stakeholders (columns). The last row indicates the total number of respondents for each group of 
stakeholders. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

Figure 14. Analysis of replies of question on actors who need to take more action to reduce food waste from 
companies, by company size. Numbers above the bars indicates the total number of replies for each company 
size ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

Figure 15. Answers provided to the question on challenges encountered by food waste reduction initiatives14 

Figure 16. Heat map showing the shares of replies “very important” and “important” for each challenge, by 
stakeholder category. The definition of each challenge is provided in Table 2....................................................................... 14 

Figure 17. Analysis of replies from companies on challenges encountered by food waste reduction initiatives, 
by company size. Shares of replies “very important” and “important”. ........................................................................................ 14 

Figure 18. Answers provided to the question on the benefits of reducing food waste ................................................... 15 

Figure 19. Heat map showing the shares of replies “agree” and “strongly agree” to each benefit, by group of 
stakeholder .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 

Figure 20. Analysis of replies provided by companies, by company size. Shares of replies “strongly agree” and 
“agree”. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 

Figure 21. Answers provided to the question on purchasing and consumption habits .................................................... 17 

Figure 22. Answers provided to the question on the implementation of effective measures to reduce waste
 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 

Figure 23. Response rate for each question of the survey. Questions with * are conditional, i.e. appeared only 
for certain types of initiatives. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 

Figure 24. Response rates by main type of initiative (numbers above bars indicates the number of replies) 21 

Figure 25. Number of initiatives by initiative type .................................................................................................................................. 21 

Figure 26. Number of initiatives by country ................................................................................................................................................ 22 

44 

Figure 27. Number of initiatives and type of stakeholder involved (multiple options allowed) ................................. 22 

Figure 28. Number of initiatives by targeted life cycle stage (multiple options allowed) ............................................. 23 

Figure 29. Annual costs and prevented food waste of the initiatives reported, by type of initiative. .................... 24 

Figure 30. Annual costs and prevented food waste of initiatives from the literature, by type of initiative ....... 25 

Figure 31. Distribution of total annual costs of initiatives per unit of avoided food waste (excluding outliers 
above 8000 €/tonne) .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 

Figure 32. Recipients of redistributed food (number of initiatives, multiple answers allowed) ................................. 27 

Figure 33. Type of training provided as part of the initiative (number of initiatives) ...................................................... 28 

Figure 34. Additional social benefits provided by the initiative (number of initiatives) .................................................. 29 

Figure 35. Number of initiatives reported by MS by type and quantitative data disclosure. FW: food waste .. 31 

Figure 36. Food waste prevention initiatives by type and Member State ................................................................................ 31 

Figure 37. Shares of measured and estimated data for costs (a) and food waste prevented (b) ........................... 32 

Figure 38. Total (i.e. fixed + variable) annual costs and prevented food waste of the initiatives replying to the 
survey for MSs, by type of initiative ................................................................................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 39. Overview of initiatives costs as results of the stakeholder survey (distinguishing between three 
main groups of initiatives), MS survey and from literature review. In brackets, number of data points for each 
type of initiative; outliers (values above 8000 Euro/tonne) have been excluded. ................................................................. 33 

Figure 40. Overview of food waste policies and actions at MS level (1,2) ................................................................................. 35 

45 

 
List of tables  

Table 1 Legend of food waste reduction measures listed in Figure 11 ................................................................................... 11 

Table 2. Description of challenges supporting Figure 17 .................................................................................................................. 15 

Table 3. Number of initiatives by type and stage of the supply chain where food waste is prevented (multiple 
options allowed for the latter) ................................................................................................................................................................................ 23 

Table 4 Summary table of costs of the initiatives providing quantitative data via the survey (in brackets, 
values excluding outliers, i.e. higher than 8 thousand €) ....................................................................................................................... 24 

Table 5 Summary table of costs of initiatives reported in (Garcia Herrero et al., 2023) and (Caldeira et al. 
2019) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 

Table 6 Overview table on social benefits - All initiatives (FW: food waste) .......................................................................... 27 

Table 7 Overview table on social benefits - Food redistribution initiatives ............................................................................. 28 

Table 8 Classification of food waste prevention initiatives based on Caldeira et al. 2019 and number of 
initiatives reported by MSs, by macro-type .................................................................................................................................................... 30 

Table 9 Overview table of MS initiatives and related variables ...................................................................................................... 32 

Table 10: Available quantitative information on food waste (FW: food waste) ................................................................... 38 

Table 11: Classification of MSs policy ambition ........................................................................................................................................ 38 

46 

 
Annexes  

Annex 1. Survey for stakeholders  

47 

 
 
48 

 
49 

 
50 

 
51 

 
52 

 
53 

 
 
 
54 

55 

 
 
 
56 

 
57 

 
Annex 2. Survey for Member States 

Food waste prevention initiatives 

Survey for Member States Representatives  

Introduction 

Thank you for participating in this survey on food waste prevention. The aim of this survey is to 

collect relevant information from Member States representatives on both ongoing and completed 

food  waste  prevention  initiatives  conducted  at  national  level,  in  particular  their  costs  and 

impacts.  The  analysis  of  costs  and  effects  of  national  policies  is  of  crucial  importance  for  the 

preparation  of  the  Impact  Assessment  to  set  food  waste  reduction  targets  and  the  data 

collected through this survey will  inform  a  modelling  exercise  developed  in  the  context  of  the 

Impact Assessment. 

Should you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact us at: 

 

For questions concerning the initiative to set food waste reduction 

targets please contact: SANTE-FOOD-WASTE@ec.europa.eu or call +32 229 

60 647  

 

For questions concerning the interpretation of the questionnaire please 

contact: JRC-FOOD-WASTE@ec.europa.eu or call +39 0332 786185 

The  surveys  are  pre-filled  individually  for  each  Member  States  based  on  the  country  profiles 

published  in  the  EU  Food  Loss  and  Waste  Prevention  Hub.  We  would  like  to  ask  to  check  if  the 

information is correct and if all the relevant food loss and waste prevention initiatives carried out 

by your Member State have been included in the survey. We encourage you to correct or update 

information about the initiatives in the first column of both tables below, as necessary. 

Ideally,  you  would  be  able  to  provide  the  fixed  and  variable  costs  for  each  individual  initiative 

and estimate its effect in terms of mass of avoided food waste. However, if this is not possible, 

you may also  provide  the total reduction of  food waste mass in the given period. Please  let us 

know if the values you provide were obtained via measurements or are estimates. At this stage 

it would be best not to provide information on expected future costs/savings. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1: Overall information and data on food waste amounts 

Please  ensure  that  all  quantitative  information  provided  refers  to  the  reporting  period  indicated  in  the  second  column 
(start and end of initiative) 

Initiative (6) 

Dates  of 
initiative 
(start  and 
end) 

Stages  of 
the 
food 
supply 
chain* 
targeted 

Geographical 
area targeted 
sub-
(if 
national 
please 
provide 
details) 

the 

Food waste reduced or food saved (if possible 
to assign it to the initiative**) 

Mass 
(e.g. 
tonnes) 

Value in EUR 
(e.g.  in  case 
of 
food 
redistribution) 

Are 
values 
measured (M) or 
estimated  (E)?  - 
leave the correct 
answer 

Link  to  the 
initiative 
and 
additional 
information 
-  

[Initiative 1] 

[Initiative 2] 

[Initiative n]  

[Initiative 
Monitoring 

10] 

Other 
add 
actions 
necessary) 

(please 
more 
if 

Total 

M/E 

M/E 

M/E 

M/E 

M/E 

M/E 

* Please select one or more of the following: primary production; processing and manufacturing; retail and distribution; 
restaurants and other food services; households. 

** If not, it can be provided in the final row as “Total” 

6   Country action copied from the EU Food Loss and Waste Prevention Hub 

59 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table 2: Data on costs  

Please ensure that all quantitative information provided refers to the reporting period indicated in Table 1 (start and end 
of initiative)  

Initiative (7) 

Total Cost in EUR  

Fixed  cost  in 
EUR * 

Variable  cost 
in 
EUR 
(linked  to  the 
amounts 
of 
food  waste 
reduced)** 

or 

values 

Are 
measured 
(M) 
estimated 
(E)?  -  leave 
the 
correct 
answer 

Additional  information 
on costs (as needed) 

[Initiative 1] 

[Initiative 2] 

[Initiative n]  

[Initiative] Monitoring 

Other  (please  add 
more 
if 
necessary) 

actions 

Total 

M/E 

M/E 

M/E 

M/E 

M/E 

M/E 

* Fixed costs should include costs of setting up the initiative as well as other fixed costs for the  period of the initiative, 
including  administrative  overheads.  If  some  elements  cannot  be  expressed  in  financial  terms  (e.g.  administration 
overheads in full time equivalent - FTE) – please mention this in the last column “Additional information on costs”. 

**  For  redistribution  activities,  examples  of  variable  costs  are:  those  linked  to  maintaining  storage  areas  (e.g.  energy, 
equipment) and the fuel used. For awareness campaigns, examples are: renting venues and equipment for workshops 
and events. 

Do you agree to be contacted for an interview? – Y/N 

7   Country action copied from the EU Food Loss and Waste Prevention Hub 

60 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Annex 3. Timelines of policy implementation of selected Member States 

The  following  section  collects a  visualization  of  the  food  waste  policy  implementation  for  selected  Member 
States (generally for the  MSs who have more information retrievable on the  EU FLW Platform  – Prevention 
Hub or on their institutional websites). Each timeline contains the key actions, in particularly:  

- 

Introduction of key policy or regulation acts, signalled by the icon: 

-  Monitoring of food waste, signalled by the icon:  

- 

- 

The moment in which the analysis was carried out (2022) is signalled as such:  

The  part  of  the  timelines  in  lighter  blue  signals  the  time  between  the  present  (i.e.  the  mandatory 
reporting of food waste quantities from MSs) and the fulfilment of the SDG 12.3 target in 2030. 

Netherlands 

Figure 41: timeline of food waste prevention policies implementation in the Netherlands 

  Key figures:    

- 

- 

Food  waste  monitoring  for  the  Netherlands  has  started  in  2010  and  has  been  routinely  updated  since 
then.  The  first  retrievable  data  for  total  amount  of  food  waste  referred  to  2012,  a  year  in  which  the 
estimates  established  that  the  amount  of  food  waste  was  between  1.67  and  2.62  million  tons, 
corresponding to between 100 and 157 kg per capita. In 2019, the estimates indicated a between 88 and 
138 kilograms per  capita, a  slight reduction in the average  which is attributable to a 29% reduction in 
household food waste between 2010 and 2019 (Stichting Voedingscentrum, 2019). 
The  latest  report  on  retail  specific  food  waste  has  shown  a  decrease  of  3.6%  of  supermarket  waste 
(WUR, 2022). 

-  No  data  available  for  the  whole  supply  chain  –  no  information  on  actions  upstream  (farming  and 

processing)  (Soethoudt & Vollebregt, 2019). 

 Specific actions taken by the Netherlands:    

- 
- 

The Dutch government has placed food waste prevention on its policy agenda as early as 2009. 
Voluntary  agreement:  organized  through  an  organization  called  Samen  tegen  voedselverspilling, 
consisting of a multistakeholder platform catalysing food waste prevention initiatives across the supply 
chain,  in  collaboration  with  government  and  education  institutions,  as  well  as  food  business  operators 
and financial organizations (8).    

8  

 https://samentegenvoedselverspilling.nl/ 

61 

 
                                                        
 
-  Monitoring: since 2012, target set in alignment with SDG 12.3; findings are disseminated through yearly 

reports issued by Wageningen Research (9). 
Stakeholder involvement & platform. 
Recovery & redistribution: development of online redistribution platform. 
Awareness raising: week against food waste; consumer awareness through nudging at household level   

Promotion of education of consumers (actions in schools) and for stakeholders. 
Fostering  research  and  innovation  through  direct  financial  assistance  to  food  business  operators 
implementing innovative food waste prevention strategies.   

- 
- 
- 
-  Date marking campaign.  
- 
- 

Evaluation of food strategy from Dutch Government: “With regard to the subject of food waste, the bundling 
of  activities  through  the  United  Against  Food  Waste  Foundation  have  been  called  successful.  The  concrete 
targets  for  waste  have  contributed  to  attention  and  commitment.  The  evaluation  indicates that  a  continued 
commitment to food waste needed to meet the target of halving food waste by 2030 compared to attainable 
by 2015.” (LNV, 2020). 

Germany 

Figure 42: timeline of food waste prevention policy implementation in Germany 

Key figures:  

- 

Baseline food waste levels established in 2015 for the whole value chain: about 11.4 million  tonnes of 
food waste are estimated to be produced yearly in Germany, more than half is supposed to be avoidable 
or still fit for human consumption (Leverenz et al., 2021). 

-  No reduction in household food waste was detected through monitoring exercises from 2012 onwards. 
- 

Strategy for food waste prevention is articulated mainly through sector specific stakeholder dialogues for 
each step of the supply chain: primary production, processing and manufacturing, retail, food services and 
private households. 
A  study  on  retailers’  food  waste  using  product  mark  down  rates  (used  as  a  proxy  for  food  waste 
prevented by using discounting) shows slight decreases between 2019 and 2020. 

- 

Specific actions taken by Germany:  

- 
- 

Target for reduction aligned with SDG 12.3. 
Set  of  baseline  in  2015  -  Ongoing  monitoring  efforts  for  creating  reliable  databases  and  establish 
indicators for reduction. 

9  

https://www.wur.nl/nl/onderzoek-resultaten/onderzoeksprojecten-lnv/soorten-onderzoek/kennisonline/monitor-
voedselverspilling-f00dwa5.htm  

62 

 
                                                        
 
- 

In 2019, the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture launched the national food waste strategy, which is 
articulated  through  different  stakeholder  dialogues  divided  by  the  same  sub-sectors  mentioned  above 
(10).   

-  National level awareness campaign: Zu gutt fur die Tonne, (too good for the bin) (11).    
- 

Set up and facilitation of stakeholder actions and governance at territorial level through German federal 
structures. 
Education campaigns in schools. 
Consumer awareness pilot project centred on coaching and skills development (12). 

- 
- 

France

Figure 43: timeline of food waste prevention policy implementation in France 

Key Figures:  

- 

In 2016, ADEME (the French Agency for the Environment) published the first monitoring for food waste 
levels in France. Food waste along the supply chain  was  quantified as 10 million tonnes per year, with 
33% quantified at consumption level, 32% at primary production and 14% at retail level (13).  

Specific actions taken by France:  

- 

- 

- 

France has put food waste on its policy agenda since almost a decade, issuing a first pact against food 
waste  in  2013,  a  second  strategy  was  launched  in  2017,  and  the  last  and  third  in  2021.  The  French 
government’s  harmonized  institutional  action  against  food  waste  through  “national  pacts”  which  are 
strategies specifically issued to tackle food waste.   
The target set by the French government is an ambitious 50% reduction before 2025, with a baseline to 
2015.   
In  2016,  the  French  Government  established  the  Garot  law,  requiring  retailers  exceeding  400  square 
meters  of  surface  to  establish  partnerships  with  charities  to  ensure  redistribution  of  surplus. Largely 
qualitative evaluation of the Second Pact against food waste, running from 2017 to 2020, shows that the 
pact is a useful tool for the public administration and stakeholders to unify towards a common 
goal,  to  raise  awareness  on  the  issue  and  establish  a  common  framework  of  reference.  On  the 
operational  level,  the  implementation  of  concrete  measures  has  been  “minimal  or  not  very  visible” 
(Ministère  de  l’Agriculture  et  de  l’Alimentation,  2021)  The  pact  was  met  with  an  initial  momentum and 
involvement of different stakeholders, both public and private, but the enthusiasm quickly dissipated. The 

10   https://www.united-against-waste.de/lebensmittelabfall/dialogforum  
11   https://www.zugutfuerdietonne.de/  
12   https://www.zugutfuerdietonne.de/strategie/dialogforen/private-haushalte  
13   ADEME (2016) 

63 

 
                                                        
 
main  effect  of  the  pact  was  the  implementation  of  regulatory  and  normative  actions,  highly 
focused on specific issues and not integrating a more transversal approach or communicating 
progress to all involved participants. There was no mid-term evaluation of the program, which is also 
seen  as  a  weak  spot  in  the  success  of  the  plan.  Nonetheless,  the  evaluation  of  the  Garot  law  on 
redistribution  minimum  requirements  was  instrumental  in  shedding  light  on  the  functioning  and 
effectiveness  of  this  normative  tool,  highlighting  how  it  bolstered  the  redistribution  efforts  from 
retailers.    

Sweden   

Figure 44: timeline of food waste prevention policy implementation in Sweden   

 Key figures:   

- 

- 

Impact report issued in 2021 shows an average reduction of food waste in food services, food industries 
are  the  largest  producers  of  food  waste  (of  the  stakeholders  participating  in  the  voluntary 
agreement)  (14). 
The voluntary agreement has been proved successful in involving stakeholders in starting monitoring and 
reporting  food  waste  levels,  however,  the  recent  establishment  of  the  initiative  cannot  establish  a 
reduction effect associated to it.   

-  No  reduction  of  food  waste  was  registered  at  retail  level,  however  monitoring  efforts  have  helped 
indicate which products are the ones wasted the most (in line with literature, fruits and vegetables and 
dairy products). 

Specific actions taken by Sweden:   

- 

- 

- 

Sweden  has  placed  intermediate  targets  for  food  waste  reduction:  20%  reduction  per  capita  between 
2020 and 2025 and an increase in efficiency of food supply chain by 2025 to reduce food waste. 
Establishment  of  a  common  organization  for  food  waste  redistribution  including  a  common  online 
platform:  ReSvinn  (the  platform  for  redistribution)  which  operates  through  various  actions:  logistics,  IT 
systems and business models. The platform involves 50 partners (15). 
Sweden  is  the  only  MS  openly  targeting  legislation  on  unfair  trading  practices  as  a  leverage  to  reduce 
food waste along the food supply chain  (16). 

 2022 monitoring report ; Report on initiatives for food waste prevention in schools 

14  
15   Report on redistribution  
16   Report on Unfair trading practices in Sweden  

64 

 
                                                        
 
- 
- 
- 
- 

Awareness campaigns focused on the environmental effects of food waste (17). 
Voluntary agreement with stakeholders: Samarbete för minskat matsvinn (SAMS)  (18).  
Education in schools and dissemination. 
Enforce correct implementation of food use hierarchy. 

  Austria: 

Figure 45: timeline of food waste prevention policy implementation in Austria 

Key figures:  

- 

The evaluation established that redistribution of surplus  food was  expanded as a result of the national 
policy, doubling from 2013 (6,600 tons) to 2017 (12,250 tons) - 20% of this food was used; this number 
increased  further  in  2020  to  20000  tons  (19).  Food  use  hierarchy  implementation  led  to  a  use  of  food 
waste for animal feeding of 10000 tons per year.  

Specific actions taken by Austria:  

- 

- 

The  Austrian  government  implemented  a  food  waste  prevention  strategy  from  2013  onwards  and 
provided a qualitative evaluation of its actions.   An awareness campaign with different target groups and 
strategies was deployed but no information is shared on any monitoring activities or evaluation of impact 
and outreach.    
From 2020, a new waste strategy is put in place up to 2030. An evaluation of progress of the strategy is 
foreseen  for  2026.  The  strategy  would  follow  the  line  set  by  the  previous  one,  with  the  branding 
“Lebensmittel sind kostbar!” (20)  

17   Report on consumer knowledge, attitude and behaviour on food waste  
18   Official website of the Swedish voluntary agreement  
19   Programme of the Austrian government's initiative Lebensmittel sind kostbar! 
20   Programme of the Austrian government's initiative Lebensmittel sind kostbar! 

65 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Denmark: 

Figure 46: timeline of food waste prevention policy implementation in Denmark 

Key figures:    

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Large scale national awareness campaign has not shown effectiveness in altering attitudes in consumers 
(according to impact report). 
51 stakeholders are participating in the voluntary agreements organized by the think tank One/Third, no 
information available on the coverage of the Danish market by stakeholders participating in the voluntary 
agreement.   
Latest sector level monitoring available dates to 2018 and covers household food waste, the effects of 
the voluntary agreement on the waste produced by processing companies. 
At manufacturing and processing level, there are significant fluctuations in the amount of food waste and 
food  loss  in  the  period  2015-2020,  including  a  big  increase  in  2019-2020  (a  decrease  of  20.8% 
reduction until 2019). 
Consumer  food  waste  has  been  reduced  in  the  period  2011-2017,  but  significantly  for  the  population 
living  in  apartment  buildings  and not  in  single  family  homes, total  reduction  from all  households types 
amounts to 8%. 

-  Monitoring  of  food  waste  in  restaurants/food  services  establishes  that  the  data  collected  might  be 
unreliable because waste separation is not yet the norm, leading to underreporting. It is estimated that 
60% of food waste at this stage is avoidable (21).   

Specific actions taken by Denmark:    

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

Food  waste  prevention  actions  in  Denmark  are  reported  as  early  as  2008,  although  from  civil  society 
organizations rather than institutional actions. 
In 2011, the Danish Ministry of the Environment introduced voluntary policies for food waste prevention 
through a voluntary initiative (‘‘Initiative Group Against Food Waste’’). 
Further  development  of  a  Voluntary  agreement  between  stakeholders  and  support  of  institutions, 
coordinated by One/third think tank (22). 
Target for participants of the Voluntary Agreement is aligned with SDG 12.3. 
Awareness campaign with focus on date marking understanding, no show of effectiveness in increasing 
awareness according to impact report. 
VAT reduction to facilitate food surplus donation and redistribution has been in place since 2015 (23).   

21   https://onethird.dk/ 
22   Evaluation report of One Third voluntary agreement 

66 

 
                                                        
 
- 

- 

Education campaign in schools, targeting food served in canteens (organic public procurement and waste 
reduction). 
Fostering research and innovation for education institutes and stakeholders. 

Belgium (Flanders):   

Figure 47: timeline of food waste prevention policy implementation in Flanders 

Key figures:    

- 

- 

- 

Flanders  have  established  a  baseline  measurement  in  2015,  which  was  updated  in  2017.  The  region 
implemented  a  circular  economy/efficient  use  of  resource  strategy  for  the  2015-2020  period  and 
implemented a new one after the termination of the previous plan (24). 
Amount of food waste is decreasing in fisheries and auctions sectors. There is a slight increase in retail 
food waste which is probably due to more accurate measurement. 
Registered increase in food surplus redistribution. 

Specific actions taken by Flanders:   

- 
- 

- 

Introduction of food waste in public policy as early as 2012. 
Establishment of a Food Waste reduction Roadmap for the  whole supply  chain, renewed  for the  period 
2020-2025. 
Encourage  stakeholder  collaboration,  focus  on  food  waste  flows  for  specific  products  to  maximise 
impacts (Fruit & vegetables, dairy, bread, potato, meat and fish). 
Awareness raising. 
Training. 

- 
- 
-  New Business models: scale up circular entrepreneurship. 
- 
- 
- 
- 

Facilitating donation through VAT exemption. 
Research investment, support to start-ups focused on food loss prevention. 
Consistent monitoring. 
Stimulate domestic recycling and valorisation of food waste. 

23   European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Food redistribution in the EU – Mapping and 
analysis  of  existing  regulatory  and  policy  measures  impacting  food  redistribution  from  EU  Member  States, 
Publications Office, 2020 

24 Main source: https://www.voedselverlies.be/  

67 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                             
 
Spain: 

Figure 48: timeline of food waste prevention policy implementation in Spain 

 Key figures:   

- 

A recent survey showed a decrease in household food waste between 2020 and 2021 (8% total, or 2,72 
kg per capita), however it referred to a baseline recorded during COVID-19 lockdowns and therefore is not 
representative of a trend.   

Specific actions taken by Spain:    

- 

Inception of national strategy: 2013 – 2016; second stage of national strategy: 2016 - 2020 (policy 
areas  prioritized:  monitoring  in  all  FSC  stages;  education  and  awareness;  R&I,  collaboration);  third 
stage strategy being revised 2021 – 2026 (draft)  (25). 
-  Monitoring of household and food service food waste. 
- 
- 
- 
- 

Coordination of action among food supply chain stakeholders. 
Food services: voluntary agreements for actors in the sector, find best practices and objectives. 
Educational material, guidelines and brochures (industry, consumers, canteens, primary production). 
Food  donation  legislation  &  facilitation  (tax  credit  for  donation:  35%  of  net  book  value  can  be 
corporate tax credit). 
Issuing of guidelines for redistribution in 2020. 
Awareness  campaign  and  platform  “mas  alimento,  menos  desperdicio”  &  date  marking  awareness 
campaign “el etiquetado conta mucho” from Food safety agency)  (26). 

- 
- 

-  Multilevel  governance  and  implementation  of  waste  prevention  program  at  local  level:  subnational 

plans and legislation, e.g. Catalunya (27). 
Application of food use hierarchy (draft law on waste and contaminated soils). 
Tax incentives for businesses that set up waste prevention plans. 

- 
- 

25   Waste strategy until 2020 ; New strategy proposal draft 2021  
26 Awareness campaign on label use  
27 Regional law on food waste  

68 

 
 
                                                        
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

— by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

— at the following standard number: +32 22999696, 

— via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information  about  the  European  Union  in  all  the  official  languages  of  the  EU  is  available  on  the  Europa  website  (european-
union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You  can  view  or  order  EU  publications  at  op.europa.eu/en/publications.  Multiple  copies  of  free  publications  can  be  obtained  by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex 
(eur-lex.europa.eu). 

Open data from the EU 

The  portal  data.europa.eu  provides  access  to  open  datasets  from  the  EU  institutions,  bodies  and  agencies.  These  can  be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth 
of datasets from European countries.