266 J. Szulecka et al.
Governance differences may also be linked to citizens’ expectations. The
Eurobarometer report on food waste and date marking (unfortunately only
available for Sweden and Denmark, not conducted in Norway) points to
different actors that should take responsibility for preventing food waste. In
Denmark and Sweden, consumers are indicated as being responsible (85% and
88% respectively), followed by shops and retailers (68% and 75%), the hospitality sector (59% and 66%), food manufacturers (51% and 58%), public
authorities (44% and 58%) and farmers (27% and 28%) (EUROBAROMETER, 2015). This shows that the biggest difference is regarding the role of
public authorities, where significantly more Swedes expect a state intervention
compared to Danes. Interestingly, among the twenty- eight analysed countries
in this report, the highest responsibility of shops and retailers is perceived in
France (90%) and the highest responsibility of public authorities in Spain and
France (77% and 74% respectively). Both these factors can explain France’s
lead in European food waste legal regulation (EUROBAROMETER, 2015).
13.4.5 Comparative analysis from a multi- level governance
perspective
It is worth noting that food waste governance in Sweden is closer to the traditional centralised forms of steering, with the Swedish EPA taking a clear
lead in tackling the food waste problem. It is therefore in line with the type I
multi- level governance characteristics presented in Table 13.1. Open collaboration with industry and civic society partners also signals that the state is
trying to coordinate all efforts to reduce food waste.
While in Sweden, initiatives were worked out ‘mostly in the public
sector’,
4
in the Norwegian case, initiatives to prevent food waste ‘always came
from the industry’. In many countries, food waste regulations started with e.g.
food banks; in Norway ‘it started with the industry’.
5
Voluntary selfregulation occurred in the shadow of hierarchy (Héritier & Eckert, 2008;
Newman & Bach, 2004) and the role of the traditional state authorities was
limited in the early agenda setting and food waste policy formulation phase. It
was, however, understood that if the industry tackled the problem ‘before the
politicians’, it would ‘bring cheaper and more effective solutions’.
6
It is nevertheless clear that public agencies are paying close attention to the tangible
effects of self- regulation and a state- led food waste law proposal might centralise food waste governance in Norway in the future. Therefore, it can be
stated that Norway initiated food waste governance with a type II multi- level
governance framework with the industry taking the lead. The industry agreements from 2015 and 2017 were very task specific, but with quite open
memberships and not very clearly defined accountability of the actors in the
common goals. We also observe that the Norwegian ministries, having an
observer status in the agreement of intent, and becoming full members in the
final agreement, brought public type I legitimacy to business- driven type II
activities. It can also be seen that the industry’s lead in food waste governance
Governance differences may also be linked to citizens’ expectations. The
Eurobarometer report on food waste and date marking (unfortunately only
available for Sweden and Denmark, not conducted in Norway) points to
different actors that should take responsibility for preventing food waste. In
Denmark and Sweden, consumers are indicated as being responsible (85% and
88% respectively), followed by shops and retailers (68% and 75%), the hospitality sector (59% and 66%), food manufacturers (51% and 58%), public
authorities (44% and 58%) and farmers (27% and 28%) (EUROBAROMETER, 2015). This shows that the biggest difference is regarding the role of
public authorities, where significantly more Swedes expect a state intervention
compared to Danes. Interestingly, among the twenty- eight analysed countries
in this report, the highest responsibility of shops and retailers is perceived in
France (90%) and the highest responsibility of public authorities in Spain and
France (77% and 74% respectively). Both these factors can explain France’s
lead in European food waste legal regulation (EUROBAROMETER, 2015).
13.4.5 Comparative analysis from a multi- level governance
perspective
It is worth noting that food waste governance in Sweden is closer to the traditional centralised forms of steering, with the Swedish EPA taking a clear
lead in tackling the food waste problem. It is therefore in line with the type I
multi- level governance characteristics presented in Table 13.1. Open collaboration with industry and civic society partners also signals that the state is
trying to coordinate all efforts to reduce food waste.
While in Sweden, initiatives were worked out ‘mostly in the public
sector’,
4
in the Norwegian case, initiatives to prevent food waste ‘always came
from the industry’. In many countries, food waste regulations started with e.g.
food banks; in Norway ‘it started with the industry’.
5
Voluntary selfregulation occurred in the shadow of hierarchy (Héritier & Eckert, 2008;
Newman & Bach, 2004) and the role of the traditional state authorities was
limited in the early agenda setting and food waste policy formulation phase. It
was, however, understood that if the industry tackled the problem ‘before the
politicians’, it would ‘bring cheaper and more effective solutions’.
6
It is nevertheless clear that public agencies are paying close attention to the tangible
effects of self- regulation and a state- led food waste law proposal might centralise food waste governance in Norway in the future. Therefore, it can be
stated that Norway initiated food waste governance with a type II multi- level
governance framework with the industry taking the lead. The industry agreements from 2015 and 2017 were very task specific, but with quite open
memberships and not very clearly defined accountability of the actors in the
common goals. We also observe that the Norwegian ministries, having an
observer status in the agreement of intent, and becoming full members in the
final agreement, brought public type I legitimacy to business- driven type II
activities. It can also be seen that the industry’s lead in food waste governance