268 J. Szulecka et al.
governance approaches emerged in the analysed countries: a civil societydriven framework in Denmark, a public policy- driven one in Sweden and
finally an industry- driven arrangement in Norway. This shows the diverging
origins of food waste regulations in the three countries, as all three sectors are
in different ways involved in food waste reduction.
Learning and collaboration between the three sectors (public policy, industry and civil society initiatives), at various levels and between countries, is an
important and necessary component for tackling the food waste challenge.
This means a departure from the analytical mode of multi- level governance
(with type I and type II arrangements) to the normative mode. Multi- level
governance should also be seen as a solution for better policy implementation, public participation and involvement in decision- making, as a strategy
or benchmark for good governance and effective policy for tackling food
waste. Multi- stakeholder collaboration is particularly important in addressing
complex social, economic and environmental problems that span across the
value chains and particular ministerial competences. Our three national cases
show how such collaboration might look in practice.
Denmark, with its well- coordinated mass civil society engagement to
reduce food waste, has been very successful in recent years: its reductions
were the largest and exceeded the pre- set targets, but it also initially had
higher food waste than the EU average. Now in all countries the ‘lowhanging fruits’ have been collected, meaning the next targets might be more
difficult to meet. There is no one- size-fits- all solution to tackle the global
food waste problem, but possibilities for learning between actors and countries, to overcome weaknesses and enhance their strengths, are very important
for the next stages of food waste reduction. Further studies should concentrate on best practices and lessons that could be drawn from industry selfregulation to reduce food waste in Norway, from the effectiveness of public
food waste policies in Sweden, and from the successful engagement of civic
society in the case of Denmark.
Notes
1 In Norway industry actors report food waste data but only aggregated numbers are
made publicly available. In Denmark in 2016 Netto was the first supermarket chain
to disclose the amount of food waste it produced. See also: Stenmarck et al., 2011.
2 FUSIONS was an EU- funded project with twenty- one partners in thirteen countries,
running from 2012 to 2016, in which all the analysed countries actively participated.
The project’s aim was to reduce food waste, and to harmonise food waste monitoring
in Europe. It provided the first detailed national statistics covering the entire value
chain, accompanied by suggested methodology for data collection and analysis.
3 Lower number in Figure 13.2 in the comparative analysis does not include food
waste in primary production.
4 Expert interview with a food waste research expert, 12 March 2018.
5 Expert interview with a food industry representative, 13 February 2018.
6 Expert interview with a food industry representative, 15 March 2018.
7 Expert interview with a food waste research expert, 12 March 2018.
governance approaches emerged in the analysed countries: a civil societydriven framework in Denmark, a public policy- driven one in Sweden and
finally an industry- driven arrangement in Norway. This shows the diverging
origins of food waste regulations in the three countries, as all three sectors are
in different ways involved in food waste reduction.
Learning and collaboration between the three sectors (public policy, industry and civil society initiatives), at various levels and between countries, is an
important and necessary component for tackling the food waste challenge.
This means a departure from the analytical mode of multi- level governance
(with type I and type II arrangements) to the normative mode. Multi- level
governance should also be seen as a solution for better policy implementation, public participation and involvement in decision- making, as a strategy
or benchmark for good governance and effective policy for tackling food
waste. Multi- stakeholder collaboration is particularly important in addressing
complex social, economic and environmental problems that span across the
value chains and particular ministerial competences. Our three national cases
show how such collaboration might look in practice.
Denmark, with its well- coordinated mass civil society engagement to
reduce food waste, has been very successful in recent years: its reductions
were the largest and exceeded the pre- set targets, but it also initially had
higher food waste than the EU average. Now in all countries the ‘lowhanging fruits’ have been collected, meaning the next targets might be more
difficult to meet. There is no one- size-fits- all solution to tackle the global
food waste problem, but possibilities for learning between actors and countries, to overcome weaknesses and enhance their strengths, are very important
for the next stages of food waste reduction. Further studies should concentrate on best practices and lessons that could be drawn from industry selfregulation to reduce food waste in Norway, from the effectiveness of public
food waste policies in Sweden, and from the successful engagement of civic
society in the case of Denmark.
Notes
1 In Norway industry actors report food waste data but only aggregated numbers are
made publicly available. In Denmark in 2016 Netto was the first supermarket chain
to disclose the amount of food waste it produced. See also: Stenmarck et al., 2011.
2 FUSIONS was an EU- funded project with twenty- one partners in thirteen countries,
running from 2012 to 2016, in which all the analysed countries actively participated.
The project’s aim was to reduce food waste, and to harmonise food waste monitoring
in Europe. It provided the first detailed national statistics covering the entire value
chain, accompanied by suggested methodology for data collection and analysis.
3 Lower number in Figure 13.2 in the comparative analysis does not include food
waste in primary production.
4 Expert interview with a food waste research expert, 12 March 2018.
5 Expert interview with a food industry representative, 13 February 2018.
6 Expert interview with a food industry representative, 15 March 2018.
7 Expert interview with a food waste research expert, 12 March 2018.