DPO01 – Exploring policies and regulations on surplus food redistribution

Supervisors: Dr Carla Pereira (Department of People and Organisations, The Open University Business School, Faculty of Business and Law), Dr Francesca Càlo and Dr Steven Parker (Department of Public Leadership and Social Enterprise, The Open University Business School, Faculty of Business and Law).

Project Description:

Over a billion meals are wasted across the globe daily, affecting both developed and developing countries, despite over 730 million people experiencing hunger. This massive food loss and waste (FLW) not only results in the mismanagement of valuable resources but also contributes to increased pollution and exacerbates food insecurity, with far-reaching consequences for both society and the environment (UN, 2024). Among the various strategies to address FLW and global hunger, surplus food redistribution (SFR) has emerged as a particularly promising solution.

Food surplus refers to agricultural products or quantities of food produced in excess of what is needed (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014; Baglioni et al., 2017). In the context of the profit-driven food industry, eliminating these surpluses entirely is unlikely, as they are often perceived as necessary buffers within the food system. According to the waste hierarchy pyramid, the most effective and beneficial use of surplus food is its redistribution for human consumption (Papargyropoulou et al., 2022). The UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2024) reinforces this approach by outlining eight hierarchical options for managing surplus and waste, with the top priorities being the prevention of surplus and waste and the redistribution of surplus food.

Increasing the level of surplus food redistribution and consequently reducing food waste is not the role of a single stakeholder. Public sector organisations play a critical role in driving stakeholders' changes and behaviours, by establishing policies and regulations to encourage redistribution. However, there is a lack of comparative research that explores if, how and under what circumstances these policies work. This project aims, therefore, to explore how different countries policies, legislation and welfare models support an effective redistribution of surplus food, as well as how they impact (or what the impacts are on) the environment (e.g. food waste mitigation) and society (e.g. increase of beneficiaries from surplus food).

Suggested Methodology:

The proposed methodology for this research is designed to provide flexibility and adaptability, enabling applicants to identify specific geographic locations to examine food policies and legislation related to surplus food redistribution (SFR). Applicants are required to provide a clear justification for the selection of their study area, ensuring that their choice aligns with the research objectives and reflects relevant and different contexts.

To unpack the role of policies in different contexts and evidence of what changes they bring, and how these ultimately affect the outcomes highlighted above, we suggest grounding this study in a realist ontology (Archer, 1995). Realism represents a promising scientific paradigm for understanding the complexity of social interventions (Fletcher et al., 2016). Realist evaluation is a relatively recent but widely accepted empirical approach to the investigation of interventions (Pawson, 2016; Porter & O’Halloran, 2012). In line with ontological realism, realist evaluation acknowledges that interventions are an example of social processes at work, and therefore they can be subject to an overabundance of explanatory possibilities because they are complex and behave as adaptive systems (Pawson, 2013). The duty of realist evaluation is, therefore, to unravel the complex relationships between the “ingredients” of interventions and the social fabric in which they operate (Pawson & Manzano-Santaella, 2012).

Empirically, data collection can adopt either a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approach, directed at exploiting theory-informed evidence to establish context, mechanisms and outcome configurations. Quantitative methods can be, for example, used to explore policy outcomes, and may involve analysing statistical data on food surplus and waste, redistribution practices, and their societal and environmental impacts. Qualitative methods, on the other hand, could be important to explore the contextual variables and mechanisms and may include conducting interviews with policymakers, stakeholders, and beneficiaries to gain deeper insights into the challenges and successes of SFR policies. A mixed-methods approach is encouraged as it offers a more comprehensive understanding by integrating numerical data with contextual narratives to provide a fuller picture of context mechanisms and outcome configurations.

Research Impact:

This research has the potential to make significant contributions to both academic and practical domains. Academically, it will advance comparatively the understanding of how policy and legislative frameworks influence surplus food redistribution and its societal and environmental outcomes. By identifying effective practices, the research can inform future studies and expand the literature on food redistribution, food waste mitigation and food security. Practically, the findings could guide policymakers in designing and implementing more effective policies to reduce food waste and increase food access for vulnerable populations. The study’s focus on diverse geographic contexts ensures that its insights can be applied globally, fostering more equitable and sustainable food systems. Additionally, by addressing critical issues such as hunger and environmental degradation, this research aligns with global initiatives like the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 2 (Zero Hunger) and Goal 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

References:

Archer M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.

Baglioni, S., Calò, F., Garrone, P., & Molteni, M. M. (Eds.) (2017). Foodsaving in Europe. At the Crossroad of Social Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56555-2

Fletcher A., Jamal F., Moore G., Evans R. E., Murphy S., Bonell C. (2016). Realist complex intervention science: Applying realist principles across all phases of the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Evaluation, 22(3), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389016652743

Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020

Pawson R. (2013). The science of evaluation: A realist manifesto. SAGE.

Pawson R. (2016). The ersatz realism of critical realism: A reply to porter. Evaluation, 22(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389015605206

Pawson R., Manzano-Santaella A. (2012). A realist diagnostic workshop. Evaluation, 18(2), 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389012440912

Papargyropoulou, E., Fearnyough, K., Spring, C., & Antal, L. (2022). The future of surplus food redistribution in the UK: Reimagining a ‘win-win’ scenario. Food Policy, 108, 102230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102230

United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Food Waste Index Report 2024: Think Eat Save: Tracking Progress to Halve Global Food Waste. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/45230