Mapping surplus food redistribution initiatives in Sweden and a Life Cycle Assessment of environmental, social and economic impacts of some representatives

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations suggest that out of all food that is produced, 1/3 ends up as food waste. In high income countries, such as Sweden, the food waste mainly originates from the last stages of the food chain, e.g. at food stores and households. Sweden is a member of the EU as well as the United Nations, and follows the common legislation for waste in the EU and has adopted the Sustainable Development Goals from the United Nations. In the Sustainable Development Goal number 12, food waste in terms of reduction is addressed, although Sweden does not have a clear goal that addresses how to reduce food waste. Food banks have globally been a strategy to redistribute surplus food from the retail sector to people in need, something that has not been common in the Nordic region of Europe (including Sweden) until the 1980’s. However, in Sweden, food banks have not been used as a way to prevent food waste but as a way to help people in need, perhaps because there is a well-established well-fare system in the country. Recently, initiatives that redistribute surplus food from the retail sector have been developed - working towards different consumer groups and solutions. This study aimed to map out the different surplus food redistributing initiatives in Sweden, categorise them and analyse some of the initiatives that represented different solutions and consumer groups. The chosen initiatives were ReFood, City Mission Uppsala (Matkassen and Mikaelsgården), City Mission Stockholm (Matmissionen), Food2change, Foodloopz and Allwin. The methods used for analysing the chosen initiatives were Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, Social Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing. To weigh the environmental-, social- and economic impacts against each other, a total sustainability ranking system was used to point out the most favourable option for a redistributing surplus food initiative, in terms of sustainability. The results showed that the environmental impacts (Green House Gases (kg CO2 equivalents/functional unit)) were the lowest for, in this order, ReFood, Mikaelsgården and Allwin, Foodloopz, Matmissionen and Matkassen, and Food2change. For the social impacts, the results showed that Allwin is the initiative that redistribute the largest amount of surplus food to the consumer group “exposed people”, followed by Matmissionen that redistribute the second largest amount of surplus food to “people with low income”. Allwin is also the initiative with the highest capacity and largest yearly environmental savings, as the company redistributes a much larger amount of food than the other initiatives. The results for the economic impacts showed that all but one initiative, Food2change, have monthly financial losses. The overall sustainability ranking showed that the initiative that is the most favourable is Matkassen followed by Matmissionen and Allwin, Food2change, Foodloopz, ReFood and Mikaelsgården