Sharing as an Antidote to Food Waste:  
Understanding Food Rescuing Apps and Their Users 
 
 
Johanna Rau and Johan Högberg 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
Master Degree Project - M.Sc. Marketing and Consumption 
Supervisor: Lena Hansson 
                                                                                                    Graduate School of Business, Economics and Law 
                                                                                                                                                                     May 2021 
 Abstract 
The ever-increasing amount of wasted food has emerged as one of the most significant 
sustainability challenges of our time. The predominant explanation for the amount of food 
wasted is often attributed to consumers' behaviour and an unsustainable food supply chain. In 
recent times, the possibilities of technological advancements have become central to the food 
waste discussion. One solution would be food rescuing apps as an emerging digital food 
sharing platform model. Therefore, the practice of participating on food rescuing apps and the 
businesses’ and customers' behaviours and practices as users of those apps are examined 
through a practice theoretical perspective. Through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 
businesses and customers, the underlying patterns of the studied practice were identified 
based on a range of derived indicators in order to define the existing typologies for the users 
of these digital platforms. Contrary to the claims of previous studies, our findings show how 
not only financial aspects but especially environmental concerns have a significant impact on 
both sides’ participation on food rescuing apps. Furthermore, a strong influence of spatial-
temporal aspects on the practices is identified for both businesses and customers. The study 
contributes to a greater practice theoretical understanding of the app users, which as a result, 
helps the app providers to attain insights and potentially improve their services.
1 
 
Introduction 
Society as we know it is facing significant challenges. Perhaps the most concerning one of 
them all is how to approach the ever-growing population and increased consumption, which 
has been pinpointed as one of the most significant sustainability challenges in the present time 
(Ranganathan et al., 2018). One of the most pressing issues regarding population growth and 
the increased consumption that it brings along is concerning the production and consumption 
of food. Furthermore, approximately one-third of all the produced food is wasted during the 
course of the supply chain resulting in a negative impact among all the three pillars of 
sustainability (Stenmarck et al., 2016). Food waste issues are perceived to be so big that they 
are acknowledged in the 2030 sustainable development goals, where the ambition is to halve 
food waste during the upcoming decade (Aktas et al., 2018). It needs to be noticed that some 
food waste is unavoidable, such as the inedible parts of vegetables and fruits (Porat et al., 
2018). But another type of food waste can be defined, which is unnecessarily contributing to 
today’s global waste problem. It consists of food being disposed of even though it is still fit for 
consumption (FAO, 2014). While it is found that the majority of consumers are averse to 
wasting food, and few deliberately do so, consumers still keep adding to food waste (Rohm, 
2017; Van Geffen et al., 2020). Previous studies have accordingly highlighted the challenge of 
altering consumer behaviour in relation to food and waste (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; 
Farr-Wharton et al., 2014) and the need to attain a comprehensive understanding of the drivers 
and logic behind the current food waste generation and identifying the culprits within the supply 
chain (Priefer et al., 2016). Furthermore, Qi and Roe (2016) highlight the need to increase 
consumer awareness as the perceptions, opinions, and attitudes among consumers could in 
part explain the high levels of food waste. 
Moreover, as the concerns for sustainability, food waste, and the role consumers play have 
increased over the years, so have the efforts to find a solution. Cohen and Munoz (2015) 
suggest that the sharing economy provides a solution to decrease food waste. Acquier and 
Carbone (2018) support this notion arguing that platforms utilising the sharing economy could 
prove integral in enabling a sustainability transition within the food industry. Research has 
especially looked toward new technologies to create the substantial changes needed to reduce 
food waste through the sharing economy. In their research, Michelini et al. (2018) focus on 
differentiating digital sharing platforms models, which are characterised by varying purposes 
and actors involved. Thus, the researchers show the versatility and potentially high impact food 
sharing models can have on society. Various researchers highlight the opportunities that apps 
constitute having a positive environmental impact, especially on reducing food waste 
(Ganglbauer et al., 2014; Mummah et al., 2017; Oroski, 2020; Makov et al., 2020; Filimonau 
and Coteau, 2019). Also, it is shown how apps provide diverse communication forms and can 
lead to a greater customer reach (van der Haar and Zeinstra, 2019).  
In the last few years, several food sharing apps growing at a high rate have appeared 
worldwide. In Sweden, both Karma and Too Good To Go (TGTG) have recently launched. The 
Swedish food rescuing app Karma was founded in 2016 and allows businesses to sell food 
surplus to consumers at a lower price, often for 50% off. On the app, 9,200 businesses sell 
specific meals to 1.4 million app users in 225 cities. One can find the app in Sweden, the UK 
and France. According to their website, over four million meals have been saved and 1,200 
tonnes of food rescued so far (Karma, 2021). TGTG is the largest anti-food waste app used by 
36 million consumers and 85,000 businesses in 15 countries. So far, 68.8 million meals have 
2 
 
been saved since its launch in 2016. TGTG can be found in Sweden since Summer 2020. In 
contrast to Karma, businesses on TGTG offer so-called surprise bags that contain a number 
of unknown food items at a marginal cost (often a third of the regular price) (Too Good To Go, 
2020). 
Although plenty of scholars have recently turned their attention toward food waste and digital 
food-sharing platforms and acknowledged their importance, there are still areas that have 
received little to no attention and thus provide opportunities for further studies. As the sharing 
economy is continuously evolving and expanding, Geissinger et al. (2019) call for further 
studies of the concept and its possible impact on businesses. At the same time, Cane and 
Parra (2020) highlight the need to explore the consumer behaviour towards food waste with 
new technological innovations at the centre. In contrast, Mullick et al. (2020) have called upon 
further studies analysing the motivations of digital food sharing platform users and the 
performance implications participation on these platforms may have on the business.  
Furthermore, Schanes et al. (2018) highlight the importance of research to extend beyond just 
investigating the attitudes toward food waste and instead approach it from a social practice 
ontology, which in turn should broaden the knowledge of daily routines and practices that are 
intrinsic to food waste. As elaborated by Fuentes et al. (2021), practices related to buying food 
are very complex. Understanding the practical, routinised and material aspects considered 
when purchasing food through a practice approach helps flesh out the factors that matter to 
the users. In this context, Brons and Oosterveer (2017) have studied sustainable food 
consumption and the access to it through a practice theoretical approach. In their study, 
several indicators explaining consumption behaviour are derived and used to distinguish 
between the existing types of consumers sharing similar characteristics. Through their defined 
typology, the complex practice of sustainable food consumption has been mapped while taking 
the influencing practice theoretical factors like one’s social and economic environment and 
materials into account.  
This study aims to look into the factors that impact the participation on food-sharing platforms 
among the various actors to attain a deeper understanding of the businesses and customers 
currently using digital food-sharing platforms. Consequently, the behaviours of businesses and 
customers actively participating on food rescuing apps to reduce food waste are examined 
from a practice theory perspective to answer the following research questions: 
1. Which factors have an impact on the practice of participating on food rescuing apps? 
2. What types of business- and customer users can be distinguished on food rescuing 
apps? 
Attaining more knowledge regarding these practices can be beneficial as it may help the digital 
platform providers improve their platform and, in turn, allow for a greater reduction of food 
waste. In addition, by gaining a better understanding of the different types of users, the apps 
can target them more effectively, for example, through adapted advertisements. In addition, a 
contribution to structuring and understanding the differences in the exertion of a complex 
practice, such as participating on a food rescuing app, is made. Also, constructing business 
and customer types facilitates characterising the distinct drivers and barriers for their 
participation, which can prove helpful for future academic discussions of food rescuing apps’ 
3 
 
impact on their users and how to increase its future potential for positive sustainable changes 
in society.  
This study looks at the practices of Swedish businesses and customers on the digital food-
sharing platforms Karma and TGTG. The participants were selected through a mix of 
convenience, purposive, and snowball sampling. The data was collected through interviews, 
which was then transcribed and later coded with the help of QDA miner lite to facilitate a good 
analysis and discussion. The study is structured in the following way: In the coming segment, 
a literature review introducing the concepts and previous studies on food waste and sharing 
economy will be presented. Afterwards, the study's theoretical framework is outlined, which is 
a practice theory approach in relation to food and food waste management. Thereafter, five 
indicators around the users’ practice of using food rescuing apps are derived and explained. 
Consequently, the method of the study will be described starting with an explanation for the 
use of a qualitative method where the data was collected through semi-structured interviews 
with both businesses and customers. After that, the chosen method of sampling is described, 
as are the respondents. Consecutively, the interview process and the chosen method of 
analysis and coding are explained in order to give the reader a greater insight into the 
development of the interviews. An analysis of these derived findings concerning the adapted 
indicators and identified types of users is conducted afterwards. In the end, the concluding 
summary and discussion are followed by the contributions and limitations of the study, as well 
as some suggestions for further studies. 
Literature Review 
As the overarching concepts in the focus of the study are food waste and the sharing economy, 
those two concepts will be discussed in the following sections in more detail. In line with the 
thesis’ research aim, avoidable food waste will be more precisely studied at the retail stage. 
Here, especially the consumers’ and foodservice providers’ role will be investigated, as 
previous researches' insights can be applied to study customers and businesses using food 
rescuing apps. Also, research’s identified solutions to the food waste problem occurring 
downstream the supply chain will be investigated in more detail. In the second part, the sharing 
economy as one potential pathway for managing avoidable food waste will be discussed, 
focusing on food sharing and digital food sharing platforms as the latter would also incorporate 
the studied food rescuing apps. 
Avoidable Food Waste in the Foodservice Industry 
The foodservice industry, a subsector of the food and beverage industry, includes companies 
serving meals for out-of-home consumption. According to the Euromonitor International 
(2016), the following companies are considered to be part of the sector: full-service providers 
(e.g. restaurants offering full table service), cafés and bars, take-away and delivery (where 
customers cannot eat on site), fast food, self-service cafeterias (which can often be found in 
corporate or school environments), street stalls and kiosks, and event/offsite catering (Martin-
Rios et al., 2018). As already mentioned above, in the remaining paper, instead of the term 
“foodservice providers”, “businesses” is used for facilitation purposes and for not disrupting the 
reading flow.  
Edible food waste makes up the largest amount of food waste and can be defined as 
“suboptimal foods”, which are regarded as unappealing by consumers as it is either close to 
4 
 
the expiring date or is perceived as visually or sensory “unnormal” (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 
2015). In this context, according to Porat et al. (2018) and Lipinski et al. (2013), the largest 
part of food waste is connected to consumers and other final users such as restaurants. Martin-
Rios et al. (2018) provide a clear overview on the topic of food waste management in the 
foodservice industry through their conducted interviews. For all types of foodservice 
companies, the generated waste occurs in two areas, back-office and front-office. The former 
would include all waste produced in the kitchens, such as peelings and trimmings, food 
packaging and bones. For this type of waste, the foodservice company has full control over 
the amount of food waste generated (Martin-Rios et al., 2018). Therefore, the consumer’s and 
foodservice industry’s role within this phenomenon will be investigated in more detail in the 
following. 
Consumers’ Role  
Consumer-related food waste encompasses food scraps, leftovers and suboptimal food. Food 
waste occurring at the consumer level has been studied extensively as it represents a 
significant part of the overall food waste problem. According to the FAO, the food waste 
occurring at the consumption stage amounts to 35% of the overall food wasted (Fusions, 
2016). But consumers do not only negatively contribute to the food waste problem in their 
households and in-store purchase but also their perceptions and (buying) behaviours around 
food indirectly influence stakeholders’ actions in each stage of the supply chain. For example, 
most grocery stores would only accept flawless products as they assume consumers would 
only buy such food (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; Rohm et al., 2017). 
Consumer food waste has been discussed in previous research, mainly through two different 
approaches. At first, a plethora of researchers have studied the topic with regard to consumer 
behaviour and environmental psychology, in particular, focusing on different factors (e.g. 
motivational and intra-personal ones) impacting behaviours. The theoretical framework applied 
when analysing food waste is to a large extent the theory of planned behaviour, through which 
the role of attitudes, intentions, norms or knowledge on shaping consumers’ behaviour is 
studied. Also, it is shown that a positive attitude towards reducing waste does not necessarily 
lead to a corresponding behaviour. In response, the second identified approach for studying 
consumer food waste revolves around a social practice theoretical framework. Here, the 
authors study the consumer and the food waste problem embedded in wider aspects of 
everyday life, such as the social, economic and cultural environment influencing their 
behaviour. Thus, individuals are not regarded as the cause of the food waste problem, but 
rather the activities, actors involved, materials and spatial-temporal aspects are studied with 
regard to their impact on food waste generation (Schanes et al., 2018). 
In order to support positive developments towards avoiding food waste, various researchers 
highlight the significant role of new alternative behaviours, new lifestyles and identities around 
sharing, growing own foods or even dumpster diving. In this context, “consumers might take 
pride in being a smart shopper or thrifty household manager, enjoy the creative process of 
tackling leftovers or develop their identity via the formation of social relations in grass-roots 
networks” (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015: 6469). According to a study by Yue et al. (2009), 
consumers are not willing to pay the same price for imperfect food, especially when it comes 
to organic foods. However, higher tolerance is found for consumers being more 
environmentally conscious. Also, with regard to the willingness to pay, research shows that 
5 
 
consumers are less willing to pay throughout the shelf life of perishable food (Tsiros and 
Heilman, 2005). Therefore, businesses aiming to sell “old” food have to set discounted prices 
irrespective through which channel the food is sold. However, additionally focusing on the good 
environmental cause behind not wasting such food could enable them to sell at a slightly higher 
price.  
Businesses’ Role 
The Food Waste Reduction Alliance (FWRA) states that 37% of food waste occurs in retail 
stores and food services (FWRA, 2014). The origins of food waste at businesses have been 
studied in detail for all potential occurring stages, namely the preparation, serving and 
consumption (Dhir et al., 2020). For instance, interviewed experts mention that the main 
aspects leading to wasteful practices are the need for more efficient processes to increase 
sales while avoiding the disposal of costly food and the perceived risk of reputational damage 
(Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015). Such findings align with Martin-Rios et al.’s (2018) research, 
whose interviewees indicated that costs are prioritised over other aspects, such as 
sustainability, when it comes to waste management. Filimonau et al. (2019) studied several 
UK coffee shop chains and their food waste approaches. Their conducted content analysis 
revealed the little attention that is given to the food waste problem and as a result, the lacking 
strategies to mitigate food waste. In addition, other common causes of food being wasted in 
restaurants and cafés are incorrect storage, residues occurring at the preparation stage when 
products are not handled correctly or too much food is prepared, serving too large portions, 
difficulties in predicting the number of guests, forgotten food, lacking awareness of how much 
is food is wasted and the resonating costs (economic and environmental), and serving too 
many options (Sakaguchi et al., 2018). Once committed, businesses have the opportunity to 
significantly influence the overall amount of food waste through changing their direct practices 
(e.g. their offered menu and dishes) while also indirectly impacting the customers’ awareness 
and behaviour regarding food waste, also outside the foodservice industry context.  
Solutions for Avoidable Food Waste 
Various authors recommend avoiding food waste by preventively reusing the surplus food 
instead of finding solutions for one’s wastage (Gentil and Poulsen, 2012; Quested et al., 2013). 
But before businesses can implement different strategies, they need to be aware of the food 
waste problem and their contribution to it. In their research, Sakaguchi et al. (2018) discuss 
the factors influencing restaurateurs’ behaviours regarding food waste policies and incentives 
as it is shown that their behaviour has a significant impact on the amount of food being wasted. 
Potential factors resulting in a positive, less wasteful behaviour are tax benefits for restaurants 
donating surplus food, implementing detailed tracking systems to quantify the amount of waste 
or also collaborating and exchanging with others across the food supply chain (Sakaguchi et 
al., 2018).  In this context, Filimonau et al. (2020a) have shown in their study that when 
businesses (in this case, restaurants) engage in food waste reduction, customer loyalty can 
be increased, especially for those having high environmental concern and thus, higher 
revenues can be generated.  
Overall, the main strategy identified by several experts and summarised by Aschemann-Witzel 
et al. (2015) is not to focus on blaming the consumers for wasting food but rather to engage 
them in mitigating food waste and encourage them to buy suboptimal foods (Filimonau et al., 
2020a). Also, Graham-Rowe et al.’s (2014) analysis showed that the accompanying negative 
6 
 
emotions, especially guilt, when wasting food should not be used to promote a behavioural 
change, because such an intervention technique could result in compensation behaviours like 
denial of the food waste issue itself or one’s contribution to it. In addition, in their different 
tasting experiments, Rohm et al. (2017) identify as another crucial step towards reducing food 
waste to convince consumers that suboptimal foods are still tasty. Regarding potential 
communication channels directed towards influencing consumers’ behaviour, overall 
researchers' findings indicate that financial concerns are the strongest motivation to reduce 
waste and have a higher impact than environmental concerns (Schanes et al., 2018; Graham-
Rowe et al., 2014, Quested et al., 2013). Besides, marketing strategies should be adapted 
towards the different segments’ motives by communicating cost savings or 
environmental/ethical reasons for saving food as it can more effectively influence the 
respective target group’s purchasing behaviour (Blichfeldt et al., 2015; Quested et al., 2013). 
Previous research has highlighted several straightforward interventions through which the 
foodservice industry may reduce food waste. For instance, hotels and restaurants are advised 
to reuse suboptimal produce by cooking, freezing or providing it to secondary retail (e.g. food 
banks). Besides, Sakaguchi et al. (2018) mention as potential hurdles managerial values or 
corporate values, which can restrict the usage of surplus food. For example, strict safety and 
health regulations can prevent managers from donating food. In contrast, managers' strong 
moral norms can support such practices (Heikkilä et al., 2016; Filimonau et al., 2019). 
Therefore, as nowadays an increasing number of businesses, irrespective of their size or 
operating sector, are implementing some CSR policies and sustainability becomes an 
(important) part of their corporate values, more waste management practices can be expected 
to be implemented in the future. But not only specific actions, also just communicating one’s 
intention of reducing food waste can lead guests to do so (Whitehair et al., 2013). Thus, 
communicating their sustainable practices and related corporate values should be vital for 
every business’ operations.  
Food Sharing  
One possible approach for reducing food waste that businesses could implement would be 
through sharing their surplus food. It is perceived that food sharing, especially in developed 
countries, can play an integral role in saving edible food that is otherwise discarded by actors 
in the food supply chains (Kolk and Ciulli, 2020; Rombach and Bitsch 2015). Being a specific 
form of collaboration, food sharing centrally influences human life, social organisation and 
psychological aspects of cooperation (Davies et al., 2017). Nowadays, a rising number of food 
sharing initiatives managing surplus food from customers and businesses and supporting 
collaborative consumption models can be witnessed. In addition, the practice of food sharing 
is starting to go beyond the simple exchange of surplus food as especially start-ups emerge 
around the goal to cook and eat together, which results in another body of literature 
investigating the underlying social perspective of food sharing (e.g. the relationships built in 
such contexts) (Falcone and Imbert, 2017). In recent times, a growing number of scholars like 
Kolk and Ciulli (2020), Davies and Legg (2018) and Michelini et al. (2018) have started to look 
into the possibilities of the sharing economy and in particular, food sharing.  
Concerning the users’ motives for participating in food sharing, the main one identified is to 
save money, despite the increasing public environmental awareness, which is supported by 
various studies. However, customers are shown not to acknowledge their economic motivation 
7 
 
as they feel ashamed (Falcone and Imbert, 2017; Barnes and Mattson, 2016). In addition, 
Ganglbauer et al.’s (2014) research on the online interaction of “Food Sharing” members 
identified social, ecological and economic reasons as the main motives for becoming active on 
the platform. Social and ecological motivations mainly refer to taking responsibility and 
contributing through, e.g. supporting people in need and reducing the amount of food wasted. 
Also in their study, only a few admitted to participating due to economic reasons (Ganglbauer 
et al., 2014). 
Despite food sharing’s growing relevance and accompanying received attention, the literature 
has identified some weaknesses. First of all, critique revolves around the socio-cultural context 
of food sharing, and more specifically, the missing relationships and trust. There exists a safety 
issue when customers do not know how the food was stored, which is in line with the overall 
perceived lower quality and safety of “wasted food” (Farr-Wharton et al., 2014; Lazell, 2016). 
Makov et al. (2020) mention as a further weakness the potential insufficient interest in food 
sharing practices of businesses and customers. A reason would be the low economic value of 
food waste, which implies high transaction costs for the businesses as time and effort needed 
to redistribute the surplus food are often considered not worth the received benefits. But also, 
from the consumer perspective, the demand can be potentially too low due to supply 
constraints (regarding the volume and variety of food), which can lead to unsatisfied 
consumers’ wants (Makov et al., 2020). Therefore, the purpose and process of sharing need 
to be discussed and communicated properly to mitigate such potential weaknesses.  
Digital Food Sharing Platforms and Food Rescuing Apps 
One way to mitigate such potential weaknesses is with the help of digital food sharing 
platforms. Historically, according to Davies et al. (2017), food sharing has been restricted by 
kinship, but the recent and rapid technological advancements in combination with the ever-
growing acceptance of digital solutions have created even greater possibilities for food sharing 
(Ciulli et al., 2019). The recent digital revolution that has swept through developed countries 
has also caused an increase of new business models within the food industry (Michelini et al., 
2018). Among these business models, “food sharing platform business models'' have 
emerged, which combine food sharing with technological advancements by facilitating a digital 
link between suppliers and consumers and allowing for the transaction of edible food waste 
(Michelini et al., 2018; Ciulli et al., 2019). For instance, food donations and end-of-day sales 
can be ways how technology can help to deal with leftovers. Through online communication 
platforms, perceptions around donations are also improved and a new customer base can be 
established by promoting a positive image (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2017; Martin-Rios et al., 
2021).   
Although rather limited, the body of research dedicated to food sharing platforms/apps has 
grown rapidly. Research on these digital food sharing platforms has in recent times looked into 
its possibility of reducing food waste among supermarkets, restaurants and other food 
services. Oroski’s (2020) and Mummah et al.’s (2017) findings highlight how apps seem to 
constitute the best avenue for these food sharing platforms as they are both low in cost and 
highly scalable and effective. These notions are further supported by van der Haar and Zeinstra 
(2019), who argue for apps as they provide more communication forms and a greater reach 
as the customers can access the platforms at relevant times. Also, in this context, a growing 
part of the population, especially increasingly older people, are using smartphones and 
8 
 
downloading apps, which shows the potential food rescuing apps can have. Furthermore, 
Ganglbauer et al.’s (2014) findings highlight the ability of online platforms to facilitate food 
sharing among different communities and thus, connect strangers with different social 
backgrounds and locations, who would potentially not get in contact with each other offline.  
One of the most recent studies on digital food platforms by Fuentes et al. (2021) specifically 
focuses on the app Karma and its potential impact on sustainable food consumption. Through 
a field experiment, their research shows and explains how the app fails to influence consumers’ 
food practices and become part of their daily lives. The identified reasons are several app 
glitches and practice conflicts. More precisely, it is shown that technical, organisational and 
communicative glitches occur. Examples mentioned are the malfunctioning localisation, the 
limited number of participating food venues (outside of large cities) and the lacking 
communication of the app’s functioning and its meaningful, sustainable purpose. In addition, 
regarding the identified practice conflicts, the practice mismatches discussed are the app 
availability in only large cities and its usage for only certain eating occasions, e.g. to buy lunch. 
Regarding the practice competitions as the second type of practice conflicts, the researchers 
show how Karma has to compete against respondents’ perceived important food criteria such 
as variety or freshness of food or other established food provision modes (Fuentes et al., 
2021). 
Theoretical Framework 
The importance of practices when it comes to food consumption becomes evident in studies 
by Fuentes et al. (2021) and Schanes et al. (2018). For example, Schanes et al. (2018) 
highlight how studying food waste management practices and the linked social and material 
contexts through a practice theoretical lens is beneficial for studying new sustainable 
consumption practices such as food rescuing. The reasons mentioned are that foo waste 
management is intertwined with several practices and is rather complex and thus, a broad 
perspective can be offered. In addition, as also stated by Fuentes et al. (2021), smartphone 
applications promoting a novel practice of food consumption can be best explored through a 
practice theoretical approach as the involved materials, meanings and competencies are 
explored. According to Evans (2014), a practice approach contributes to a holistic analysis of 
broad social and economic processes such as everyday practices. Thus, a practice approach 
is utilised in this study to explain the food rescuing apps’ users’ practices and behaviours 
towards reducing food waste.  
In addition, in order to be able to structure and understand the complex practice of participating 
on a food rescuing app, the research framework by Brons and Oosterveer (2017) will be 
applied. Therefore, their used indicators explaining sustainable food consumption behaviour 
are modified and extended. Similar to their study, different types of users sharing similar 
characteristics are aimed to be identified. By also defining such a typology, the variations in 
the exertion of the complex practice can be mapped while taking the influencing practice 
theoretical factors like one’s social and economic environment and materials into account. 
Distinguishing between the different types based on the defined indicators can also help the 
app providers to understand why and how businesses and customers are using their services, 
which can prove helpful to reach more potential users and satisfy the existing ones.  
9 
 
Practice Theoretical Approach to Food Waste Management 
First of all, Reckwitz (2002: 250) defines practices as “[...] a routinised way in which bodies are 
moved, objects are handled, subjects are treated, things are described and the world is 
understood”. Much attention has been given to eating as a practice, which involves mundane 
and socially symbolic aspects (Warde, 2014). Warde (2013) conceptualises this practice as a 
compound one consisting of several integrative practices, each having its own set of rules and 
procedures. Those practices can be the food supply, cooking, organisation of meal occasions 
(formalised through manners), and judgements of taste, which all configure cultural 
understandings (Warde, 2013).  
Concerning food waste reduction, a social practice approach is shown to benefit the discussion 
as the research moves beyond individual psychological factors and offers a broad perspective. 
Thus, research on the food waste problem does not regard individuals as the cause of the 
problem because their behaviour is influenced by diverse factors beyond the individual’s 
control (Evans, 2012a, b; Southerton and Yates, 2015). Therefore, instead of a linear causal 
relationship between attitudes and actions, a dynamic and co-created relationship between 
values, attitudes and practices is supported. One of the most cited researchers studying 
consumers’ food waste and the accompanying transformation from household’s food leftovers 
to excess is David Evans. Moving beyond the thesis of a throwaway society, a specific focus 
in his studies lies on consumers’ perceptions of food safety and the practices of buying too 
much food (Evans, 2012a, b, 2014; Evans, 2012a, b). 
As stated by Lazell (2016) and Davies et al. (2017), a practice theories approach has been 
mainly applied to food practices occurring in the household context (e.g. Evans, 2012a, b; 
Evans et al., 2017; Schanes et al., 2018). Moreover, not only research applying practice 
theories outside this space but also examining food waste prevention mechanisms instead of 
reduction-focused solutions is missing (Lazell, 2016). However, Fuentes et al. (2021) recently 
conducted a study applying a practice theory approach to food shopping on new digital 
platforms and showed how Karma failed to reconfigure consumers' food practices. Also, 
Davies et al. (2017) contribute to closing this gap by analysing food sharing through a practice 
theoretical lens. Food sharing can take place in various forms and involves other actors. The 
underlying relations with human and non-human entities and resources are reshaped (Davies 
et al., 2017). Schanes and Stagl (2018) highlight how people are motivated to engage in food 
sharing practices based on five factors: emotions and morality, identity and sense of 
community, reward, social influence, and instrumentality. As such, Schanes and Stagl (2018) 
show how the practice of food sharing is rather complex and dependent on a wide variety of 
aspects. Furthermore, both positive and negative emotions play an essential role in actively 
motivating people to engage in food sharing practices. Identification with the cause and a 
feeling of belonging as well as participation from people close to oneself is also deemed to 
increase the desire that people have when it comes to engaging in food sharing practices.  
Derivation of the Food Rescuing Indicators 
After having outlined the applied practice theoretical approach on food consumption and food 
sharing, the research by Brons and Oosterveer (2017) and their derived indicators for 
sustainable food consumption are presented and adapted in the following. Through their 
research, a typology for the to be identified types of businesses and customers in this study 
being active on apps like Karma and TGTG can be derived. In their study, Brons and 
10 
 
Oosterveer (2017) explore sustainable food consumption and access to it through a practice 
theoretical approach. Their framework consisted of four indicators: mode of recruitment, mode 
of engagement, degree of commitment and bundle of practice. Mode of recruitment concerns 
how practitioners get enrolled into a certain practice and is a practical indicator for highlighting 
the relevance of considering social trajectories. Mode of engagement refers to how 
practitioners are engaging in various practices, which helps researchers identify how the 
practitioners themselves view and make sense of the practices and their parts within them. 
Instead, the degree of commitment involves the degree of importance and value that a 
practitioner places upon various practices. This indicator provides valuable insights regarding 
the practitioner’s commitment and how impactful obstacles in accessibility may prove to be. 
The last indicator bundle of practices explains the importance of sustainability and its resulting 
place in one’s lifestyle in the context of other linked practices around sustainability.  
Based on the identified indicators, the researchers conducted observations and interviews with 
students in Paris in order to define a typology for the consumers. The three distinct types 
identified by them are the food-, balancing- and comprehensive environmentalist. The food 
environmentalists mainly buy sustainable food in supermarkets. Their mode of recruitment is 
a logical extension of previous existing concerns when growing up. They are concerned with 
environmental, health, quality and ethical issues, but only with regard to consuming food. Also, 
sustainable food choices are challenged by their budget and mood. In addition, they know their 
limits, which means their shopping routines are not rearranged. Additional sustainable 
practices incorporated by them are limited but include recycling or buying second-hand goods. 
The balancing environmentalists’ recruitment is characterised as a modification meaning that 
their social environment influences them. Similar concerns as for the first type are identified, 
but in addition, social inequality in food and other areas matters to them, as well. Furthermore, 
they question their limits as they are aware that they could be more environmentally friendly. 
Other implemented practices mentioned by them are recycling, transportation, saving energy 
and activism. The comprehensive environmentalists buy almost only organic food from organic 
stores. Their mode of recruitment is a transformation as they are not sensitised by their 
parents, but disruptive factors like an exchange or enrolments in an association changed their 
food consumption towards more sustainable practices. Sustainable food consumption mainly 
refers to environmental concerns in food and other domains and has not to compete against 
health or quality criteria. They push their limits as food routines are changed (e.g. becoming 
vegan) and they wish to expand their environmental concerns. The mentioned additional 
practices are the same as for the second type. Through this derived typology, the authors are 
able to map the practice of sustainable food consumption while also explicitly highlighting and 
explaining the existing differences within their sample. Their results show how not only financial 
means and one’s personal attitude but a plethora of complex social practices influence access 
to sustainable food (Brons and Oosterveer, 2017). 
Derived from Brons’ and Oosterveer’s (2017) research, their four indicators are modified and 
used as a part of the analysis in this study. The first derived indicator remains the mode of 
recruitment, which allows insight into the reasons for initially downloading apps aimed at food 
rescuing for both customers and businesses. Furthermore, this indicator helps explore to what 
extent both sides are concerned with sustainability and food waste as it allows for an insight 
into the practice trajectories of businesses and consumers on the platforms and how they found 
their way onto these platforms. 
11 
 
As an addition to Brons’ and Oosterveer’s framework, the indicator motivations is created, 
which is closely linked to the previous mode of recruitment. It draws upon the studies 
conducted by Schanes et al. (2018) and Secondi et al. (2019), indicating previous research’s 
identified plethora of motivations underlying the mitigation of food waste. It is highlighted how 
the majority of consumers are concerned about throwing food away, which is shown to be a 
significant predictor of reducing food waste and plays an important part in one’s reasons and 
intentions to reduce waste (Schanes et al., 2018). The motivations indicator explores how both 
customers and businesses are motivated to engage on multi-sided digital platforms aimed 
towards sustainability and rescue food and how those motivations might have changed over 
time.  
The third indicator mode of engagement is directly derived from Brons’ and Oosterveer (2017) 
and refers to how often and in which situations the app is used and to what extent it is part of 
their daily lives. Also, the potential drivers as to why people choose to participate on the app 
as well as the barriers that may keep both customers and businesses away from participating 
can be identified. 
The fourth indicator, commitment to food surplus, is inspired by Brons’ and Oosterveer’s 
indicator degree of commitment but includes additional aspects. It is necessary for both 
customers and businesses to capture the importance and role of wasting less food through 
managing food surplus. Thus, both side’s awareness, attitude and behaviour towards wasting 
less food can be understood. Therefore, further support and insight into the users’ motivations 
to participate on the apps are given, while particularly focusing on the relative importance of 
wasting less food as a reason in this context. Also, the attached value to food waste is shown.  
Closely connected to the previous indicator, the last indicator chosen for the theoretical 
framework is linked practices, which is based on the initial indicator bundle of practices. 
Through this indicator, the place that all practices around food surplus management occupy in 
the life of the practitioners can be identified. By capturing the businesses’ and customers’ other 
practices of wasting less food, conclusions regarding the practitioners’ commitment to food 
surplus can be drawn and their mode of engagement with the app potentially further explained, 
which facilitates identifying differing patterns among the users.  
Methodology 
This study intends to investigate the practices that occur on various food sharing platforms to 
distinguish the types of users (businesses and customers) on these platforms. As such, this 
study aims to attain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon that is food rescuing apps 
(Jacobsen, 2017; Bryman and Bell, 2013).  
A qualitative method fits the conducted study as it allows for the investigation of practices and 
aids the researchers to attain a deeper understanding of the studied phenomena as it facilitates 
the investigation and detailing of human behaviour at a depth, which other methods fail to 
reach (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). It should be mentioned that the study would have 
benefited from an ethnographic angle, where the businesses and customers are shadowed 
when using the app while also walking along and viewing their use of the app and the practices 
involved. However, such an approach was ruled out due to the current situation and 
development of the Covid-19 pandemic, as it would be too much of a risk to both the 
researchers and the customers themselves. Such a method could thus be in breach of the 
12 
 
research ethics as it exposes those participating in the study of potential harm (Eriksson and 
Kovalainen, 2008). To achieve a trustworthy study, conscious steps have been taken 
throughout the research process relating to dependability, transferability, credibility, and 
conformability (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008).  In particular, an effort is made to be as 
transparent as possible in order to ensure that the reader can follow the process of the 
conducted research. Additionally, the study relates to previous studies made by Brons and 
Oosterveer (2017), which highlights the transferability of the study. While more interviews are 
generally a possibility to further verify the credibility of the study’s conclusion, the collected 
data can be regarded as sufficient for ensuring that the study's claims are credible as the point 
of saturation has been reached. Furthermore, the presented findings are made transparent by 
sharing and explaining the thought process behind the analysis and included interpretations to 
achieve conformability (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008).    
Sampling  
The study draws upon 31 semi-structured interviews conducted one on one through video calls 
or in-person (with sufficient safety distance). All the interviews were conducted during March 
and April of 2021. This method of collecting data was used to allow for more flexible interviews 
and facilitate opportunities to probe interesting topics that arise during the interview, which 
helps attain a deeper understanding of relevant topics (Jacobsen, 2017). Karma and TGTG 
are the selected services for this study as these are the two most prevalent food rescuing 
services currently operating in Sweden and thus provide the most suitable avenue for 
researching the topic. As of now, Karma has around 1,400,000 users, whereas TGTG currently 
has approximately 36,800,000 users (Karma, 2021; Too Good To Go, 2020). The selection of 
the businesses and customers was based on a few criteria in order to acquire a representative 
sample that would work for the study. First, the respondents were selected based on if they 
had used either Karma or TGTG. Other criteria that only apply to the customers are to acquire 
respondents from as broad of an age group as possible and ensure a gender balance. When 
sampling, it was also ensured that a variety of different businesses are represented in the study 
(e.g. chains and small businesses).  
The general sampling method used to find interview partners was a mix of convenience, 
purposive and snowball sampling. The businesses participating in the study, summarised in 
table one, were acquired by directly contacting various businesses in Gothenburg to see 
whether they were willing to participate in the study. The contacts were made by either mail, 
phone calls, or on-site visits. The customers were, however, acquired differently and are further 
described in table two. To get a hold of the customers, posts were made on various Facebook 
groups, like “Dumpstra/Minska Matsvinn Göteborg”. After acquiring an initial couple of 
respondents, the selection of additional customers was based on the recommendation of the 
previous interviewees. These sampling methods are beneficial as they provide an efficient way 
to access research participants who fit the study (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). 
The interviews were conducted with 16 businesses and 15 customers. As shown in table one, 
of the 16 businesses interviewed, six belong to a national or Gothenburg-based chain, eight 
are independent restaurants or cafés and two are part of an organisation or the municipality. 
As shown in table two, among the 15 interviewed customers, eight identified as female, 
whereas seven identified as male. All of the selected respondents are either current users of 
Karma or TGTG or have previously been users of the service. At first, eight of the interviewed 
13 
 
businesses only use Karma, five are using only TGTG and three are using both apps. In 
contrast, some of those using only one app have used the other one in the past or have at 
least considered switching or adding the other one. Also, some have been contacted by the 
other app but did not consider using it as they are satisfied with the current one in use. Thus, 
only a few are unaware of other similar apps. Regarding the customers, Karma is used by eight 
interviewees, six are using TGTG, whereas only one respondent is using both Karma and 
TGTG.  
Table 1 Business Sample Description. 
 Business Type Guest Numbers per Day 
Estimated Food Waste per 
Week 
Godisbanken candy store chain 20-50, 100 weekend 3-6 kg candy 
Happy M Kitchen 
independent whole-food lunch 
restaurant and deli 
100 
barely, only juices and chia 
puddings 
Victoria Café independent café 40 (before pandemic 80) 
a couple of salads, 
sandwiches, etc. 
AweSum Cakes 
independent café focusing on cake 
orders 
15-20 large orders, few 
drop-ins 
20-25 cupcakes, some cake 
trimmings 
Tårtverket  
independent café focusing on cakes 
and cupcakes (orders) 
15-20 some cupcakes and brownies 
Subway international fast-food chain 150-200 few breads and cookies 
Café au Thé independent café with social focus  60 
2-3 salads, some soups 
sometimes 
Kathmandu independent Nepalese restaurant lunch 60, dinner 20 a couple of lunch portions  
Fröken Olsson’s café, part of the Condeco chain  200 6-7 sandwiches per day 
South Indian independent Indian restaurant 80 a couple of lunch portions 
Holy Greens lunch place part of a National chain 100-200 almost zero 
Nordish Market pre-ordered organic lunch boxes 
50 (before pandemic  
200-250) 
almost zero 
Espresso House International café chain 150-200 some sandwiches and buns 
TomToms 
Burritos 
independent Mexican street food 
restaurant  
100 (before pandemic 
150) 
0-20 portions (before zero) 
Café Anonymous National café chain 100-150 almost zero 
Glashuset 
independent café and lunch place with 
social focus 
20 
(before pandemic  
100-150) 
almost zero 
 
  
14 
 
Table 2 Customer Sample Description. 
 Gender Age Monthly Use 
Agnes Female 56 Years 0-1 times  
Charlotte Female 58 Years 1-2 times  
Cameron Male 63 Years 2-3 times 
Elias Male 23 Years 4 times 
 Ellie Female 22 Years 4-8 times 
Ethan Male 25 Years 1-2 times  
Jacob Male 30 Years 8-16 times 
Eva Female 34 Years 5-6 times  
Gustav Male 40 Years 4 times  
Lena Female 38 Years 8-12 times 
Lovisa Female 43 Years 4 times  
Sofia Female 23 Years 2-4 times 
Caroline Female 63 Years 1-2 times 
Charles Male 24 Years 0-1 times 
Martin Male 24 Years 1-2 times 
Interview Process 
The interviews were structured based on the theoretical framework and its five indicators, as 
this is the foundation of the study and the primary source for analysis. As both businesses and 
customers were interviewed, separate interview guides were created in order to suit the 
intended respondent. Efforts were also made to ensure a good balance between simple and 
complex questions so that the respondents would be able to answer the questions in a good 
manner (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). The interviews started with queries relating to the 
five developed indicators; mode of recruitment, motivations, mode of engagement, 
commitment to food surplus and linked practices. These questions were formulated openly so 
that specific follow-up questions could be asked based on the answers probing deeper into 
their experiences and practices. In addition, each interview included questions regarding 
potential barriers to engaging with food-sharing platforms, followed by a quick wrap up of the 
interview. Each interview ended with certain background questions. For the customers, the 
questions related to their demographic characteristics such as age, profession, and education. 
The questions for the businesses concerned, among other things, the number of guests and 
details on the offered food and menu. The interviews varied in length, but each one ended up 
being between 20 and 35 minutes long. The interviews with the businesses were conducted in 
English, while the interviews with the customers were held in Swedish, which was the preferred 
language of the respondents. 
Before the interviews started, the respondents were informed of the aim of the study and that 
their participation in the study was completely voluntary and that they were free to withdraw 
their participation without giving any reasons at any time during the interview, which is in line 
15 
 
with good research ethics (Bryman and Bell, 2013; Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). 
Furthermore, the respondents were informed that they would remain completely anonymous if 
they wished, which one of the businesses made use of. They were also informed that the 
interview would be recorded and transcribed in order to reduce possible misinterpretations and 
allow for a more precise and correct analysis. While it is customary to anonymise everyone in 
case one or more participants want to remain anonymous, it was chosen to forgo that as 
naming the remaining businesses is perceived to significantly contribute to the study. It allows 
the reader to connect with the businesses and understand how certain business characteristics 
like its size might impact the findings (Jacobsen, 2017; Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). 
Method of Analysis 
As a part of the chosen method of analysis, the interviews were transcribed as it allows for an 
overview of all the collected material, which facilitates distinguishing the important parts of the 
collected material (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). To improve the integrity of the coding and 
ensure completeness, the coding was conducted in several rounds. Each time, the material 
was coded similarly and only new identified codes were added in an additional round. In order 
to facilitate the analysis, the collected material is coded through the coding software QDA miner 
lite. The collected material was categorised based on the five indicators of the theoretical 
framework. These five indicators were subsequently coded into various subcategories, which 
includes, among other things, the app perceptions and degree of engagement. The retrieved 
information for each indicator is then used to identify the typologies consisting of the different 
types of business- and customer users so that the identified variations within the sample and 
potential patterns can be explained.  
Findings and Discussion 
Based on the conducted interviews with businesses and customers using TGTG and/or Karma, 
the retrieved findings are presented and discussed in the following. In the first part, the five 
defined indicators are applied to the received information and linked to previous research. 
Thus, the practice theoretical factors having an impact on the participation on food rescuing 
apps can be identified and structured. In the second part, the indicator adaptations are applied 
to develop the typologies consisting of the different types of business- and customer users so 
that the identified variations within the sample and potential patterns can be explained. Also, 
defining such typologies are required in order to understand the interactions between the users’ 
lifestyles, materials, social environments and spatial-temporal contexts as the participation on 
food rescuing apps is not a straightforward outcome, but the users’ previous individual routines 
and habits are challenged. 
  
16 
 
Indicator Adaptations 
In the following first section, the answers given by the businesses and customers in the 
interviews are presented and discussed based on the five indicators mode of recruitment, 
motivations, mode of engagement, commitment to food surplus and linked practices. 
Mode of Recruitment 
Regarding the first indicator mode of recruitment, which explains the reasons why both sides 
initially started using the app, the most often mentioned reason by the businesses is that they 
got contacted by the app. This applies in particular to those using TGTG as the app heavily 
uses ambassadors to promote their services, especially when the app launched in Sweden in 
2020. A reason would be that such apps rely on a large number of businesses participating in 
order to provide a variety of food to the customers, which is crucial for ensuring that the 
customers stick with them. Next, especially those places that belong to a chain reported that it 
was a chain decision and thus, some of the interviewees did not know the exact reason they 
decided to start selling on the app. However, some of those general chain decisions to use the 
app were also because of being initially contacted by the app. Other mentioned reasons are 
that they got to know the app through their employees, they used it privately first and they 
heard of the app through their network of other restaurateurs. Therefore, overall, a majority of 
the businesses were passive when starting to use such apps and only a few actively reached 
out to the app providers to become part of them. In this context, especially the by Schanes et 
al. (2018) acknowledged spatial-temporal aspect influencing practices can be found to impact 
businesses’ practice of initially starting using the apps. In particular, TGTG launching and then 
recruiting new businesses in Autumn 2020 influenced the practice to a large extent. 
As far as the customers are concerned, most were recruited through their networks and people 
in their lives, e.g. as personal recommendations. A fair number of customers also claim that 
they were recruited based on the possibility to do something for the environment, while a 
couple mention the desire to save money as the reason for their recruitment. Therefore, the 
apps’ customer-focused advertisements can be regarded as less successful as the promoted 
environmental benefit in combination with the economic one (even though the latter is 
promoted to a lesser extent) is only reflected by a few respondents while no one specifically 
mentioned the apps’ used advertisements. As Schanes et al. also highlight how each practice 
is embedded in a wider environmental context, with regard to both sides’ decision to use the 
app, the social environment is shown to have a significant influence. For both, actors like heads 
of the business, employees, app’s ambassadors, friends and other networks play a crucial role 
in each’s recruitment (Schanes et al., 2018).  
Motivations 
For the businesses, the most often mentioned motivation for using the app(s) is to avoid food 
waste, which is also the main aspect advertised by Karma and TGTG. Twelve businesses also 
highlight offering cheap food as at least an aspect for using the app as it is, among other things, 
a possibility for extending their customer base and allowing people, who do not have a lot of 
money to buy their offered food. This would be in line with research by Martin-Rios et al. (2021), 
who acknowledge that through online communication platforms, a new customer base can be 
developed. However, the authors refer to a positive image promotion as the main cause, which 
is only sparsely communicated by the interviewees in this context. Advertisement is another 
17 
 
reason, especially for the independent and small restaurants and cafés that require various 
marketing channels to increase public awareness. Related to avoiding food waste, 
sustainability is mentioned as another reason by half of the businesses. The sustainability 
aspects highlighted differ and range from environmental ones, social ones to including all three 
pillars of sustainability. Thus, some businesses’ motivations go beyond merely wasting less 
food as they acknowledge their responsibility to be more sustainable in other areas, as well. 
Having the benefit of cross-selling is mentioned equally often. Cross-selling refers to 
customers buying from them and other businesses on the app at the same time or buying from 
the business not only on the app but in addition as a regular customer. Seven places mention 
not to lose money as another reason. Here, it needs to be highlighted that the focus is on 
covering costs and not on generating additional revenue. In this context, Subway explains: “I 
mean it's better to have no waste than selling on TGTG. We pay for this waste”. This would be 
in line with the apps’ communicated purpose of avoiding waste and its costs, and not using it 
as an additional revenue stream. The last motivation mentioned by a few businesses is to 
improve one’s reputation, which reflects that businesses acknowledge the high importance 
placed by customers on businesses caring about their sustainable impact. Besides, the main 
perceived motivation for the customer side communicated by the businesses is saving money 
while getting cheap, high-quality food. Also, saving food and doing something good for the 
environment is given as another benefit. Four businesses link this motivation to customers also 
feeling more important and meaningful and using such apps as a moral pat on the back. 
As far as the customers are concerned, their answers mirror the businesses quite well, with 
most customers claiming to be motivated by the sustainability aspect of the apps with 
responses similar to Charlotte’s: "I was curious to see how it works and I liked the idea of 
possibly being able to rescue food", being common. The by Schanes et al. (2018) described 
embeddedness of practices in the social, economic and cultural environment is mirrored in the 
mentioned motivations, as well. The overall Swedish population is increasingly focused on 
sustainability, also with regard to their food consumption, which contributes to them using food 
rescuing apps. In addition, almost as many are said to be motivated by the chance to buy 
cheap food due to various circumstances. For example, Elias states: "I wanted to save money 
on lunch. It was a cheap, smooth and easy option to get some food with a student budget". As 
such, Karma and TGTG both seem to successfully attract customers with their communicated 
emphasis on affordable and sustainable food. However, those reported motivations for using 
food rescuing apps stand in contrast to other researchers' findings indicating that financial 
concerns are the strongest motivation to reduce waste and have a higher impact than 
environmental concerns (Schanes et al., 2018; Graham-Rowe et al., 2014, Quested et al., 
2013). Next, a third of the customers also mention the desire to avoid food waste, e.g. because 
of their upbringing to sustainability concerns. In this regard, Gustav highlights one’s 
responsibility to fight the current climate crisis: "I wanted to rescue food as an additional way 
of helping to offset the negatives that comes with the current state of the current restaurant 
business". Other sparsely mentioned motivations are the influence of friends and the good 
reputation of the service.  
Summarising, for both sides, ecological and economic motivations surpass social ones. This 
would stand in contrast to Ganglbauer et al.’s (2014) studied food sharing motives, where 
especially social and ecological ones are mainly communicated and economic ones are barely 
admitted by the interviewees. In addition, Schanes’ and Stagl’s (2018) five identified 
motivations for participating in food sharing practices can be found for the interviewees only to 
18 
 
some extent. Out of the researchers’ identified factors, especially reward, social influence (in 
the recruitment context), identity and morality (linked to sustainability and environmental 
aspects) are reflected as motivations in the interviews. A sense of community, for instance, is 
not a relevant reason for both sides. Only a few businesses mention it as a minor aspect when 
starting using the app. A reason for this would be the little focus that is placed on the community 
aspect by the apps as no events, forums or similar social media group engagements can be 
found. For example, in the “Karmunity”, which is a part of the Karma app, almost no interactions 
in the chat rooms could be found.  
Mode of Engagement 
As a part of their mode of engagement indicating the role the respective app plays in the daily 
life of the interviewees, the businesses’ perceptions of the used apps are positive. The main 
aspects highlighted are user-friendliness, the app’s good business model, support, and 
efficiency. A few also particularly highlight the good cause behind the apps and the aligning 
philosophies with their own. Regarding the frequency of selling, one can witness an overall 
high engagement as seven businesses sell daily, six a few times per week, one sells once a 
week and two sell only a few times a month. Those two rarely using the app reported as main 
reasons to have no waste or to have found other solutions for managing their food waste. So 
for them, Karma and TGTG, “[they’re] another tool in the toolbox to get food into your belly” 
(Holy Greens). Such other solutions can be the company’s personal apps providing click-and-
collect, which highlights how material factors (in this context other apps) impact the studied 
practice, which has been already indicated by Schanes et al. (2018) when discussing a practice 
theoretical approach. Such a barrier is also in line with Fuentes et al.’s (2021) identified reason 
for Karma’s failure as the app is not able to disrupt the already established practices and 
cannot compete against them. Other mentioned barriers for not using or considering other food 
rescuing apps are being too busy, the app’s not fitting model to their own business and the 
lacking support and communication (e.g. as they are too intrusive). Regarding the latter, it 
needs to be acknowledged that the communication and service highly depend on the individual 
ambassador and general assumptions about each app’s service cannot be made. Fuentes et 
al. (2021) have identified such communicative glitches as one reason for the reported failure 
of Karma. Other aspects regarding the mode of engagement worth mentioning are overall, the 
same number of businesses show a high and respectively a low engagement with the app. A 
high engagement is characterised by putting thoughts into the app usage and going beyond 
the routine of uploading one’s food. For example, Café au Thé reports ensuring to take 
appealing pictures of their surplus food for the app. Also, some of them communicate a desire 
to use the app more in the future. Linked to a low engagement, eight places mention not 
proactively promoting selling on the app or not proactively engaging in conversations about 
the app. Irrespective of their degree of engagement, it can be witnessed that the majority has 
not looked into the app’s social media or website. Besides, most of the interviewed businesses 
are early adopters, meaning they started using the app soon after its launch or soon after 
opening their business, which can be closely linked to the apps’ high usage of ambassadors 
reaching out to businesses. Lastly, potential barriers for why not more businesses are using 
the apps have been given by the business interviewees. For instance, Happy M Kitchen 
assumes: “I guess now these days people are busy surviving. So they have too many things 
to be on and now everybody's busy introducing the latest how to sell your stuff online and make 
it easy for you”. In addition to the already reported ones, also having a high entry barrier as it 
might seem too complicated, not knowing that the apps exist, not caring about their food waste 
19 
 
and too high fees are given in the interviews. Overall, it can be witnessed that most of the 
reasons for Karma’s failure reported by Fuentes et al. (2021) are not reflected by the studied 
business side. 
The frequency of which the customer respondents use Karma and TGTG varies. Just like the 
businesses, a high degree of engagement can be seen among the majority of the interviewed 
customers as seven of them use the services several times a week, which shows how food 
rescuing became a routine and part of their daily lives. This would stand in contrast to Fuentes 
et al.’s (2021) findings indicating how Karma failed to be integrated by the participants in their 
everyday practices. However, also more infrequent use can be seen among five customers in 
this study, who claim to use the service only once or twice a month, while three of the 
customers report an even more infrequent use and claim to rarely ever use the service 
anymore. Two of the customers who state that they rarely engage with the app anymore 
attribute it to the fact that they have started cooking more at home instead or did not enjoy the 
service. Thus, other practices of food consumption and also one’s attitude are shown to 
influence customers’ practice of rescuing food, which is in line with previous research that 
identifies such elements as impacting factors for practices (Schanes and Stagl, 2018). More 
precisely, in a similar manner, Fuentes et al. (2021) identified the same barriers in the context 
of a communication glitch of not understanding the app’s sustainability contribution, and 
respectively the competition of the app(s) against other food provisioning practices, such as 
cooking at home. When it comes to the occasions in which the customers most frequently 
engage with the apps, various responses surfaced. However, by far the most common 
occasion to engage with the app was during lunch. Other responses mentioned by a few 
included during dinner time, to grab a quick snack when on the move, when there is no other 
food at home, when there is a good deal to be had and as a replacement for grocery shopping. 
Therefore, for the customers, the practice of using the app is closely linked to the activity of 
buying lunch, which also takes place in a fixed spatial-temporal context (Schanes et al., 2018). 
However, not a single customer reported that they used the app for any other occasion than 
when they were looking for something to buy. Thus, none of the respondents would use the 
app as a pastime or without the purpose to actually buy something. This ties into the claims of 
Fuentes et al. (2021), who highlight the limitations inherent in digital food sharing platforms like 
Karma as they are tied to certain occasions, such as buying lunch. The overall perception of 
the used apps is also overwhelmingly positive with a majority of the respondents specifically 
highlighting aspects such as a good business model and user-friendliness as the two most 
standout aspects. Also, some customers just like the overall experience of using the app. To 
some extent, these responses contradict the recent study by Fuentes et al. (2021), who 
highlight both technical and “interface” glitches that customers have encountered during their 
study. This is something that has not been reported by any of the 16 respondents in this study. 
Reasons could be that after their data collection, technical and communication issues have 
been fixed, and also only customers in Gothenburg, a city with a high density of participating 
food businesses, have been interviewed in this study. In contrast, a few of the customers do 
not have any strong feelings towards the app and remain rather neutral in their perception, 
while only one of the customers does not like the app due to a personal lack of interest in food 
waste, sustainability and affordability. The customers were also asked to highlight why they 
think not more customers are using these kinds of apps. The most common reason is that 
people avoid using these services due to the perception that the sold food is of lower quality 
and that these services thus have a rough reputation among some customers. Sofia highlights 
these notions stating: "As far as the consumers are concerned, I will answer on behalf of my 
20 
 
mother as she thinks that the food that is sold is either too old or not fresh enough". Such a 
perceived lower food quality and resulting safety issue for surplus food, which is also indicated 
by Lazell (2016) and Fuentes et al. (2021), cannot be found for the interviewed customers. 
However, it could be the case for people not using food rescuing apps, who are not portrayed 
in the thesis. It was also suggested by a few customers that some people might not know about 
these kinds of services and how to use them, while some people might simply not care about 
food waste. 
Commitment to Food Surplus 
In terms of the commitment to food surplus, which captures the importance placed on the food 
waste problem, all interviewed businesses show some attention to their personal food waste 
and take resulting measures to mitigate it, which makes sense taking into consideration that 
businesses not caring would probably not use any food rescuing apps at all. Almost half of the 
businesses explicitly state that managing food waste and being as sustainable as possible is 
part of their corporate identity. In addition, two places having Indian owners mention that not 
wasting is part of their culture. Therefore, most of them are talking emotionally about the food 
waste problem. For example, Happy M Kitchen states: “I'm crying every time we have to throw 
something away cause we put so much effort and love into it”. As Heikkilä et al. (2016) and 
Filimonau et al. (2019) highlight that an influence can be managerial values and corporate 
values supporting or restricting the usage of surplus food, the interview findings show similarly 
how managers' strong moral norms and the corporate identity can support such food rescuing 
practices (Heikkilä et al., 2016; Filimonau et al., 2019). Especially Fröken Olsson’s and Happy 
M Kitchen clearly communicated how the manager’s personal values are reflected in the 
business operations. The moral aspect of avoiding food waste is highlighted by a third of the 
places. Such findings reflecting an overall high commitment can be regarded as expected as 
the apps especially target businesses caring about the environment and who thus, would like 
to reduce their waste. Even though to varying degrees, over half of the businesses 
acknowledge that their awareness, attitude or behaviour towards food waste changed since 
starting to use the app. Thus, through the practice of using food rescuing apps, businesses’ 
underlying relation with food as a resource is reshaped (Davies et al., 2017). For instance, 
Espresso House reported that their staff now understands that they are not supposed to be 
thinking that it is okay to prepare more food and have some waste because it can be sold on 
Karma as that is not what Karma is about and instead the goal is to not have too much waste 
from the beginning. Thus, as the apps achieve to increase the food waste awareness, they 
cannot only directly influence businesses’ behaviour but also indirectly impact both sides’ 
practices outside the foodservice providers’ environment as businesses have the chance to 
influence their customers’ awareness, as well. Overall, over half of the businesses highly value 
their surplus, stating that their food is still really good and totally fine to be eaten. A few even 
add that they would still sell expired food as long as they perceive that the food is still fine. 
Only a few places regard food waste as a necessary evil, which means it is unavoidable to 
have some wastage at the end of the day. 
As far as the customers’ commitment in regard to managing food surplus is concerned, a 
majority of the customers, just like the businesses, are highly committed to reducing food 
surplus, which can be attributed to their willingness to pay over the current prices as well as 
their desire to reduce food waste through the apps. However, almost half of the customers put 
a much lower value on food surplus as their use of the apps are primarily attributed to the 
21 
 
monetary or convenience aspect of the services. These customers also have a lower 
willingness to pay for the services, thus having an overall low degree of commitment to food 
surplus and the services as a whole. Agnes highlights these notions by exclaiming, "I would at 
most be prepared to pay 40% of the original price" and "I would buy food from restaurants 
that's a day old but no older than that". Such findings are in line with Yue et al.’s research on 
consumers’ willingness to pay in regards to imperfect food as many of the interviewed 
customers reported to focus on getting cheaper foods when using those apps. In addition, 
similar to previous research, a higher tolerance for imperfect food among environmentally-
conscious consumers is found as customers caring about food waste are also shown to be 
willing to pay more for the rescued food (Yue et al., 2009). Overall, for both sides, it is shown 
how their values (regarding sustainability and in particular food waste) are reflected in their 
attitudes and also co-created with the practice of using food rescuing apps, indicating a 
dynamic relationship between those aspects as it has been described by Evans (2012a, b) in 
the context of food wasting at the consumer level.       
Linked Practices 
Regarding the practices linked to managing food surplus, every business mentioned at least 
one further practice. The maximum number of linked practices applied is five additional ones, 
which can be found for Happy M Kitchen, Holy Greens and Nordish Market. The majority listed 
two or three practices for managing their food waste. Overall, the most often mentioned one is 
to adapt one’s food preparations, which is especially mentioned as a necessary practice 
because of the strongly fluctuating guest numbers in the ongoing pandemic. However, such a 
strategy stands in contrast to Filimonau et al.’s (2019) research on coffee shops identifying 
managers’ preference to order larger quantities instead of only relying on stock forecasting. 
Almost half of the places reported eating their leftovers themselves, whereas some mention 
that they would like to do so but are not allowed due to some restrictions. An equal number of 
businesses use their own discounts for their leftover food and some places give their food 
away for free, either to customers or they donate it to some charity organisation. However, 
regarding the latter, it needs to be added that several businesses mention significant hurdles 
making it difficult for them to donate as charities demand to be registered and also the 
transportation can be difficult to achieve, which is also mentioned by previous research by 
Sakaguchi et al. (2018). Another practice is to avoid having any leftovers and, thus, food waste. 
A quarter of the places mention reusing their leftovers for other dishes, e.g. for the next day’s 
lunch buffet or soups. Only Nordish Market mentioned focusing on educating on their social 
media and collaborating with other businesses that are working on reducing food waste. Also, 
only Happy M Kitchen reported to have discussions with other restaurants on food waste. The 
previous research’s highlighted strategy to reduce waste through accurate demand forecasting 
is not reflected in the business interviews, which can be a result of the highly fluctuating guest 
numbers due to the pandemic, which makes it almost impossible to forecast the daily demand 
(Filimonau et al., 2020b).  
A majority of the customers reported that they take other actions to reduce food surplus in 
addition to using the app, with only two of the customers admitting to not doing anything in 
addition to using the app. The most frequently mentioned practice among the customers is to 
reduce all possible food waste at home and to try to never throw anything away. However, 
those customers stating not to take any additional practices might still try to avoid waste at 
home, but might take it for granted and do not regard it as a distinct practice worth mentioning. 
22 
 
Other customers claim to adapt their food preparation, where they carefully plan their meals 
and grocery shopping in order to reduce the amount of surplus food. Two customers also 
mention the use of other services, namely matsvinn.se and hellofresh. Overall, the customers’ 
additional practices reflect a high awareness and resulting engagement to reduce food waste. 
The mentioned practices are mainly those that are self-evident to do and can be easily 
incorporated in the daily lives not requiring a lot of effort. As a result, as already highlighted for 
both sides’ motivations, the businesses’ overall high commitment to food surplus and the 
accompanying various linked practices for managing food surplus can be traced back to the 
sustainability awareness in the Swedish society and the resulting other actors’ actions towards 
reducing food waste, such as consumers’ leftover management at home, which influences 
businesses to emulate them (Schanes et al., 2018).  
Derived Typologies 
Based on the described indicators in the first part, a typology is developed for the businesses 
(table 3) and the customers (table 4) to map the differences in the exertion of the practice of 
using food rescuing apps. Four distinct business types as well as four distinct customer types 
can be distinguished. It needs to be highlighted that not all five indicators are found to be 
relevant for characterising the existing types. More precisely, the indicator mode of recruitment 
is shown to have no impact and thus, cannot be found in the typology tables. Below the 
respective typology table, each identified type will be explained in more detail.  
Business Typology 
Table 3 Business Typology (own representation). 
 
Type 1 
Full-on Food Waste 
Preachers 
Type 2  
Independent Food 
Waste Fighters 
Type 3 
Indecisive Food 
Waste Worriers 
Type 4 
Business-minded 
Food Waste 
Avoiders 
Motivations  
avoid food waste 
sustainability 
avoid food waste  
offer cheap, high-
quality food 
avoid food waste 
advertisement  
cross-selling 
offer cheap food 
not lose money 
avoid food waste 
(economic reason)  
Mode of 
Engagement 
high 
community feeling 
(around food waste) 
low to medium 
focus on regular sales 
and having no waste  
medium 
desire to engage more 
in the future 
community feeling 
(around app sellers) 
low 
might fear a bad 
reputation 
Commitment to Food 
Surplus 
high 
part of corporate 
identity 
mission to have zero 
waste 
high 
not about generating 
profit 
medium 
care but less clearly 
shown and 
communicated  
low 
more important to be 
fresh and offer food 
variety 
Linked Practices 
various, complex and 
time-consuming ones 
various, less complex 
ones 
few, mainly 
uncomplicated ones 
few, mainly just 
adapted food 
preparations 
Examples 
Nordish Market 
Fröken Olsson's 
Happy M Kitchen 
Holy Greens 
Café Anonymous 
Espresso House 
Glashuset 
AweSum Cakes 
Tårtverket 
Café au Thé 
Kathmandu 
Godisbanken 
Victoria Café 
Subway 
TomToms Burritos 
South Indian 
23 
 
As it is shown in table three, the first identified business type is the Full-on Food Waste 
Preachers (in short preachers). They are the most likely to use more than one food rescuing 
app or have at least considered alternative apps. Their main motivations for participating are 
linked to sustainability aspects and especially to avoid food waste. Such aspects are reflected 
in a high engagement on the used app(s). In this stance, preachers also tend to be early 
adopters, having started using the app soon after opening their business or as soon as the 
app launched. Their engagement is also reflected in putting many thoughts into the app usage 
on how to make the best out of it and would like to engage even more with the app in the future. 
For instance, Nordish Market is in contact with TGTG to plan potential events around educating 
people about food waste. The preachers are also shown to be among the only ones being 
proactive in engaging with others talking about and using the app as it can be seen for Fröken 
Olsson’s when stating: “I always try to encourage people, who come in and have bought 
something and to be like, oh that's so amazing that you bought there and I hope you come 
back some time”. The interviewed businesses belonging to this type also reported a feeling of 
being part of some kind of community, which is created around those fighting food waste. As 
a result, their food waste commitment is also among the highest of all identified types. It is 
often reflected in their corporate identity as, e.g. Fröken Olsson’s states: “I know that the 
woman, who owns this place and the entire Condeco chain is very eco-focused. A lot of the 
stuff that we have here, we're constantly working towards being as vegan and eco-friendly as 
possible” and it is also shown in their mission to have zero waste. Thus, their surplus food is 
highly valued and food waste is an emotional and moral matter to them. Consequently, one 
can find plenty of additional practices linked to reducing food waste for such businesses. It is 
striking that such practices tend to be quite complex and also time-consuming as e.g. Fröken 
Olsson’s reuses their leftovers in various creative ways and Nordish Market is also doing the 
same with other’s leftovers (e.g. from grocery stores) and is collaborating with other food 
waste-focused companies, as well. As a result, a potential reason why they might stop using 
such apps could be that they manage to have no food wastage at all making the apps 
redundant. Overall, the preachers can be seen as the pioneers having the chance to have a 
significant influence on other businesses and also customers to change their attitude and 
behaviours towards more sustainable practices with regard to using food rescuing apps and 
also additional linked practices. In addition, the preachers can also provide meaningful insights 
to the app providers and help them to improve their services as they have the knowledge, 
experience and dedication to make a change.   
The second type is the Independent Food Waste Fighters (in short fighters), who are 
characterised by a similar high commitment to food surplus as the preachers but have a low 
to medium engagement with the used app(s). Thus, their motivations for using such apps are 
also mainly about sustainability and avoiding food waste, but also offering cheap, high-quality 
food. In contrast to the preachers, they use the app less frequently and instead focus on having 
no food wastage at all. In addition, fighters who also tend to be rather larger businesses 
belonging to a chain use other or their own digital platforms for additional services. For 
example, Happy M Kitchen sells their meals on mathem.se and Espresso House and Holy 
Greens use their own apps for selling their food, which makes Karma’s full price service 
irrelevant to them. As already stated, their commitment is similar to the preachers’ one. They 
highly value their surplus as, e.g. Holy Greens states: “Because, if it looks fine, smells fine, 
tastes fine, usually nothing is wrong with the product as long as it's been refrigerated”. Thus, 
also various additional linked practices for avoiding food waste can be found. Therefore, a 
potential barrier would be that food rescuing apps can be regarded as dispensable as other 
24 
 
solutions for managing food waste are perceived as enough or better. The applied additional 
practices still require a high commitment, as e.g. some of them would donate leftovers to 
charity. However, in comparison to the preachers, they are still less complex and time-
consuming. For example, most businesses being part of this type would use their own 
discounts and give away their leftovers for free to their customers. For the app providers, this 
business type is of lower importance as they can be less impacted because they are about to 
reach the app’s final goal, namely to have no waste making using the apps almost 
unnecessary. However, a way to encourage their app usage is to focus more on promoting 
their app’s purpose because if more fighters knew about the apps and understood their goal, 
more of them would be willing to use them. However, as the fighters are already highly 
committed to managing their waste, they can positively influence their customers’ awareness, 
which according to Filimonau et al. (2020a) would lead to customers having a higher 
engagement in reducing their food waste and thus, an overall positive environmental impact in 
society. 
The third type is called the Indecisive Food Waste Worriers (in short worriers), who can be 
regarded as the least distinct type of all four. As some of the businesses part of this type just 
opened (e.g. Godisbanken and Tårtverket), worriers might be in a transitional phase to become 
part of one of the other types. Regarding their motivations for using food rescuing apps, 
besides the ones mentioned for the other two types, also advertisement is another relevant 
reason for them. For example, Tårtverket highlights: “For us, it's mostly that we want to be 
decreasing the waste, of course, and also the marketing aspect since we're so new in such a 
pretty cafe-compact city like Gothenburg. It helps us to stand out”. Thus, they highlight how 
selling on the apps helps them increase public awareness and build a customer base. 
Therefore, also cross-selling is mentioned by some businesses as another motivation, as e.g. 
some customers buying their food on TGTG or Karma would also buy from them as regular 
customers when picking up their rescued food or at a later stage. Regarding the worriers’ 
engagement with the app, they tend to use the app often and it is part of their routine. However, 
the app’s other channels are not considered, selling on the apps is barely promoted and no 
proactive engagement with others (e.g. customers and staff) can be found. Also Godisbanken 
states: “Usually if we're talking about something and then it leads on to like sustainability or 
something like that, then you can mention that we're on Karma for them to know”. However, 
they wish to use the app more in the future and thus, might become a preacher at some point. 
For instance, Godisbanken also reported: “So they [the surprise bags] have special names. 
We need to make more though. We have so many products. Yeah, so we have a lot of options”. 
In this context, they also tend to report to feel part of a community consisting of those selling 
on Karma or they assume it could evolve into one in the future. Thus, their participation on the 
respective food sharing app has affected the underlying human relationships (Davies et al., 
2017). Their commitment is characterised by caring about the food waste problem, but it is 
rarely communicated or shown in their actions. A reason could be lacking knowledge of how 
to do so. This is also reflected in the few applied additional practices, which are only 
uncomplicated ones, such as eating the leftovers themselves. Therefore, the app providers 
can have a significant impact on this business type by educating them and listening to their 
feedback to facilitate the app usage for them so that they might become part of the preachers 
in the future. Also, through establishing a community around the businesses using Karma can 
be expected to be highly acknowledged by them, which would increase their app usage even 
further.   
25 
 
The last type is the Business-minded Food Waste Avoiders (in short avoiders). As the name 
suggests, their motivations are mainly cost-driven. For instance, TomToms Burritos states: 
“You don't really make a lot of profit, you make no profit, but you're minimising the amount of 
money you're losing. And then it's a nice benefit as well, obviously”. As a result, for this type, 
changes in the app’s pricing model would stop them from using the apps. But also South Indian 
highlighted the advertising aspect when stating: “Yes, it is some kind of marketing. So initially 
we started using it even though there was no surplus amount so that people will come to try 
cause maybe they may not like to try it for the full price”. Next, avoiders’ engagement with the 
used app is low, which is characterised by not promoting the app usage, having limited 
knowledge about the app and being the only ones, who might fear a bad reputation when using 
the app too much. Thus, they potentially underestimate consumers’ flexibility regarding 
imperfect or old foods and as result, take no risks. When it comes to their commitment to food 
surplus, offering a variety of fresh food is more important to them. This is illustrated by Victoria 
Café when the owner explained: “The most important thing is to be fresh. I have one staff 
member here, who was asking me why are you throwing away old sandwiches we just did 
yesterday and we can use them. And I said, I don't like to be a little bit not fresh”. Wastage is 
also regarded as a necessary evil, which means wasting is unavoidable no matter how hard 
one tries. Therefore, only a few additional food saving practices are implemented. The main 
one that can be found is adapted food preparations, especially due to the pandemic and 
resulting fluctuating guest numbers. Overall, it is shown that the businesses of this type only 
started using food rescuing apps because of the sudden food waste occurring due to the 
pandemic. Thus, one might expect that avoiders would stop using the app when the situation 
normalises. Such businesses regard the app’s model as not interesting or not fitting. Their 
personal circumstances and the low placed importance on food rescuing leads to “being too 
busy” as another potential barrier for participation. In order to keep the worriers and potentially 
increase their app engagement, app providers should focus on educating them about the 
environmental aspects of wasting less food so that their motivations would move beyond 
merely economic ones. In addition, this type would highly benefit from a flexible pricing model 
that would allow them to sell their surplus at slightly higher prices. 
Customer Typology 
Table 4  Customer Typology (own representation). 
 
Type 1 
Full-on Food Waste 
Devotees  
Type 2  
Food Waste and App 
Appreciators 
Type 3 
Acknowledging App 
Neutrals 
Type 4 
Inactive Uncaring 
Ones  
Motivations  mainly sustainability 
sustainability and cheap 
food 
chance to buy cheap 
food 
chance to buy cheap 
food 
Mode of 
Engagement 
very high use of the app  
engagement with other 
platforms 
high, frequent use of the 
app 
infrequent use of the 
app 
almost never engaged 
with the app anymore 
Commitment 
to Food 
Surplus 
high 
committed to rescue food 
high willingness to pay 
high 
committed to rescue food 
high willingness to pay  
low 
commitment to 
rescuing food but 
neutral about it 
low 
not committed to 
rescue food 
Linked 
Practices 
additional other actions  additional other actions 
no deliberate practices, 
but might rethink their 
actions 
no additional actions 
26 
 
As it is indicated in table four, the first identified customer type is the Full-on Food Waste 
Devotees (in short devotees). These customers are the most committed ones both toward the 
act of rescuing food and as well as toward the apps and companies behind them. The devotees 
are mainly motivated by the opportunity to be more sustainable and have a high use of the app 
while simultaneously engaging with the companies on other platforms than just the app. 
Furthermore, the devotees are very active in engaging with the app by talking about it with 
people around them. This is shown by, for example, Gustav, who states: "Yes, I follow them 
on social media in order to keep up with any news". Therefore, through creating a community 
on their social media and in the app, devotees can be even further tied to the app. The 
devotees also have among the highest degree of commitment toward food waste, being both 
highly committed to reducing food surplus combined with a high willingness to pay for the 
rescued food. This is highlighted by Ellie, who claims: "I would actually not need a big discount 
for rescuing food, but I would like a small reduction of the price. So I would say somewhere 
around 95% of the original price is how much I would be prepared to pay". The devotees also 
partake in additional practices linked to reducing food waste in their day-to-day life. For 
instance, Gustav reports various additional practices: "More than obviously trying to reduce 
mine and other’s food waste, I’m also really active on various Facebook groups that work on 
promoting sustainable living. I have also started my own little garden, where I produce some 
vegetables and I have also crafted my own compost station". As a result, a potential barrier for 
them to use food rescuing apps could be that the apps are regarded as dispensable as other 
solutions for managing food waste are perceived as enough or better. In a similar manner to 
the preachers, among businesses, the devotees have the potential to play a crucial role in 
influencing their peers to become users of the app or apply other practices of minimising food 
waste. 
The second type is the Food Waste and App Appreciators (in short appreciators). The 
appreciators, while just like the devotees, are motivated by the sustainability aspect of the app. 
However, the appreciators also view the chance to buy cheap food as an additional motivation, 
as highlighted by Martin, who states: "I think it is a smart service, which allows me to be a part 
of creating a better environment while at the same time paying less for the food”. Just like the 
devotees, the appreciators also have frequent engagement with the app. However, these 
customers just use the app and do not engage with the companies on any other platform. In 
order to increase their positive impact on reducing food waste even further, new businesses 
joining consistently is important so that the app stays interesting to them as they cannot be 
further attracted through advertisements or educating them on the food waste problem. The 
latter is linked to the fact that the appreciators also show a high commitment towards reducing 
food waste. Thus, similar to the fighters, they can positively influence and educate their social 
environment and increase their environmental practices, in particular to reduce food waste. 
Appreciators also have a high willingness to pay for the food as they are willing to pay an even 
bigger portion of the original price when using these services. Furthermore, the appreciators 
also partake in additional linked practices in order to reduce food waste at home. For example, 
Charlotte reports: "Well, I try not to unnecessarily buy things that I'm unsure if I'm going to use 
and I carefully try to look at what I got at home and plan what to buy and cook depending on 
that. I also try to plan my fridge and freezer so that the things that expire first are also the things 
you see first”. Therefore, similar to the devotees, a potential barrier for using such apps could 
be that other practices for reducing food waste are regarded as enough or better making the 
apps irrelevant to them. 
27 
 
The third type is called the Acknowledging App Neutrals (in short neutrals). Neutrals are mainly 
motivated by the opportunity to buy food at a cheaper price, not paying all that much focus to 
the sustainability aspect of the services. An example is Jacob, who states: "Mainly curiosity... 
as I said, I wanted to try the service and see if it fit into my day-to-day life. I was also motivated 
by the chance to potentially save money on food", which is the common theme among the 
neutrals. As a result, when the prices of the food offered in the apps would change, they might 
stop using them. The neutrals are defined by infrequent use of the app, with many of the 
customers claiming to only use it once or perhaps twice a month with small to no commitment 
towards the reduction of food waste. For neutrals, another potential barrier would be closely 
linked to their app usage occasions and identifying alternative solutions for eating (lunch), such 
as starting cooking at home. Furthermore, the neutrals do not engage in any particular linked 
practices or take any deliberate actions in order to reduce food waste. However, several of the 
customers classified as neutrals state that they have rethought their actions in regard to 
reducing food waste. Similar to the appreciators, neutrals could also be influenced to use the 
apps more often through ensuring new locations can be discovered on a regular basis. In 
addition, having additional offers and discounts, e.g. when rescuing a certain number of meals 
or boxes, could function as another incentive. Also, through expanding their marketing and 
social media usage and, more specifically, advertising the businesses selling on their app, the 
apps can encourage this type to use their services more often. When the apps focus more on 
improving the awareness and knowledge regarding the services, more people could also 
understand the app’s purpose and might use them more regularly. 
The last type is the Inactive Uncaring Ones (in short uncaring ones). As is indicated by the 
name, the uncaring ones do not care about food waste reduction. Their primary motivation for 
using the app is to be able to buy cheap food. However, after using the app for a while, the 
uncaring ones’ engagement with the apps decreases, with them almost never using the app 
anymore. The uncaring ones do not show any direct commitment to food surplus, as 
highlighted by Agnes, who states: "I do not value the act of rescuing food any higher than the 
chance to buy fresh food" while also exclaiming that she would not buy food that is more than 
one day old. The general stance of Agnes is applicable to the other customers classified as 
uncaring ones, with them all sharing the notion of not being motivated to save food. In line with 
the aforementioned commitment and engagement shown by the uncaring ones, there are also 
no additional practices dedicated to reducing food waste described by this customer type. As 
those customers regard the app’s model as not interesting, they are likely to claim that they do 
not have time for food rescuing due to their personal circumstances and the low placed 
importance on food rescuing. Here, in order to win them back or increase their app usage, it is 
crucial that app providers and participating businesses educate them about the still high quality 
of their surplus food. For instance, businesses could offer free samples or some kind of taste 
test at their places, which would also appeal to this type’s economic-driven motivation. 
Insignificant Indicators 
Finally, it needs to be mentioned that certain characteristics are irrelevant for differentiating the 
respective types. For instance, for all business types except the first one, how many apps are 
used or at least considered and which one is used do not indicate to which type the business 
belongs. As far as the customers are concerned, which app they use does not have an 
influence on differentiating the respective types. Also, no matter the degree of commitment, all 
interviewed businesses report to have low food waste and the actual amount of waste is also 
28 
 
not linked to the business size. Reasons would be that no matter the mode of engagement, at 
least sporadically, being active on a food rescuing app comes with awareness and resulting 
actions to avoid food waste. In a comparable manner, almost all customers reported that they 
tried to reduce food waste in their homes in some manner, albeit for various reasons. Thus, 
the act of not deliberately wasting food does not determine the typology of the customers. In 
addition, the indicator mode of recruitment is shown to be irrelevant for identifying the different 
types of businesses and customers. In particular, for the businesses, it varies within each type 
and a plethora of businesses often just mention “chain decision”. Thus, it is unclear why the 
head decided to start using the respective food rescuing app. But it can be witnessed that 
those being contacted by the app and not proactively reaching out to them are also showing a 
low mode of engagement. In a similar manner, for the customers, the indicator shows no 
correlation to which type the customers belong. Likewise, in which occasions the customers 
use the app does not notably influence the customer's type. 
Concluding Discussion 
Overall, linked to a practice theoretical approach, the described different types of users show 
how each type makes sense of food surplus differently, which is reflected in their varying 
perceptions of participating on food rescuing apps and their potential applications of other 
practices of food surplus management. Additionally, the importance of spatial-temporal 
aspects has been highlighted in previous research by Schanes et al. (2018) and is further 
confirmed by the findings of this study as they show just how impactful the environment, both 
social and physical, is to the inclination of taking part in food sharing practices on digital 
platforms. Besides, some of the results are shown to contradict previous ones regarding how 
and why digital food sharing platforms are used and what is valued. For instance, neither the 
customers nor businesses matched all the five identified motivations for participating in food 
sharing practices as outlined by Schanes’ and Stagl’s (2018). As such, it seems like fulfilling 
all the identified motivations is not a necessity for participating in food sharing practices on 
digital platforms. In addition, whereas Brons’ and Oosterveer’s findings (2017) show how for 
some identified types, the mode of engagement is limited to buying sustainable food and is not 
accompanied by a high commitment or does not expand into other practices, such 
observations cannot be made in this study. More precisely, for those identified types of 
business and customer users having a high engagement with the app, a similarly high 
commitment to reduce food surplus can be found, which is then again also reflected in a high 
number of linked practices. Thus, it can be assumed that the communicated app's purpose to 
waste less food is shared by almost all users and the apps achieve a positive impact on their 
users’ food waste awareness and behaviour. As the study by Brons and Oosterveer (2017) 
also identifies how an environmental concern is not necessarily reflected in sustainable food 
consumption, similarly for some of this study’s derived types, a commitment to food surplus 
has to compete with other criteria such as food freshness and is not exclusive with regard to 
the motivations for participation. For those types being highly committed and applying 
additional practices, reducing food waste and being as sustainable as possible is a crucial 
aspect of their identity and their business operations or lifestyle. Overall, it is shown that having 
a positive influence on each type’s food waste management and linked sustainable behaviour 
requires different approaches, e.g. depending on their already existing commitment or their 
main motivations. Lastly, as it also becomes evident in the type descriptions, the derived 
indicator mode of recruitment and some other practitioner characteristics are shown to be 
irrelevant for the typologies. For instance, no patterns can be identified, among the type and 
29 
 
number of apps used, the businesses’ amount of food waste and customers’ app usage 
occasions, which would contribute to distinguishing the existing types of business- or customer 
users. Finally, it needs to be acknowledged that the identified types should not be considered 
as stages (potentially except for the worriers) but as distinct approaches for the practice of 
participating on food rescuing apps.  
Conclusions 
To conclude, the first research question “Which practice theoretical factors have an impact on 
the participation on food rescuing apps?”, several aspects have been identified throughout the 
research. Through the conducted interviews, it becomes evident that especially the social 
environment, including other human actors, have been shown to significantly impact the 
practitioners. For example, one’s close network of family, friends and colleagues as well as 
other businesses and the app ambassadors influence several of the studied indicators. In 
addition, the spatial-temporal context is of high relevance for both businesses and customers 
in regard to their recruitment, the occasions and the extent the apps are used (e.g. only to buy 
lunch). Furthermore, especially through the indicators commitment to food surplus and the 
linked practices, it can be seen how the users’ identity and value system reflected in their 
attitude towards food waste and sustainability impacts their participation on the app. In contrast 
to Fuentes et al.’s (2021) discussed failure of Karma to suit the participants’ other practices, 
the study shows how several business- and customer types achieved to incorporate the 
practice of participating on food rescuing apps into their routines and everyday practices. To a 
lesser extent, materials are shown to have an impact, e.g. in the form of corporate apps as 
alternative technical solutions. Summing up, through the identified factors, the complexity of 
the practice is clearly demonstrated.  
To answer the second research question “What types of business- and customer users can be 
distinguished on food rescuing apps?”, as shown in the derived typologies, four distinct types 
of business- and also customer food rescuing app users can be defined. For the businesses, 
the preachers caring a lot about food waste and being highly committed to food surplus (which 
is also often reflected in their corporate identity) mainly use food rescuing apps because of 
their sustainability aspect and to avoid food waste. Thus, their values strongly correlate with 
their attitudes and practices of food surplus management (Evans et al., 2012a; b). The 
preacher’s motivation to avoid food waste does not have to compete with other aspects. In this 
context, a plethora of especially complex and time-consuming practices linked to food surplus 
management are incorporated in their business operations. They are further highly engaged 
with the app, which is the main aspect differentiating them from the second business type. The 
fighters are additionally motivated to use such apps by having the opportunity to offer cheap 
but still high-quality food. In contrast to the preachers, their engagement is rather low as for 
them, regular sales and avoiding wastage at all are more important aspects. Their commitment 
and accompanying linked practices are similar to the preachers’ ones. Thus, a so-called 
attitude-behaviour gap becomes evident as even though they have a positive attitude towards 
reducing food waste, it is not reflected in their app participation (Schanes et al., 2018). Potential 
barriers explaining this discrepancy are mainly mental, material and social ones. For instance, 
as they regard not wasting as important, they try to avoid having any food surplus to reduce 
the risk of wasting food even further, making selling on those apps less appealing to them. 
Material aspects impacting their practice of infrequently using such apps are other digital 
platforms being incorporated instead, such as their own apps. Social barriers explaining the 
30 
 
existing gap are closely linked to their additional practices of managing food waste as, for 
example, surplus food is donated to charity or stores part of a chain sell each other’s surplus. 
Therefore, the businesses’ social environment plays a crucial role in why fighters participate 
less on the apps. The worriers are shown to be especially newly operating businesses, which 
might indicate the third type to be in a transitional phase. Their main motivations are app 
benefits, which are not largely promoted by the apps themselves, such as advertising and 
cross-selling. Thus, their practice of participating on the app is influenced by their personal 
priority of surviving and establishing a customer base. Even though they care about food 
waste, their overall commitment is less clearly communicated and rarely shown in additional 
practices, which can be explained again through an existing attitude-behaviour gap (Schanes 
et al., 2018). The barriers leading to a less frequent app usage are especially the temporal 
context, having often opened their business not a long time ago and the set personal priorities 
leading to a lower focus on such apps. But also a lacking mental commitment to educating 
oneself on how to manage food surplus can be a reason. The last type, the avoiders, mainly 
indicate economic reasons as their motivation for participation. Also, the sudden food waste 
due to the fluctuating guest numbers during the pandemic is mentioned as a further aspect for 
starting using the app. Their app engagement is low as they fear a bad reputation when selling 
too much on the app. Their commitment is the lowest of all types as other attributes such as 
freshness and food variety are perceived as more important, which is also shown in applying 
only a few, simple additional practices, like adapted food preparations. Such a restricted 
commitment is also found by Brons and Oosterveer (2017) for their first type “food 
environmentalists”, as they know their limits and opt for the easiest way when buying 
sustainable food without any demanding rearrangements. Similarly, also avoiders would barely 
adapt their routines in order to reduce more food waste. 
The identified customer types of app users are the full-on food waste devotees, food waste 
and app appreciators, acknowledging app neutrals and inactive, uncaring ones. The devotees 
show similar characteristics as the business preachers in terms of being motivated by the app’s 
sustainability aspect, having a high engagement with the used app, also on other platforms, 
and being highly committed to reducing food waste. Thus, also similarly, the app’s main 
promoted benefit of avoiding food waste is also the main criterion for their motivation and 
engagement, which has not to compete with other aspects. Their active engagement is not 
only reflected in their app participation but also through recommending the apps to others. For 
example, their social networks of friends, family and colleagues are affected, which shows how 
the practice of using food rescuing apps is embedded in their everyday social life (Schanes et 
al., 2018). Their engagement is also reflected in a high willingness to pay for surplus food and 
incorporating several additional practices of food waste management in their lives. This type’s 
characteristics stand in contrast to Fuentes et al.’s (2021) identified misalignment of Karma’s 
promoted mode of food provision with preceding or proceeding practices. The second type, 
the appreciators, is driven by the cheaper price while still highly valuing the sustainability 
aspect, which is the main distinctive feature from the devotees. They use the app frequently, 
which indicates a high engagement. Also, their high commitment linked to several additional 
practices is shown to be characterised by similar aspects that can be found for the first type. 
Such a high degree of commitment that can be found for both first types of customers is called 
“pushing their limits” by Brons and Oosterveer (2017) and is described by them as the 
comprehensive environmentalist’s willingness to change their routines and do more in the 
future. Such characteristics can be applied to the devotees and appreciators, as well, but also 
the business type preachers and fighters would fall into this defined commitment. In contrast, 
31 
 
the neutrals mention only the economic aspect of the apps as their motivation, which is also 
reflected in their overall low commitment to food surplus. In addition, they use the app 
infrequently. They show some commitment to rescue food but are neutral about the 
sustainability aspect behind it. Thus, no deliberate practices can be found. However, neutrals 
still tend to rethink their actions. These characteristics would be in line with Brons’ and 
Oosterveer’s (2017) defined “questioning their limits”-commitment as some small things are 
done, but one’s personal limits are acknowledged as more could be done regarding buying 
sustainable food and respectively, managing food waste. Also, the same would apply to the 
business type worriers. The last identified customer type, the uncaring ones, are motivated by 
the same economic aspect as the neutrals. Therefore, for both of them, their attitude and 
placed importance on saving money and being rewarded significantly impacts their practice of 
using the apps (Schanes and Stagl, 2018). However, their engagement is even lower as they 
seldom use the app anymore. In contrast to the neutrals, they are not committed to food waste 
management and also no additional practices are incorporated by them in their daily lives. 
Contributions and Implications 
The main contribution of this study is based on the practice theoretical understanding it 
provides concerning the practice of using food rescuing apps. Through this study, a new and 
different methodological approach is applied to explain the existing varying exertions of 
participating on food rescuing apps. Thus, the available research field is extended through 
expanding the knowledge of consumer behaviour in relation to food waste on digital platforms 
and highlighting the importance of spatial-temporal aspects as well as other factors for the 
practices of both businesses and customers. Therefore, the research shows with the help of 
such a theoretical perspective how food rescuing apps are integrated into the users’ daily life 
and routines. Here, the existing complex interactions between the users and the app-related 
practices can be understood. The study also provides a foundation for much-needed further 
studies of food waste in relation to technological innovations. Furthermore, an improved 
understanding of businesses and customers as app users is achieved as the various 
underlying differences in the exertion of participating on these digital food-sharing platforms 
are structured. Also, the defined business and customer typologies provide insights into the 
interactions between the users’ lifestyles, materials, social environments and spatial-temporal 
contexts as the participation on food rescuing apps is not a straightforward outcome. Also, 
through this study, a contribution to the sharing economy research field is made. Reflecting on 
food rescuing apps as an example for this new emerging form of sharing highlights how such 
a new approach can serve for achieving environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency. 
In addition, based on the structured indicator findings, each constructed business and 
customer type can be characterised by distinct drivers and barriers for their participation, which 
can prove helpful for future academic discussions of food rescuing apps’ impact on their users 
and how to increase its future potential for positive sustainable changes in society. In particular, 
through the users’ app participation, their food waste awareness and attitude can be directly 
and indirectly influenced, which is linked to Filimonau et al. (2020a), who highlight that 
environmentally committed and food waste aware consumers are also more engaged in 
reducing their food waste when eating out and demand businesses to do so, as well. 
Apart from having a positive effect on the users’ general attitude and behaviour towards food 
waste, also this enhanced understanding of the practice and the app users grants the platform 
providers Karma and TGTG with valuable insights. It allows for improvements to be made, 
32 
 
which can get more consumers and businesses to join and, in turn, help alleviate the food 
waste problem through adapted, type-specific approaches. Linked to this, a suggested 
improvement for the apps mentioned by the users is to solve the technical issues and, for 
example, improve the user-friendliness of the retail Karma app. A discussion forum for not only 
customers but also businesses could also be incorporated so that the exchange of personal 
experiences and tips is facilitated. Such an approach could solve Farr-Wharton et al.’s (2014) 
identified food sharing weakness of lacking trust and missing relationships. Moreover, the 
findings could have implications on a societal level as they may help contribute to more 
sustainable consumption practices, leading to a reduced amount of food waste.   
Limitations and Future Research  
In addition, even though a contribution is shown to be made, the limits of the study need to be 
acknowledged. First, regarding the sampling, the small sample size of 16 businesses and 15 
customers needs to be taken into account for all drawn conclusions regarding the identified 
user types as it is difficult to make any sweeping assumptions. In addition, as the findings rely 
on the interviewees’ given answers and food waste can be regarded as a sensitive topic, there 
is a potential risk of receiving biased answers as some businesses and customers might try to 
portray themselves in a better light. However, this issue can be regarded as minor as for both 
sides also economic motivations for participation are frankly reported. In addition, for the 
businesses, their findings can be further biased to some extent as the interviewees might 
communicate their personal instead of corporate viewpoints and also their knowledge might 
be restricted when there is another person (e.g. store manager or head of the chain), who is 
making the decisions, e.g. regarding why starting to use these apps. Lastly, also the current 
ongoing pandemic has an impact on the retrieved findings as some of the businesses had no 
food wastage before and they might stop using such apps when the guest numbers are less 
fluctuating. However, by the time the pandemic is over, there is a possibility consumers have 
gotten used to these kinds of apps and incorporated them into their consumption patterns. As 
such, the demand for these apps would not see a decrease, but instead, the popularity of such 
apps among businesses and customers can be expected to increase even further. 
As the future of digital food-sharing apps is shown to look bright, in combination with the 
highlighted limitations of the study, valuable pathways for future research in this field can be 
suggested. First of all, as the study relies on a rather small sample, it would be interesting to 
see an extended version of the study with a significantly larger sample size in order to 
substantiate the results presented in this study. Due to the possible influence of the 
respondents' personal biases, it would add value to recreate the study with a quantitative 
method to (dis)confirm the results. Additionally, recreating the study in a new location and 
culture could provide insight into the possible differing influence the economic, social and 
cultural environment can have on both businesses and customers. In a similar manner, 
recreating the study after the Covid-19 pandemic would help understand to what extent spatial-
temporal aspects affect the users’ practices. Additionally, studies looking deeper into the 
indicators commitment to food surplus and linked practices could be valuable as they are able 
to give insight into the users’ identity and value system.  
33 
 
References 
Acquier, A. and Carbone V. (2018). Sharing economy and social innovation. In: Davidson, 
N.M., Finck, M. and Infranca, J.J. (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Sharing Economy 
and Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 
Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I.E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M.B., Grønhøj, A. and 
Oostindjer, M. (2017). Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives 
tackling consumer related food waste – a multiple case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 
155(2), 33-45. 
Baldwin, C., Wilberforce, N. and Kapur, A. (2011). Restaurant and food service life cycle 
assessment and development of a sustainability standard. The International Journal of Life 
Cycle Assessment, 16, 40-49. 
Barnes, S.J. and Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative 
consumption: A four-stage Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 
104(C), 200-211. 
Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own?. The Annals of the American Academy of 
Political and Social Science, 6(11), 126-140. 
Blichfeldt, B.S., Mikkelsen, M. and Gram, M. (2015). When it stops being food: The edibility, 
ideology, procrastination, objectification and internalization of household food waste. Food, 
Culture & Society, 18(1), 89-105. 
Brons, A., and Oosterveer, P. (2017). Making sense of sustainability: A practice theories 
approach to buying food. Sustainability, 9(3), 467. 
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2013). Företagsekonomiska Forskningsmetoder. 2 uppl. Liber, 
Stockholm. 
Cane, M. and Parra, C. (2020). Digital platforms: Mapping the territory of new technologies to 
fight food waste. British Food Journal, 122(5),1647-1669. 
Ciulli, F., and Kolk, A. (2019). Incumbents and business model innovation for the sharing 
economy: Implications for sustainability. Journal of cleaner production, 214, 995-1010. 
Cohen, B. and Muñoz, P. (2015). Sharing cities and sustainable consumption and production: 
Towards an integrated framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 87-97. 
Davies, A.R., Edwards, F., Marovelli, B., Morrow, O., Rut, M. and Weymes, M. (2017). Making 
visible: Interrogating the performance of food sharing across 100 urban areas. Geoforum, 86, 
136-149. 
Davies, A.R. and Legg, R. (2018). Fare sharing: Interrogating the nexus of ICT, urban food 
sharing, and sustainability. Food, Culture & Society, 21(2), 233-254. 
Defra. (2020). Food statistics pocketbook. Available at: 
<https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/food-statistics-pocketbook> (Accessed 
28.01.2021). 
Dhir, A., Talwar, S., Kaur, P. and Malibari, A. (2020). Food waste in hospitality and food 
services: A systematic literature review and framework development approach. Journal of 
Cleaner Production, 270, 122861. 
34 
 
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Research philosophy. Qualitative methods in business 
Research, 11-25. 
Euromonitor International. (2016). Consumer food service. Available at: 
<http://www.euromonitor.com/consumer-food service> (Accessed 01.02.2021). 
Evans, D. (2012a). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a 
sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46, 41-56. 
Evans, D. (2012b). Binning, gifting and recovery: The conduits of disposal in household food 
consumption. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30, 1123-1137. 
Evans, D. (2014). Food waste: Home consumption, material culture and everyday life. London, 
Bloomsbury Publishing. 
Evans, D., Campbell, H. and Murcott, A. (2012). A brief pre-history of food waste and the social 
sciences. The Sociological Review, 60, 5-26. 
Evans, D., Welch, D. and Swaffield, J. (2017). Constructing and mobilizing “the consumer”: 
Responsibility, consumption and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning, 49(6), 
1396-1412. 
Falcone, P.M. and Imbert, E. (2017) Bringing a sharing economy approach into the food sector: 
The potential of food sharing for reducing food waste. In: Morone, P., Papendiek, F. and Tartiu, 
V. (eds). Food waste reduction and valorisation. Basel, Springer International Publishing. 
FAO. (2014). Definitional framework of food loss. Available at: <www.fao.org/3/a-at144e.pdf> 
(Accessed 28.01.2021). 
Farr-Wharton, G., Foth, M. and Choi, J. (2014). Identifying factors that promote consumer 
behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(6), 393-
402. 
Filimonau, V., Krivcova, M. and Pettit, F. (2019). An exploratory study of managerial 
approaches to food waste mitigation in coffee shops. International Journal of Hospitality 
Management, 76, 48-57. 
Filimonau, V. and Coteau, D. (2019). Food waste management in hospitality operations: A 
critical review. Tourism Management, 71 , 234-245.   
Filimonau, V., Matute, J., Kubal-Czerwinska, M., Krzesiwo, K. and Mila, M. (2020a). The 
determinants of consumer engagement in restaurant food waste mitigation in Poland: An 
exploratory study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, 119105. 
Filimonau, V., Todorova, E., Mzembe, A., Sauer, L. and Yankholmes, A. (2020b). A 
comparative study of food waste management in full service restaurants of the United Kingdom 
and the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120775. 
Fuentes, C., Cegrell, O. and Vesterinen, J. (2021). Digitally Enabling Sustainable Food 
Shopping: App Glitches, Practice Conflicts and Digital Failure. Journal of Retailing and 
Consumer Services, 61, 1025-1046. 
Fusions. (2016). Recommendations and guidelines for a common European food waste policy 
framework. Available at: <https://www.eu-
fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/D3.5%20recommendations%20and%20guidelines
%20food%20waste%20policy%20FINAL.pdf> (Accessed 28.01.2021). 
FWRA. (2014). Best Practices & Emerging Solutions Toolkit. 
35 
 
Ganglbauer, E., Fitzpatrick, G., Subasi, Z. and Gidenpfennig, F.  (2014). Think globally, act 
locally: A case study of a free food sharing community and social networking. Proceedings of 
the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing 
(CSCW '14), February, 15-19. 
Gentil, E. and Poulsen, T.G. (2012). To waste or not to waste food? Waste Management and 
Research, 30(10), 455–456. 
Geissinger, A., Laurell, C., Öberg, C. and Sandström, C. (2019). How sustainable is the sharing 
economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms, Journal of Cleaner 
Production, 206, 419-42. 
Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C. and Sparks, P. (2014). Identifying motivations and barriers to 
minimising household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 84, 15-23. 
Hebrok, M. and Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention 
points for design – An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 151, 380-392. 
Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Silvennoinen, K. and Hartikainen, H. (2016). 
Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector. Waste Management, 56, 446-453. 
Jacobsen, D.I. (2017). Hur genomför man undersökningar?: Introduktion 
tillsamhällsvetenskapliga metoder. 2nd Ed. Lund, Studentlitteratur AB. 
Kallbekken, S. and Sælen, H. (2013). Nudging hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win-win 
environmental measure. Economics Letter, 119(3), 325–327. 
Karma. (2021). About. Available at: <https://karma.life/about> (Accessed 12.04.2021). 
Kolk, A. and Ciulli, F. (2020). The potential of sustainability-oriented digital platform 
multinationals: A comment on the transitions research agenda. Environmental Innovation and 
Societal Transitions, 34, 355-358. 
Lazell, J. (2016). Consumer food waste behaviour in universities: Sharing as a means of 
prevention. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15, 430-439. 
Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R. and Searchinger, T. (2013). Reducing 
food loss and waste. Working Paper, Instalment 2 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future. 
Available at: <http://pdf.wri.org/reducing_food_loss_and_waste.pdf> (Accessed 29.01.2021). 
Makov, T., Shepon, A., Krones, J., Gupta, C. and Chertow, M. (2020). Social and 
environmental analysis of food waste abatement via the peer-to-peer sharing economy. Nature 
Communications, 11, 1156. 
Martindale, W. and Schiebel, W. (2017). The impact of food preservation on food waste. 
British Food Journal, 119(12), 2510-2518. 
Martin-Rios, C., Demen-Meier, C., Gössling, S. and Cornuz, C. (2018). Food waste 
management innovations in the foodservice industry. Waste Management, 79, 196-206. 
Martin-Rios, C., Hofmann, A. and Mackenzie, N. (2021). Sustainability-oriented innovations in 
food waste management technology. Sustainability, 13, 210-221. 
Michelini, L., Principato, L. and Iasevoli, G. (2018). Understanding food sharing models to 
tackle sustainability challenges. Ecological Economics, 145, 205-217. 
  
36 
 
Mummah, S., Robinson, T.N., Mathur, M., Farzinkhou, S., Sutton, S. and Gardner, C. (2017). 
Effect of a mobile app intervention on vegetable consumption in overweight adults: A 
randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 
14, 125.  
Närvänen, E., Mattila, M. and Mesiranta, N. (2020). Institutional work in food waste reduction: 
Start-ups' role in moving towards a circular economy, Industrial Marketing Management, 2020, 
nb. 
Oroski, A.F. (2020). Exploring food waste reducing apps: A business model lens. In: Närvänen, 
E., Mesiranta, N., Mattila, M. and Heikkinen, A. (eds). Food waste management. London, 
Palgrave Macmillan. 
Porat, R., Lichter, A., Terry, L.A.,  Harker, R. and Buzby, J. (2018). Postharvest losses of fruit 
and vegetables during retail and in consumers’ homes: Quantifications, causes, and means 
of prevention. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 139, 135-149. 
Priefer, C., Jörissen, J. and Bräutigam, K.R. (2016). Food waste prevention in Europe: A 
cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action. Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 109, 155–165. 
Qi, D., and Roe, B.E. (2016). Household food waste: Multivariate regression and principal 
components analyses of awareness and attitudes among US consumers. PloS one, 11(7), nb. 
Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D. and Parry, A.D. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex 
world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 43–51. 
Ranganathan, J., Waite, R. and Searchinger, T. (2018). How to sustainably feed 10 Billion 
people by 2050, in 21 charts. World Resources Institute. Available at: 
<https://www.wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts> 
(Accessed 05.27.2021). 
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist 
theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 243-63. 
Richards, T. and Hamilton, S. (2018). Food waste in the sharing economy. Food Policy, 75, 
109-123. 
Rohm, H., Oostindjer, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Symmank, C.L., Almli, V., De Hooge, I.E., 
Normann, A. and Karantininis, K. (2017). Consumers in a sustainable food supply chain 
(COSUS): Understanding consumer behavior to encourage food waste reduction. Foods, 6, 
104. 
Rombach, M. and Bitsch, V. (2015). Food movements in Germany: Slow food, food sharing 
and dumpster diving. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 18(3), 1-24. 
Sakaguchi, L., Pak, N. and Potts, M.D. (2018). Tackling the issue of food waste in restaurants: 
Options for measurement method, reduction and behavioral change. Journal of Cleaner 
Production, 180, 430-436. 
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K. and Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters: A systematic review of 
household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 
182, 978-991. 
37 
 
Schanes, K. and Stagl, S. (2018) Food waste fighters: What motivates people to engage in 
food sharing?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1491-1501. 
Secondi, L., Principato, L. and Mattia, G. (2019). Can digital solutions help in the 
minimization of out-of-home waste? An analysis from the client and business perspective. 
British Food Journal, 122(5), 1341-1359. 
Southerton, D. and Yates, L. (2015). Exploring food waste through the lens of social practice 
theories: Some reflections on eating as a compound practice. In: Ekstrom, K.M. (ed.). Waste 
management and sustainable consumption. London, Routledge, 133-149. 
Stenmarck, Å., Jensen, C., Quested, T. and Moates, G. (2016). Estimates of European food 
waste levels. Stockholm. 
Thiagarajah, K. and Getty, V.M. (2013). Impact on plate waste of switching from a tray to a 
trayless delivery system in a University dining hall and employee response to the switch. 
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(1), 141–145. 
Too Good To Go. (2020). Börja rädda god överskottsmat. Available at: 
<https://toogoodtogo.se/sv/> (Accessed 12.04.2021).  
Tsiros, M. and Heilman, C.M. (2005). The effect of expiration dates and perceived risk on 
purchasing behavior in grocery store perishable categories. Journal of Marketing, 69, 114–
129. 
Van der Haar, S. and Zeinstra, GG. (2019). Too Good To Go concept contributes to less food 
waste from stores and at home. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen. 
Van Geffen L., van Herpen E., van Trijp H. (2020) Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? 
An Integrative Review. In: Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., Mattila, M. and Heikkinen, A. (eds). 
Food waste management. London, Palgrave Macmillan. 
Wansink, B. and Van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption 
norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. Journal of Experimential 
Psychology Applied, 19(4), 320–332. 
Warde, A. (2013). What sort of a practice is eating. In: Shove, E. and Spurling, N. (eds.). 
Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate change. London, Routledge, 17-30. 
Warde A. (2014). After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of 
Consumer Culture, 14(3), 297-303. 
Whitehair, K.J., Shanklin, C.W. and Brannon, L.A. (2013). Written messages improve edible 
food waste behaviors in a university dining facility. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and 
Dietetics, 113(1), 63–69. 
Yue, C., Alfnes, F. and Jensen, H.H. (2009). Discounting spotted apples: Investigating 
consumers’ willingness to accept cosmetic damage in an organic product. Journal of 
Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(1), 29-46.