Challenges, risks and costs of food sharing. Insights from a systematic literature review

Review Challenges, risks and costs of food sharing. Insights from a systematic literature review Vera Sadovska * , Yuliya Voytenko Palgan , Oksana Mont Lund University, The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Box 196, 22100, Lund, Sweden HIGHLIGHTS •Food sharing initiatives (FSIs) bring sustainable innovation to urban food systems •An in-depth understanding of factors hindering FSIs’ development is absent •This research employs a systematic literature review of 52 articles on food sharing •It categorises the challenges, risks, and costs of establishing and maintaining FSIs •It proposes nine strategies and investment needs for FSIs’ operation and development ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Food sharing Urban food systems Food commons Challenges Risks Costs Investments ABSTRACT Current food systems are unsustainable, exacerbating environmental and socio-economic challenges. With 80 % of food consumed in cities, transforming urban food systems is vital. Urban food sharing initiatives (FSIs), which involve collective acts of growing, cooking, eating, and redistributing food, offer a promising alternative in sustainable urban transformations. However, FSIs often struggle to develop and scale. Academic literature has not adequately examined the factors hindering FSIs’ establishment, operation, and scaling up. This study fills this gap through a systematic literature review of 55 articles, providing a comprehensive analysis of the challenges, risks, and costs faced by FSIs. It identifies six categories of challenges and risks each, as well as seven categories of costs. The study proposes nine mitigation strategies to address these issues and emphasises the need for a more detailed breakdown of costs and investments across different phases of FSI development. Additionally, it highlights the importance of support from governments, policymakers, health authorities, retailers, and charity organisations. The transformative potential of FSIs in addressing inefficiencies in current food systems is also underscored, alongside the need for a deeper understanding of the multi-dimensional challenges they face. The findings are particularly valuable for urban FSIs seeking to develop their practices, build capacity, and contribute to more resilient and sustainable urban food systems. 1. Introduction Current food systems are unsustainable (Schneider, 2013; UNICEF, 2023). They contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, land degradation, waste, and health risks (Fardet and Rock, 2020; McClintock, 2014). Inequitable food distribution exacerbates poverty and hunger (United Nations, 2019). With over 30 % of produced food being wasted or lost annually (Qiu et al., 2024), achieving Sustainable Development Goals like poverty alleviation, zero hunger, and reduced inequalities demands urgent, fundamental changes in food systems. Transforming urban food systems towards sustainability is particularly critical (Serraj and Pingali, 2018; Zou et al., 2023), since 80 % of all food is consumed in cities (EAT, 2022). Food systems, encompassing production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste management, involve a complex network of sectors, actors, and organisations. The need to address unsustainable consumption and production was recognised as early as 1992 in ’Agenda 21 ′ at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (UNCED, 1992). Food, along with housing, personal mobility, household goods, clothing, and footwear services, is one of the main domains contributing to the consumption footprint (EEA, 2024). Reducing its footprint through more sustainable consumption requires the involvement of a broad range of societal actors and crossing disciplinary boundaries to * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Sadovska), [email protected] (Y. Voytenko Palgan), [email protected] (O. Mont). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.147292 Received 13 April 2025; Received in revised form 28 October 2025; Accepted 7 December 2025 Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 Available online 15 December 2025 0959-6526/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). devise and test “unconventional, dynamic, and adaptive solutions” (Mont, 2019, p. 2). One such alternative system of provision is the sharing economy, which holds significant promise for promoting sustainability by optimizing resource use and reducing waste as it is viewed within the scholarly debate on sustainable consumption (Dabbous and Tarhini, 2021). Described as “an umbrella term for a wide variety of organisational models … where goods, services, skills, and spaces are shared, exchanged, rented, or leased” (Mont et al., 2020, p. 2), the sharing economy experienced significant growth after the 2008 financial crisis, driven by advancements in digital technology. As sharing has long been a social convention, recent studies highlight the diversity of organisational forms and governance models shaping this domain (Guyader et al., 2023). Early research on the sharing economy focused on defining the phenomenon (e.g., Curtis and Lehner, 2019; Frenken and Schor, 2017; Hamari et al., 2016). This was followed by a significant body of work on shared accommodation (e.g., Gyim´ othy et al., 2020; Voytenko Palgan et al., 2017) and mobility (e.g., Plepys and Arbelaez Velez, 2021; van Waes et al., 2018). Research on the sharing economy has largely been dominated by analyses of two global multinational platforms—Airbnb for home sharing (Negi and Tripathi, 2023) and Uber for ride-hailing (Luo et al., 2021). Less attention has been given to non-commercial grassroots forms of sharing (Hult and Bradley, 2017; Sharp, 2018) that often share household goods such as tools and toys (Voytenko Palgan et al., 2021) or food (Davies et al., 2017a). Food sharing emerged as a significant topic in sustainable consumption and sharing economy research, largely due to the contributions of McLaren and Agyeman (2015) and Davies et al. (2017a, 2017b). Their work established food sharing as a distinct niche within these literatures and situated it in the urban context. Food sharing is defined as “collective acts around food across the food system, including cooking and eating together, growing or composting together, redistributing surplus food, sharing food spaces, tools, knowledge, and seeds” (Voytenko Palgan and Sadovska, 2023, p. 10). 1 Since then, food sharing has been explored across various geographies, with studies examining over 4000 food-sharing initiatives (FSIs) in more than 100 cities across six continents (Davies et al., 2017a, 2017b). In-depth case studies have been conducted in cities across Germany (Braun et al., 2018; Morrow, 2019a), the UK (Marovelli, 2019), Ireland (Davies et al., 2019), Singapore (Rut and Davies, 2018), Australia (Booth and Whelan, 2014) and the US (Loh and Agyeman, 2019; Weymes and Davies, 2019), among others. FSIs are diverse organisations, having unique characteristics and goals. FSIs include producing food together through community-supported agriculture, gleaning or urban gardening; processing and preparing food collectively in cooking cooperatives or community kitchens; consuming food together in social canteens or home restaurants; and distributing and sharing food via community fridges, communal meals, or redistribution schemes that rescue surplus or donated food before it becomes waste (Edwards et al., 2023; Mackenzie and Davies, 2019; Miralles et al., 2017; Sarti et al., 2017). In this way, FSIs encompass diverse ways of producing, processing and sharing food and meals that emphasise collaboration, solidarity and waste reduction. The food sharing research has focused on conceptualising food sharing (Bachnik and Szumniak-Samolej, 2018; Davies and Evans, 2019); exploring different ontologies of food, i.e. how food is maintained, valued and moved within the sharing networks (Marovelli, 2019; Zapata Campos et al., 2026); the role of technology and digital tools in enabling or constraining food sharing (Midgley, 2019; Weymes and Davies, 2019); user perspectives on food sharing (Bosisio et al., 2024; Wi´ sniewska and Czernyszewicz, 2022); and sustainability of food sharing (Mackenzie and Davies, 2022; Michelini et al., 2020), discussing its potential for food waste reduction (Reynolds et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2025), enhanced justice (Herrero and Moragues-Faus, 2024), empowerment (Datta, 2019) and food poverty alleviation (Booth and Whelan, 2014). Economically, sharing makes food more affordable for individuals and local communities (Morrow, 2019a; Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023). It also allows including marginalised groups into the job market (Hennchen and Pregernig, 2020). Socially, FSIs build social bonds, mitigate asymmetrical relationships in communities (Marovelli, 2019), promote solidarity (D’Ambrosi, 2018), help the disadvantaged and improve public health through food education (Hennchen and Pregernig, 2020). Environmentally, FSIs lead to resource efficiency, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023) and effective waste management (Mazzucchelli et al., 2021). While FSIs may bring sustainable change to local contexts, they are often small and operate in a specific area, which makes them dependent on local resources and constrained by contextual cultural norms (Davies et al., 2025). They work on the margins of the mainstream paradigm and cannot fully realise their sustainability potential. The highly contextual and local nature of FSIs presents challenges in scaling their impact and effecting broader systemic change (Marradi and Mulder, 2022). At the same time, transforming urban food systems towards sustainability can be significantly advanced by making them more widely accessible in cities. Therefore, a solid understanding of the factors influencing the establishment, operation, and scaling of FSIs offers a promising path forward. Scaling involves starting up a new FSI, employing an FSI across communities or replicating it in different contexts (Moore et al., 2015). Emerging research on governance and scaling of FSIs highlights the challenges non-commercial FSIs face in growing (Loh and Agyeman, 2019; Morrow, 2019a), transforming or reinforcing socio-technical regimes (Rut and Davies, 2018) and navigating “processes of neoliberalization, privatization, gentrification, and enclosure” (Davies and Evans, 2019, p. 157). However, since there is no single solution for the development and scaling of innovations (Concilio et al., 2019; Verganti, 2008), creating favourable conditions for establishing, operating, and scaling FSIs requires understanding the factors that hinder these processes. The literature has failed to provide an in-depth understanding of such factors (Cangiano et al., 2017; Marradi and Mulder, 2022). Although the sustainability potential and impact assessment of FSIs are increasingly being addressed in the literature (Datta, 2019; Davies et al., 2017a; Devillers, 2023; Hennig, 2019; Lim et al., 2017; Mackenzie and Davies, 2019, 2022; Michelini et al., 2020), and the appreciation of food sharing is growing, current knowledge about the organisation and functioning of FSIs in urban contexts remains fragmented and unsystematic (Kang et al., 2022; Mackenzie and Davies, 2019). While a few studies discuss the internal governance of FSIs, including their internal politics and organisational rules that determine everyday practices (Hennchen and Pregernig, 2020; Morrow, 2019a), there is a clear need to identify and systematically analyse the factors hindering the development and scaling of FSIs. To address this gap, this article aims to provide a systematic understanding of the challenges, risks, and costs involved in establishing, maintaining and scaling FSIs in urban contexts. In doing so, it seeks to contribute to the sharing economy literature that engages with organisational research. Abbreviations: CSP - Collaborative Supply Programme FSI - Food sharing initiative PPI - Platform Protection Insurance 1 This definition is used by the project CULTIVATE: Co-designing food sharing innovation for resilience, which received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme (GA No 101083377). It is inspired by the definition in Davies et al. (2019). V. Sadovska et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 2 This research, grounded in a systematic literature review of 55 articles on food sharing, outlines its methodology in section 2and results in section 3. It analyses the challenges, risks, and costs of establishing and maintaining FSIs, discussing the necessary investments for their operation in section 4, where a framework is also proposed. Section 5 concludes the paper, addressing its limitations and suggesting future research directions. 2. Method 2.1. Research approach This article reviews a modest but rapidly growing body of literature on food sharing. The academic literature focuses on the positive impacts of food sharing and its benefits (e.g. Datta, 2019; Michelini et al., 2018; Tsuji et al., 2020). At the same time, discussing the establishment, operation and development of FSIs without understanding the other side of the picture is difficult. Therefore, this study has focused on collecting academic framings of the challenges, risks and costs of FSIs. For this purpose, a systematic literature review was conducted, which is a standard method in research on social innovation and food sharing research (Jin et al., 2018; S´ anchez-Vergara et al., 2021; Schanes and Stagl, 2019). A systematic literature review was chosen for several reasons. Although food sharing practices are included in sharing economy studies (e.g. Puram and Gurumurthy, 2023), a systematic approach focusing particularly on FSIs has not been used before. Furthermore, the literature in this area spans a range of disciplines and topics, such as urban geography, sharing economy, social innovation, and food commons, making systematic literature reviews particularly relevant (Williams et al., 2021). In addition, systematic literature reviews can inform practical solutions by providing a reliable analysis of studies from different disciplines (Briner and Denyer, 2012). Finally, a systematic literature review, an objective method with explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria and a transparent selection process, ensures rigorous results and limits bias (Cook et al., 1997; Davis et al., 1995). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic literature review synthesising and categorising the factors hindering the establishment and maintenance of FSIs. 2.2. Data collection The Scopus database was used for the source search, as it is one of the largest databases of scientific articles with a wide coverage of disciplines and different navigation options (Carrera-Rivera et al., 2022; Ginieis et al., 2012). Fig. 1 shows the flowchart based on PRISMA guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009) with the steps of the selection process. 1. Identification step Step 1 in the systematic literature review includes the identification of keywords, the combinations of which are then used to generate search strings. Since it is recommended that the keywords are selected and agreed upon in collaboration with several researchers (Tranfield et al., 2003), all co-authors and a lead academic expert 2 in the field of urban food sharing were involved in this process. It was decided to use several combinations of words (Fig. 2) with ’food sharing’ as the base and different aspects (e.g. costs, challenges, drivers) as additional words. The concept of food commons was also included, as this terminology is used in related fields. In total, 14 keyword combinations were applied. The database was searched in September 2023 and yielded 538 results, further filtered according to the PRISMA guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009). 2. Screening step In Step 2, the search results were screened for publication type, study design, and language (Table 1). Only international peer-reviewed journal articles in English, the most common academic language (Bocanegra-Valle, 2014), were included to allow for the quality control of the studies. Only original empirical studies were included to attend to primary sources of information, while review and conceptual articles were excluded (Cook et al., 1997). These criteria resulted in the exclusion of 112 articles from the initial search. Due to using 14 different search strings, 88 duplicate articles were excluded in the next step. 3. Eligibility identification step In Step 3, the set of 338 unique records was assessed based on their titles and abstracts. This was done to check the article’s relevance to the topic of FSIs. Food sharing in the sense of collective acts around food and food-related objects (e.g., tools, seeds), spaces, skills, and knowledge that take place across the food system, from growing and composting to cooking and eating to redistributing surplus food together (Davies and Legg, 2018; Voytenko Palgan and Sadovska, 2023), was taken as a prerequisite for inclusion in the full-text screening step (Table 1). However, as this study focuses on FSIs as organisations, programmes or structures, this view was used to select eligible articles. This screening resulted in the exclusion of 283 articles, and the selection of 55 articles for the full-text analysis. 4. Inclusion step Step 4 implied a full-text analysis of 55 articles to assess their relevance to the scope of the study. Namely, articles that contained information on the challenges, risks, and costs of FSIs were included in the review. Those excluded at this stage had less relevance to the urban context and FSIs (e.g., articles about food sharing inside a family). This led to the further exclusion of 12 sources. This pool of literature was extended with the help of the snowballing technique, meaning that the reference lists of the initial articles were checked. After completing all the steps, the final list of articles comprised 52 items. To ensure a more comprehensive coverage of the literature, the Web of Science Core Collection database was additionally searched using the same 14 keyword combinations (Fig. 2) and timeframe (publications up to September 2023) as applied in Scopus. This search yielded 603 initial records. After filtering for publication type ("article") and language (English), the results were reduced to 427 items. These 427 records were compared to the 338 unique records from Scopus, resulting in 89 additional unique records. The 89 records were then screened based on titles and abstracts for relevance to FSIs in urban contexts, following the same eligibility criteria (Table 1). This led to the inclusion of 3 additional articles in the review, complementing the 52 items obtained from Scopus and snowballing, for a final total of 55 articles. 2.3. Data analysis The full texts of the 55 articles were analysed and categorised into three levels of codes using NVivo 12 qualitative analysis software. The first-level codes, deducted from the research aim outlined in the Introduction, were the categories of “challenges,” “risks,” and “costs.” For each of these first-level codes, one researcher inductively developed third-level codes using examples and quotes from the reviewed literature, documenting them in a data sheet. Intercoder reliability was then 2 Prof. Anna Davies supported scoping of the literature search for this article. In her academic work, she contributed significantly to establishing and developing the urban food sharing field by leading two large European projects SHARECITY (GA#646883; https://sharecity.ie/) and CULTIVATE (GA#101083377; https://cultivate-project.eu/, and having published extensively on the topic (c.f., Davies et al. (2017a, 2017b). V. Sadovska et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 3 tested during a workshop among the three co-authors who 1) discussed and revised the third-level codes, and 2) inductively grouped the thirdlevel codes into second-level categories. The reviewed articles exhibit a diverse geographical distribution. The United Kingdom emerges as the most frequently studied context, appearing in 13 articles. Germany follows with six articles, emphasizing case studies in cities like Berlin and southern regions. Five articles adopt a global perspective, analysing food sharing across multiple continents or large-scale datasets involving hundreds of cities. Ireland and the Netherlands each feature in five articles. Similarly, five articles address broader European contexts or comparative analyses. India, Italy, Japan, and the United States are each covered in 3 articles, incorporating Fig. 1. PRISMA flowchart of the systematic literature review process. Fig. 2. The search keyword. Table 1 Eligibility criteria. Category Inclusion criteria Topics Articles containing information on challenges, risks, and costs of FSIs Articles with a major focus on food sharing organisations, programmes, and initiatives as units of analysis Urban context Study design Empirical studies (qualitative and quantitative) Publication status Peer-reviewed journal articles published until September 2023 Language Articles published in English V. Sadovska et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 4 themes like behavioural interventions in India and urban solidarity economies in the US. The rest of the articles feature Australia, Canada, Austria, Bangladesh, China, Eswatini, New Zealand, Poland, and Spain. Four articles do not specify a particular geographical location, focusing instead on general conceptual frameworks or experimental models. The categorisations of challenges, risks, and costs were combined into three frameworks and visualised as sunburst diagrams with inner circles of each diagram presenting the second-level codes and the outer circles presenting the third-level codes (see Figs. 3–5). Following the analysis of each second-level code, presented in section 3, a comparative analysis was conducted to inductively identify nine common themes across the second-level codes for challenges, risks, and costs. These themes include laws and regulations, resources, operations, management, safety and health, justice and inclusivity, rebound effects, trust and image, and network management processes. Based on these common themes, mitigation strategies to address the risks and challenges of FSIs were proposed (section 4.1). A similar approach was used to identify investment needs for the costs of FSIs (section 4.2). 3. Results and analysis The literature shows a variety of organisational forms, sizes and business models of FSIs, used to adapt to different goals and conditions. Volunteer-based surplus food redistribution initiatives, digitally enabled food sharing platforms, gifting of food or skills to reduce food waste, community kitchens and gardens are just a few examples of the types of FSIs. Market transactions do not dominate the food sharing landscape, with many transactions being of a gifting nature. There exist for-profit organisations that offer food-sharing opportunities for money thorough mobile applications. However, the success of these applications is challenging due to the need for high levels of participation and positive user experience. The motivational aspect of FSIs is their willingness to address environmental and social issues of food security, waste reduction and community building. The following sub-sections present an analysis of 55 academic articles to identify the challenges, risks, and costs of establishing and maintaining FSIs. The results for the second and third level categories of challenges, risks and costs are presented in sections 3.1-3.3 and summarised in Figs. 3–5respectively. 3.1. Challenges The challenges FSIs face during their establishment and maintenance can be organised into six categories: organisational management, resources, user participation, network management, image, and regulations (Fig. 3). 3.1.1. Organisational management In the early stages of establishing FSIs, a significant drop-off in participation among those involved in FSIs is typical. This requires the adaptation of FSIs’ operational scale to their participants’ limited capacity and time (Berns et al., 2023). While the lack of strict instructions seeks to encourage participation, in reality it makes it more difficult for those interested to become involved (Edwards et al., 2023). The lack of precise routines and guidelines leaves potential contributors unsure how to navigate the community and contribute effectively. Regarding internal governance, it is challenging for FSIs to maintain a non-hierarchical model and fair power distribution, which reflect the dynamic nature of participation in a community-based organisation (Morrow, 2019a). Berns et al. (2023) report that the informal development of hierarchical leadership in an FSI led to stress among its participants because none of them actively chose leadership roles. Further, undefined roles and a lack of clear labour division among FSI participants create barriers to their participation. Addressing internal governance challenges requires effective communication and flexible decision-making that can accommodate the complexities of fluctuating participation in FSIs. 3.1.2. Resources To ensure their operations, FSIs rely on financial and non-financial resources. As such, the lack of financial viability is recognised "as a common barrier for most food sharing services" (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023, p. 15) when even FSIs with for-profit sharing models struggle to become profitable. In most cases, FSIs depend on external funding from philanthropy, private and public sectors (Loh and Agyeman, 2019). Non-financial resources essential for establishing and maintaining FSIs include access to capital assets, surplus food, knowledge, skills and human capacity, all of which can be challenging. Due to the restricted budgets of FSIs, their access to capital assets like equipment, new technologies, or innovative software is limited, which is why FSIs "often adopt existing technologies and social media to organise their work" (Berns et al., 2023, 986). FSIs depend on food donors and retailers to ensure food supply. FSIs need to secure efficient and timely food provision to their users, for example, by creating and managing a larger pool of suppliers (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023). For food donors, often retail chains, participation in food sharing implies disclosure of the surplus food they produce, which "could be seen as a sign of inefficiency and compromise their reputation" (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023, p. 15). On the distribution side, FSIs are challenged by the limited human capacity due to the lack of personnel (Berns et al., 2023) and quick staff turnover (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023). Grassroots FSIs often face hurdles in recruiting volunteers to perform tasks for the organization, drawing lessons from similar initiatives to configure participation and decision-making processes (Berns et al., 2023). Furthermore, there is a general lack of knowledge and skills about food waste reduction (Davison et al., 2022) and surplus food redistribution, both of which are recognised as "[t]he most significant obstacles" (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023, 15). In garden contexts, gardeners express interest in organized surplus distribution but encounter lack of knowledge in aligning charitable goals with practical implementation, particularly for disadvantaged groups (Sch¨ afer et al., 2023). 3.1.3. User participation Regarding user participation, FSIs are challenged by the need to ensure active, continuous and inclusive user involvement. The lack of active user participation is reported as a significant challenge in the literature (Hennchen and Pregernig, 2020). It is influenced by factors specific to different types of food sharing. For urban gardening, there are physical constraints, such as small residential plots and limited space for cultivation. There are also institutional barriers, for example, the illegality of urban gardening in some areas (Tevera and Simelane, 2014). For digital food sharing platforms there is a mismatch between the number of subscribers and active users, with a small share of committed users remaining regularly active (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023). The lack of inclusive user participation can arise when, for instance, digital sharing platforms cater mainly to those who are digitally literate (Davies et al., 2017a), while participation in urban gardening is open to people with a significant amount of free time to maintain growing activities (Hennchen and Pregernig, 2020). 3.1.4. Image FSIs face challenges in establishing and maintaining a reliable image such as nurturing public acceptance and trust, appealing to varied cultural preferences and facilitating behavioural change. There may be prejudice against the consumption of surplus food and a lack of public awareness about food waste, further hampering redistribution efforts. Food sharing practices such as urban gardening and meal sharing face significant challenges regarding public acceptance and trust. Scepticism often undermines urban gardening initiatives, with outsiders questioning the motives behind these community efforts V. Sadovska et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 5 (Hennchen and Pregernig, 2020). Similarly, meal sharing has had strong adverse reactions due to perceived health and safety risks (Zurek, 2016). Lack of trust is a reported challenge among the users of digital food sharing platforms (Berns et al., 2023). These concerns are linked to cultural preferences in food consumption (Makov et al., 2023). For example, in some societies, cultural norms may lead to reluctance to consume food beyond its expiration date. Another aspect of food sharing image is translating awareness into behaviour change. Studies have shown that even when people have a positive attitude towards food sharing, it does not necessarily translate into them using food sharing services. While "Foodsavers" believe that providing individuals with the correct information will lead to behaviour change and waste reduction, this assumption may be overly optimistic (Schanes and Stagl, 2019). It overstates the power of awareness and information, overrates individual agency, and overlooks the structural and systemic factors contributing to food waste. Therefore, while awareness is a crucial first step, it does not guarantee behavioural change, underscoring the complexity of achieving sustainable change. 3.1.5. Network management FSIs operate in a complex landscape where their existence, operation and financial viability depend on agency and power distribution within the network of actors from policy, industry, community and civil society. As such, authorities at different levels define regulatory and policy regimes in which FSIs operate while public, private and philanthropy actors provide financial and non-financial resources to FSIs as discussed above (Loh and Agyeman, 2019). In addition to dependence on some influential actors, FSIs engaged in cooking, eating and redistributing surplus food rely on food donors, who can withdraw their supply of products due to changing circumstances (Berns et al., 2023). Inter-organisational conflicts and contestations are common in relationships where power is unequally distributed, as different stakeholders may have different views on how FSIs should operate. Conflicts may arise over the allocation of resources, which is particularly challenging for FSIs with scarce resources and high competition for the same resources (Braun et al., 2018). Negotiating fairness in surplus distribution models presents ongoing challenges, as seen in Swedish grassroots initiatives, where volunteers must balance equitable access with practical logistics (Berns et al., 2023) Competition with other food producers is an essential challenge for FSIs. Studies show that in some cases both sides have negative opinions about each other. From the conventional business side, the practice of food sharing "raises strong negative reactions, not the least among the restaurateurs and chefs, who see it as a threat to their businesses, unfair cheap competition and a potential source of bad press" (Zurek, 2016, p. 680). From the food sharing side, the scale of many FSIs does not allow them to produce the cheapest product, creating a situation where, for example, "they are competing with less expensive conventionally produced sauce supplied by large distributors and struggling to develop a viable business model for this farm-to-institution product" (Loh and Agyeman, 2019, p. 213). 3.1.6. Regulations Navigating the regulatory landscape to operate effectively and safely is a concern for all FSIs. Although the social practice of food sharing is not new, FSIs find themselves in a space where there is no legal definition of food, meaning that "drawing the line between ’food’ and ’nonfood’ is a key challenge both for the actors involved in urban food sharing initiatives and for social scientists " (Davies and Evans, 2019, p. 157). This challenge is exacerbated by conservative and restrictive regulations that create barriers to community-based sharing. For example, consumer protection regulations view urban refrigerators as a source of risk, with no one held accountable for the consequences (Morrow, Fig. 3. Categories of challenges for food sharing initiatives. V. Sadovska et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 6 2019a). Legal frameworks pose significant obstacles to economical distribution of garden products, limiting gardeners’ ability to formalize sharing beyond personal use (Sch¨ afer et al., 2023). Similar regulatory constraints in Japan hinder the scaling of business incentives for food sharing, requiring adaptations to comply with food safety and distribution laws (Igeta and Nakamura, 2022) Digital food sharing platforms, where the distinction between seller and buyer is blurred, suffer from regulations designed for traditional businesses (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023). Specifically for urban gardening, land rights that enable "gaining long-term affordable access to land" (Loh and Agyeman, 2019, p. 218) constitute a critical regulatory challenge. 3.2. Risks The risks faced by FSIs during their start-up phase and operations have been organised into six categories: health and safety, justice and inclusivity, rebound effects, operational risks, trust, and regulatory uncertainty (Fig. 4). 3.2.1. Health and safety Food sharing can present significant health and safety risks. From the public health perspective, sharing unmarketable products or leftovers is considered the most high-risk form of food sharing. Public fridges, for example, have been criticised as being unhygienic and threatening individual and public health (Zurek, 2016). Food unfit for human consumption can be a cause of foodborne diseases. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has expressed concerns about its ability to respond effectively to food safety crises in public fridges (Morrow, 2019a). The informality of food sharing often means that it occurs outside of the complex regulatory systems governing food safety, from production and processing to handling and transport. This lack of oversight can result in food reaching consumers without the necessary health and safety checks, posing a risk to consumer wellbeing. Moreover, certain food ingredients can be a source of allergic reactions, which can be dangerous to consumers suffering from allergies or intolerances (Zurek, 2016). 3.2.2. Justice and inclusivity There are several risks associated with justice and inclusivity of food sharing. The way FSIs organise their work can sometimes lead to social exclusion. For instance, local food produce from urban gardens may Fig. 4. Categories of risks for food sharing initiatives. V. Sadovska et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 7 only be accessible to relatively wealthy and mobile customers (Braun et al., 2018), while digital sharing platforms require access to technology and social networks "that those most in need of food assistance" may not have (Makov et al., 2020, p. 5). As essential as they are, food banks face criticism for prioritising selfsustenance and own expansion instead of improving food system efficiency (Booth and Whelan, 2014). While food donations reduce costs for the industry for discharging, transportation and administration of the food surplus (e.g., tax reductions for donations, avoiding high fees for dumping food waste in landfill sites), this leads to the proliferation and corporatisation of food banks as they serve to support food industry, but not addressing food insecurity or equity of people in need (ibid.). This is a sign of social policy failure leading to unmet food obligations. Moreover, despite their diversity, existing food sharing practices may perpetuate inequalities between donors and recipients. In the design of certain mobile food sharing applications, it is visible who is donating more or receiving more; thus, people may feel the same stigma reported by the users of food banks when using these applications (Harvey et al., 2020), potentially deterring participation in these activities. Research shows that applying data modeling to socio-economic factors within food sharing networks, such as OLIO, can uncover hidden patterns of deprivation. Ignoring these insights may lead to undetected poverty and limit the effectiveness of food sharing initiatives (Nica-Avram et al., 2021). 3.2.3. Rebound effects 3 While redistributing near-expiration products from supermarkets, food sharing platforms may inadvertently discourage waste reduction at the source and indirectly encourage retailer wasteful practices (Mackenzie and Davies, 2019). Additionally, although these platforms offer economic benefits for businesses, they could limit opportunities for food banks and social services to aid the disadvantaged (Booth and Whelan, 2014). Using discarded food from commercial sources to address food poverty may, over time, entrench food poverty rather than resolve it, as it often stems from broader systemic problems (Mackenzie and Davies, 2019). In the digital context, sharing platforms can increase societal benefits by allowing food banks to operate on a larger scale. However, as some food sharing platforms incorporate market-based elements, this can limit the development of models that promote social welfare by encouraging the commodification of food (Michelini et al., 2018), meaning transformation of shared food into a marketable commodity, and by this, limiting the social function of food sharing. This dichotomy underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers economic viability and social impact in the design and operation of food sharing platforms. 3.2.4. Operational risks The primary operational risks in food sharing relate to food handling, storing, and distributing. Fresh food products have minimal risks associated with processing and preparing food. However, storing and transporting could damage food and impact its suitability for consumption (Zurek, 2016). Even with efficient food waste prevention programmes in place, there may be challenges in delivering surplus food in time. This could lead to food waste, defeating the primary purpose of FSIs. Organisations like Open Table adopted procedures to mitigate some of these risks to provide healthy and nutritious meals using fresh, mainly vegan food to lower the risk of food contamination (Edwards, Fig. 5. Categories of costs for food sharing initiatives. 3 The rebound effect refers to the phenomenon where improvements in energy or resource efficiency lead to a less-than-expected reduction in overall consumption due to behavioral or economic responses. This effect manifests as increased demand, behavioral adjustments or economic growth. V. Sadovska et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 8 2021). 3.2.5. Trust Trust is of utmost importance in food sharing, but it can be easily eroded due to different factors. Uncertainties about food storage and safety significantly affect trust in food sharing (Morone et al., 2018). The shift from local, community-based sharing to online platforms introduces another change in trust dynamics. Local communities often have familiarity with food processing and hygiene, but this assurance diminishes when sharing extends to strangers online (Veen, 2019). The absence of this familiarity not only affects trust but also influences the willingness to accept risks. Users of online food sharing platforms face increased transaction uncertainty due to dealing with unbranded individual sellers, which casts doubt on product credibility. Additionally, since these platforms typically do not produce the food, they have limited control over quality and consistency, exacerbating the uncertainty (Luo et al., 2021). 3.2.6. Regulatory uncertainty Regulatory risks in food sharing mainly stem from the ambiguity in applying existing laws to sharing activities. The lack of specific regulations for sharing business models creates a risk of future legal challenges, as current regulatory grey areas might be used to bypass rules intended to protect the public interest. This uncertainty can deter investment in sharing businesses, especially those operating across borders, which could impede the development of the sharing economy (Zurek, 2016). Without a holistic urban food policy, food is governed as a commercial commodity (Davies et al., 2019). The literature shows that rules relating to food sharing may be retained, adapted by agencies mainly applying the precautionary principle, "which relies on a negative definition of ’unsafety"’, while the prevention of food hazards is given secondary role (Morrow, 2019a, p. 204). In Japan, strict legal frameworks pose a risk of non-compliance for food sharing, such as digital coupon systems, highlighting the need for supportive policies to ease regulatory barriers and support digital implementation (Igeta and Nakamura, 2022). This risk-based policy understanding exemplifies an evolving and uncertain regulatory landscape for food sharing. Eliminating a clear physical intermediary, e.g. point of sale, in food sharing networks redistributes risks from the central provider to donors and recipients. This blurring of boundaries between personal and professional provision of commercial services can lead to increased risks for all parties involved (Harvey et al., 2020). Simultaneously, legislative and controlling bodies face the inability to enforce existing rules developed for traditional business models to new sharing modes of economic activity (Davies et al., 2019). This requires the development of new guidelines and regulations that can effectively govern food sharing activities. 3.3. Costs Costs that FSIs encounter can be divided into several categories, including operational costs, administrative costs, assets, personnel costs, communication and outreach costs, public relations and image, and legal compliance costs (Fig. 5). 3.3.1. Operational costs Operational costs of FSIs encompass expenses related to their maintenance. For FSIs engaged in cooking, eating and redistributing surplus food, there are always costs associated with food sourcing. FSIs must find a reliable source of food supplies in sufficient quantities, which entails personnel costs and time for networking. Sometimes, food banks directly purchase food from manufacturers and participate in the Collaborative Supply Programme (CSP) (Booth and Whelan, 2014). The CSP, an initiative of the food bank industry, aims to secure stable supplies of essential food items like milk, cereal, and pasta at a significantly reduced cost (Booth and Whelan, 2014). When there is a shortage of donated ingredients, food banks collaborate with government and corporate donors to meet production needs (Booth and Whelan, 2014). Transportation and logistics costs are also significant. FSIs organise food delivery, sorting and storage experiencing logistics costs and requiring time of volunteers and eventual staff. To offset transport and storage expenses, FSI’s organisational clients sometimes contribute a nominal handling fee per kilogramme of food (Booth and Whelan, 2014). 3.3.2. Administrative costs The utilities and space rental costs vary based on the lease type and location. Marovelli (2019) provides examples of FSIs operating in temporary spaces, such as within the King’s Cross redevelopment site under a ’meanwhile lease’ or in spaces owned by other organisations, e.g., charities. Some FSIs secure long-term rent agreements with city councils. Office supplies and subscriptions are a minor part of administrative costs. The most significant expenditure remains aiding members of the FSI community and related management and paperwork. 3.3.3. Asset costs FSIs rely heavily on Information and Communication Technology tools and social media for outreach and engagement. Machine learning analysis of sharing networks incurs data processing costs but enables better quantification of deprivation-related expenses in FSIs (Nica-Avram et al., 2021). Technology and software are, therefore, pivotal for connecting with users, policymakers, and organisations, as well as for raising awareness, communicating with the public, and celebrating achievements (Morrow, 2019b). Premise maintenance is another crucial expense for FSIs. Edwards (2021) notes the importance of having premises with food safety certifications. This is especially critical for eating and cooking FSIs that prioritise serving healthy and nutritious meals, thereby challenging the perception of food sharing as "second class food for second class people" (Schneider, 2013, p. 761). Equipment costs are a significant concern, particularly for FSIs lacking a permanent space or having limited funds. Marovelli (2019) discusses the constraints faced by FSIs that operate in spaces like local churches or supper club venues. The inability to invest in professional kitchen equipment, especially for handling and storing sensitive items like meat or fish, is challenging. Furthermore, Hennchen and Pregernig (2020) highlight the financial requirements for maintaining the existing infrastructure, garden aesthetics and procuring necessary landscaping tools. These expenses are integral to the functioning of FSIs, particularly those involved in community gardening and similar projects. In addition, asset depreciation is a continual expense for FSIs owning equipment, from trucks and forklifts to computers. 3.3.4. Personnel costs Volunteer time constitutes a significant component of unpaid personnel costs. Berns et al. (2023) observe that voluntary efforts in FSIs frequently occur under conditions of scarce resources, including human capital. Configuring capacities in grassroots initiatives, such as selecting digital tools for food sharing, entails costs related to volunteer time and adaptation from previously learned experiences (Berns et al., 2023). Hennchen and Pregernig (2020) add that while FSIs are inclusive and encourage active participation, they also require a significant time commitment and long-term involvement from their members. Paid and unpaid community organisers are critical in creating online and offline community infrastructure and running operations smoothly. Such contributions go beyond what is typically showcased on digital platforms, signifying a substantial investment in human resources (Morrow, 2019b). Morrow (2019a) highlights that some FSIs manage to allocate funds to pay salaries to the most skilled staff. Staff training is a crucial personnel cost. The earlier discussed inability of cooking and eating FSIs with restricted budgets to invest in V. Sadovska et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 9 Schneider, F., 2013. The evolution of food donation with respect to waste prevention. Waste Management, Special Thematic Issue: Urban Mining 33, 755–763. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.10.025. Sarti, S., Corsini, F., Gusmerotti, N.A.T.A.L.I.A., Frey, M., 2017. Food sharing: Making sense between new business models and responsible social initiatives for food waste prevention. Econ. Policy Energy Environ. 1-2, 123–134. Sch¨ afer, L., Kleemann, J., Spyra, M., 2023. Allotment garden products as contribution to sustainable and resilient cities: an analysis in leipzig, Germany. Sustainability 15, 5598. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065598. Serraj, R., Pingali, P., 2018. Agriculture & food systems to 2050: global trends, challenges and opportunities. Series in Grand Public Policy Challenges of the 21st Century, 2. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 680p. Sharp, D., 2018. Sharing cities for urban transformation: narrative, policy and practice. Urban Pol. Res. 36, 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2017.1421533. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375. Tsuji, L.J.S., Tsuji, S.R.J., Zuk, A.M., Davey, R., Liberda, E.N., 2020. Harvest programs in first nations of subarctic Canada: the benefits Go beyond addressing food security and environmental sustainability issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 17, 8113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218113. UNCED, 1992. Agenda 21. Presented at the the Earth Summit: the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. UNICEF, 2023. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2023 [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/the-state-of-food-se curity-and-nutrition-in-the-world-2023, 10.27.25. United Nations, 2019. World Urbanization Prospects. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. van Waes, A., Farla, J., Frenken, K., de Jong, J.P.J., Raven, R., 2018. Business model innovation and socio-technical transitions. A new prospective framework with an application to bike sharing. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 1300–1312. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.223. Veen, E.J., 2019. Fostering community values through meal sharing with strangers. Sustainability 11, 2121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072121. Verganti, R., 2008. Design, meanings, and radical innovation: a metamodel and a research agenda. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 25 (5), 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-5885.2008.00313.x. Voytenko Palgan, Y., Mont, O., Sulkakoski, S., 2021. Governing the sharing economy: towards a comprehensive analytical framework of municipal governance. Cities 108, 102994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102994. Voytenko Palgan, Y., Sadovska, V., 2023. Research protocol for mobile research labs on food sharing. Tracing costs, investments, challenges, drivers, and success factors to establish and maintain food sharing initiatives. Zenodo 1–15. https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.12820006. Voytenko Palgan, Y., Zvolska, L., Mont, O., 2017. Sustainability framings of accommodation sharing. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Sustainability Perspectives on the Sharing Economy 23, 70–83. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eist.2016.12.002. Weymes, M., Davies, A.R., 2019. [Re]Valuing surplus: transitions, technologies and tensions in redistributing prepared food in San Francisco. Geoforum 99, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.11.005. Williams, R.I., Clark, L.A., Clark, W.R., Raffo, D.M., 2021. Re-examining systematic literature review in management research: additional benefits and execution protocols. Eur. Manag. J. 39, 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.007. Wi´ sniewska, M., Czernyszewicz, E., 2022. Survey of young consumer’s attitudes using food sharing attitudes and behaviors model. Br. Food J. 125, 242–261. https://doi. org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2021-1025. Yamabe-Ledoux, A.M., Saito, O., Hori, K., 2023. Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ICT-mediated food sharing in Japan. Sustainability 15, 4584. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su15054584. Zapata Campos, M.J., Zapata, P., Holmberg, U., Chies, B., 2026. Alternate infrastructures of care: restoring people’s abilities to care in a city of thresholds. Cities 169, 106531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106531. Zhang, Y., van Herpen, E., Van Loo, E.J., 2025. Sharing to prevent waste: the effectiveness of an intervention encouraging food sharing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 222, 108461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108461. Zou, T., Dawodu, A., Mangi, E., Cheshmehzangi, A., 2023. Exploring current trends, gaps & challenges in sustainable food systems studies: the need of developing urban food systems frameworks for sustainable cities. Sustainability 15 (13), 10248. https://doi. org/10.3390/su151310248. Zurek, K., 2016. Food sharing in Europe: between regulating risks and the risks of regulating. European Journal of Risk Regulation 7, 675–687. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1867299X00010114. V. Sadovska et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 538 (2026) 147292 16