sustainability

Article
Leftover Consumption as a Means of Food Waste Reduction in
Public Space? Qualitative Insights from Online Discussions
Larissa Diekmann * and Claas Christian Germelmann

Department of Marketing & Services, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany;

[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-921-55-6138

Abstract: A considerable amount of food is discarded in canteens every day. This waste has created
a countermovement, where groups of mainly students purposefully choose to eat other consumers’
plate leftovers instead of buying fresh meals. This phenomenon highlights two opposing narratives:
leftovers as food waste versus leftovers as edible food resources. Using a thematic analysis, we
investigated 1579 comments from German news sites and their corresponding Facebook sites related
to this countermovement. Thereby, we aim to better understand what consumers associate with the
consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers. Our study demonstrates that the consumption of
plate leftovers is shaped by the regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive system. Furthermore,
associations with the consumption of plate leftovers depend on whether this food decision is per-
ceived as a collective or individual consumer decision. From a consumer movement perspective,
food leftover consumption is associated with a sense of community and food waste reduction for





 idealistic or environmental and social reasons. From an individual consumer behavior perspective,
food leftover consumption is associated with satisfying hunger but considered a threat to health and
Citation: Diekmann, L.;
Germelmann, C.C. Leftover social order. Our findings can inspire food service organizations to develop targeted interventions
Consumption as a Means of Food for plate leftover reduction.
Waste Reduction in Public Space?
Qualitative Insights from Online Keywords: food waste; plate leftovers; food sharing; food service; motivation; qualitative study
Discussions. Sustainability 2021, 13,
13564. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su132413564
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Steffen Jahn and 1.1. Relevance of Food Wastage Reduction in Food Service Organizations
Pia Furchheim
Worldwide, approximately 1.3 billion tons of edible food are thrown away every year,
corresponding to roughly one-third of all the food produced for human consumption [1].
Received: 31 October 2021
Accepted: 1 December 2021
A recent study of the United Nations Environment Programme [2] suggests an even higher
Published: 8 December 2021
amount of food wastage grounded in an underestimation of the consumption level (i.e.,
households and food service). According to the study, every year, around 931 million tons
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
of food are disposed of by retailing, food service, and households alone.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
In the EU-28, households, processing, and food service are the three main drivers
published maps and institutional affil- of food wastage along the food supply chain [3]. Looking at the disposal of all food
iations. resources (i.e., edible and inedible or avoidable and unavoidable food wastage), the largest
amount of food wastage occurs in households, followed by processing and the food service
industry [3–5]. For Germany, Schmidt et al. [6] estimate that around 6.14 million tons
(52%) of food are wasted in households, 2.17 million tons (18%) are lost in processing, and
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
1.69 million tons (14%) are lost or wasted in the food service industry. However, if, in
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
contrast, only the disposal of edible food resources or avoidable food wastage is considered,
This article is an open access article
the order of the main drivers of food wastages changes. While households remain the
distributed under the terms and main contributor to avoidable food waste, the second-largest contributor to avoidable food
conditions of the Creative Commons waste is then the food service industry, including canteens and restaurants [4]. This pattern
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// is also evident in other studies [5,6] and illustrates that both households and the food
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ service industry represent an important stage with a high potential for reducing avoidable
4.0/). food waste.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413564 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 2 of 30

Beretta et al. [4] extend this perspective by integrating the sector’s relevance on
total food consumption. They show that while the share of avoidable food waste for the
food service industry based on an input-output calculation is 13.5%, the share of total
avoidable food wastage is 5%. This calculation is based on estimates that only 15% of food
is consumed in the Swiss food service sector, whereas 85% is consumed in the household.
For Germany, the food service industry is likely to have a similar relevance. According to a
representative survey, 16% of consumers say they eat out in a canteen at least once a week,
whereas 64% state that they never eat in a canteen [7]. The relevance of food consumption
for food wastage is also reflected in a study from China. Here, the household accounts
only for about 4% of the total food wastage compared to out-of-home consumption, with a
share of about 13% [8]. The authors attribute the high amount of food waste in out-of-home
consumption and the relatively small amount in households compared to other countries
to the relevance of out-of-home consumption in China and consumption traditions (e.g.,
overordering as a sign of hospitality).
In the food service industry, the kitchen (e.g., storage and preparation), serving, and
consumption stages can be differentiated [9]. In the production and serving of meals,
overproduction due to difficulties or errors in forecasting demand [10,11] and portion
size [11,12] are perceived as the main drivers for avoidable food wastage. Plate waste in out-
of-home settings can occur for many reasons, related to both situational and personal factors.
Situational factors result from the underlying system structures, including the quality of
the food and the portion size [12–14]. Furthermore, additionally served side dishes and
the ambiance (e.g., noise level, person density, lighting conditions) can also influence the
amount of plate leftovers [15]. Personal factors that influence the amount of plate leftovers
include consumers’ intentions to avoid leaving food on the plate and, relatedly, their
attitude toward plate leftovers, subjective norms, and the perceived behavioral control
over the occurrence of plate leftovers [14]. Additionally, perceived time pressure while
eating can contribute to the amount of plate leftovers [15,16].
While some studies show that plate leftovers in the consumption stage account for a
smaller proportion of the food wasted [11,17,18], other studies show that plate leftovers
account for most of the food wasted in out-of-home settings such as canteens [9,15,16].
These varying results may occur because of different assessment methods or infrastructural
differences in the organizations investigated [9]. However, all these studies agree that
plate leftovers are an issue. Since plate leftovers are mainly avoidable [12], they represent
a great potential for reducing food waste in canteens. In addition, prevailing hygiene
standards can make it difficult to further reduce food loss in preparation and storage; in
contrast, reducing avoidable plate leftovers is achievable [16]. Furthermore, as the final
stages in the food supply chain, food that is disposed of in households or in the food
service industry and here, especially, plate leftovers already involve many other resources
from the production process that are also wasted [4]. This means that these stages are also
particularly relevant from an economic point of view, which is, for example, reflected in
the higher cost of food wastage in the food service industry compared to earlier stages of
the food supply chain (e.g., food service: EUR 3148 and processing: EUR 1490, per ton of
edible food wastage [3]).
Unquestionably, food wastage is undesirable, from not only an economical viewpoint
but also social and ecological angles. While large amounts of food are lost and wasted,
worldwide around 690 million people suffer from hunger [19]. Furthermore, all resources
invested in the production of lost and wasted food items are disposed of as well. For
example, when a food item rots on the field, far fewer resources are invested than when
the same food item has gone through all stages of the food supply chain but is ultimately
disposed of by the consumer [4]. This means that by reducing food wastage, especially
at the consumption level, production factors that can harm the environment (e.g., the use
of pesticides, fertilizers) can be reduced, and resources such as water can be spared [20].
Avoiding food wastage could also save nearly 30% of the world’s agricultural land area,
thereby preventing the destruction of further biotopes and preserving biodiversity [21].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 3 of 30

In addition, food wastage is estimated to account for the equivalent of 3.3 Gtonnes of
CO2 , a significant contribution to global warming [21]. Furthermore, from an economical
perspective food wastage costs society around USD 2.6 trillion worldwide every year; with
USD 700 billion of societal costs for the environmental impact of food wastage, USD 1
trillion economic costs, and USD 900 billion for the social impact of food wastage in terms
of individual well-being [22]. Due to the far-reaching consequences of food wastage for
sustainable development, the United Nations has established reducing food wastage by
2030 as one of its Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 12.3) [23].

1.2. Conceptual Understanding of Food Wastage in Food Service Organizations

So far, however, there is no common ground in the understanding, definition, and clas-
sification of food wastage [24–29], which complicates the comparability of results [24,28,30].
The differences in definition and classification refer, for example, to process-based delin-
eations according to the point of food disposal in the food supply chain [26], or delineations
according to the edibility perception [30] and avoidance potential of food wastage [31].
While some authors refer to the disposal of food along the entire food supply chain
as food waste [26,30–32], other authors differentiate between food loss and food waste
depending on the point of food disposal in the food supply chain [1,29,33]. Although every
food resource that leaves the food supply chain can be understood as lost and, thus, wasted,
which would obviate the need for a distinction based on the point of disposal [26], we
assume that such a distinction can provide a clearer conceptualization of food disposal.
Therefore, we refer to food loss for discarded food in the early stages of the food supply
chain (i.e., agricultural production, post-harvest and storage, and processing or preparation)
and food waste for discarded food in later stages of the food supply chain (i.e., retailing
or food service and consumption) [29]. Furthermore, we use the term food wastage
proposed by the FAO [21] as a summarizing conceptualization for food loss and food
waste. For food service organizations, a further conceptual differentiation of food wastage
can be made according to the stages kitchen (e.g., storage and preparation), serving, and
consumption [9,11,34]. Kitchen loss refers to all disposed food that occurs in the kitchen of
food service organizations [18]. This includes, for example, food that is discarded due to
improper or excessive storage, food disposal during preparation (e.g., peeling residues), or
food that has been prepared but not served and disposed of (i.e., kitchen leftovers) [12,16].
While kitchen leftovers did not leave the kitchen and were not served, serving waste refers
to all the food that was served to customers but did not reach their plates [9]. This includes,
for example, all leftover food from buffets or serving bowls [12,16]. The distinction between
kitchen leftovers and serving leftovers is particularly relevant from a regulatory perspective.
Food safety and hygiene regulations in some countries (e.g., Germany) stipulate that food
that has been served once or come into contact with guests cannot be further used and must,
therefore, be disposed of [35]. The same applies to plate waste, which refers to all waste
from consumers’ plates [12,16]. Besides food scraps, this also includes inedible parts such
as bones or napkins [9]. To distinguish between food and non-food parts (e.g., napkins) of
plate waste, we use Silvennoinen et al.’s [18] (p. 141) denomination “plate leftovers” for
all leftover food from plates. We also refer to leftovers as food that is surplus but does not
automatically equal waste.
The transition from food surplus (i.e., food that is still “fit for human consumption”)
to food wastage (i.e. food that is “unfit for human consumption”) is closely linked to
the perception of edibility [36] (p. 113). Surplus food is food that no longer serves its
original purpose, but is generally still fit for human consumption [37]. It thus includes,
for example, kitchen leftovers, serving leftovers, and plate leftovers. Furthermore, Kantor
et al. [38] differentiate, here, between recoverable and not recoverable food surplus for
human consumption. This understanding is reflected in the reuse option for human
consumption in the food waste hierarchy of Papargyropoulou et al. [36]. If food surplus
cannot be prevented, the second step should be to reuse or redistribute it [36]. However, for
different reasons, not all surplus food items are suitable for reuse [38]. While, for example,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 4 of 30

in households plate leftovers can be used by consumers for the preparation of other
dishes [39,40], in many countries the reuse of plate leftovers by food service organizations
is not allowed due to health and hygiene requirements [38]. However, consumers can
take their plate leftovers home for later consumption [35,38]. This actor-related divergent
understanding of when plate leftovers are considered food waste vividly shows that there
is no common understanding of edibility. Moreover, perceptions of edibility often vary
from country to country and even between individual consumers [41], and depend, for
example, on cultural, normative, or personal preferences [36].
A similar pattern can be observed in perceptions of the avoidance potential of food
wastage. The potential of food wastage avoidance refers to the perception of the feasibility
of food wastage prevention [36]. However, while the understanding of what is avoidable
food wastage (i.e., “food and drink thrown away that was, at some point prior to disposal,
edible (e.g., slice of bread, apples, meat),” [31] (p. 4)) is widely consistent, the classification
of food wastage as possible avoidable (i.e., “food and drink that some people eat and others
do not (e.g., bread crusts), or that can be eaten when a food is prepared in one way but
not in another (e.g., potato skins),” [31] (p. 4)) or unavoidable (i.e., “waste arising from
food or drink preparation that is not, and has not been, edible under normal circumstances
(e.g., meat bones, egg shells, pineapple skin, tea bags),” [31] (p. 4) is less clear [27]. The
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 5 of 32
discussed definitions and terms are summarized in Figure 1.

Food Wastage
“Food wastage refers to any food lost by deterioration or waste. Thus, the term
“wastage” encompasses both food loss and food waste.” a
Food Loss Food Waste
“Decrease in edible food mass “Food which was originally
throughout the part of the supply produced for human consumption
chain that specifically leads to but then was discarded or was not
edible food for human consumed by humans. Includes
consumption”b
Point of Food Disposal

food that spoiled prior to disposal

and food that was still edible
when thrown away”b

Retailing Consumption

Agricultural Post-harvest Processing/ Householdc

production & Storage Preparation Food Service Organizationd

Serving Consumption

Kitchen Loss Serving Waste Plate Waste

All food lost “Food served “All waste from the
during storage or that did not plates of guests”
preparationd,e,f reach the plates including plate
of guests”d leftovers and
non-food partsd,g
Perception of Edibility & Potential of Avoidance

Food Surplus Ediblei Avoidable “Food and drink thrown away that was, at
„Fit for human Food some point prior to disposal, edible [...].”j
consumption“h Wastage ▪ plate leftovers: all edible food surplus that
are left over for example due to overserving

Possibly “Food and drink that some people eat and

Avoidable others do not [...], or that can be eaten when a
Food food is prepared in one way but not in another
Wastage [...].”j
▪ plate leftovers: all edible food surplus that
are left over for example due to cultural,
normative or personal preferences

Inediblei Unavoidable
“Waste arising from food or drink preparation
Food Wastage Food that is not, and has not been, edible under
„Unfit for Wastage normal circumstances [...].”j
human ▪ plate leftovers: all inedible food parts that
consumption“h are left over; e.g., bones

Figure 1. Overview of food wastage definitions and related terms.

Figure 1. Overview of food wastage definitions and related terms. (Sources: a FAO [21] (p. 9);
(Sources: a FAO [21] (p. 9); b Thyberg and Tonjes [29] (p. 112); c Porpino et al. [33] (p. 620); d Malefors
betThyberg
al. [9] (p. 4);and Tonjes [29] (p. 112); c Porpino
e Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama
etal.al.
[16]; f Betz et [33]
[12]; (p. 620); dal.Malefors
g Silvennoinen et [18]; h et al. [9] (p. 4); e Engström
Papargyropoulou et al. [36] (p. 113); i Andrews et al. [37]; j Quested and Johnson [31] (p. 4))
and Carlsson-Kanyama [16]; f Betz et al. [12]; g Silvennoinen et al. [18]; h Papargyropoulou et al. [36]
(p. 113); i Andrews 1.3. Consumer [37]; j Quested
et al.Movements and
Stressing the Johnson
Reuse [31] (p. 4).)
of Food Surplus.
A group of students at the University of Freiburg (Germany), who call themselves
“Bänderer”, have deliberately challenged the understanding of plate leftovers as waste:
instead of buying fresh dishes prepared by the canteen, they eat food that previous can-
teen visitors have left on their plates and placed on the canteen’s tray return belt [42]. This
activity is aptly called “Bändern”, from the German word for the belt on which the used
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 5 of 30

1.3. Consumer Movements Stressing the Reuse of Food Surplus

A group of students at the University of Freiburg (Germany), who call themselves
“Bänderer”, have deliberately challenged the understanding of plate leftovers as waste:
instead of buying fresh dishes prepared by the canteen, they eat food that previous canteen
visitors have left on their plates and placed on the canteen’s tray return belt [42]. This
activity is aptly called “Bändern”, from the German word for the belt on which the used
trays are returned to the canteen’s kitchen. The “Bänderer”-phenomenon has recently
received media attention in Germany, although our analysis shows that it is not a new
phenomenon and can be observed at other universities as well.
Similar consumer movements that address reducing food wastage are dumpster diving
and “Foodsharing,” a German movement that has its origin in dumpster diving [43]. All
three consumer movements aim to reuse food that otherwise would be wasted. However,
the redistribution or rescue of food takes place at different points in time in the three
movements. While in the case of Foodsharing and Bändern, the redistribution of food
takes place before it is disposed of in a waste container, in the case of dumpster diving, the
redistribution of food takes place after it has been disposed of in a waste container. For this
purpose, Foodsharing offers a platform for the exchange of food between food retailers
and consumers as well as between consumers; its purpose is separated from charity and
the commercial distribution of food [44]. Foodsharing aims to connect actors that want to
work together against food wastage [44]. Whereas dumpster diving involves taking food
out of retailers’ waste bins without their permission, Foodsharing members collaborate
with food retailers and receive food that is no longer saleable free of charge [43]. In
contrast to dumpster diving, which legally constitutes theft in Germany, and Foodsharing,
which is carried out following legal requirements, Bändern constitutes a regulatory grey
area. Crucial here is the understanding of when the property rights of the food are
transferred and between whom. According to current EU food law, when placing food
on the market, protecting human life and health is highly prioritized [45]. Therefore,
“food shall not be placed on the market if it is unsafe” (Article 14.1 [45]). Since food
safety cannot be guaranteed by the food service organization for plate leftovers, it is,
therefore, not possible for the food service organization to pass on such food, for example,
to charitable organizations [35]; instead, the food service organization must dispose of
this food professionally because the food is the legal property of the organization, and the
organization is, therefore, responsible for guaranteeing food safety.
However, the food service organization’s legal responsibility is less clear for the
consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers in their facilities. While food service
organizations usually tolerate direct sharing between consumers, it is unclear whether this
should apply to plate leftovers taken from the canteen’s tray return belt. If one assumes
that depositing one’s tray on the tray return belt is equivalent to transferring property
rights from the consumer to the canteen, then the food service organization would be
legally responsible for the plate leftovers. The canteen at the University of Freiburg has
made this assumption and officially prohibited Bändern for hygienic and legal reasons [42].
However, the canteen recommended direct sharing between consumers [42].
Foodsharing members are motivated by the active reduction of food wastage, raising
awareness of the overall problem of food wastage, and sensitizing consumers that food
items intended for disposal are often still edible and of value [46]. Furthermore, the
personal and financial benefits from access to free food are also a motivator to participate
in Foodsharing [47]. Similar motives drive dumpster diving. Besides economic motivators
such as access to free food, dumpster divers often also have ideological motivators such as
reducing food waste and psychological motivators such as experiencing satisfaction and
the stimulation brought on by committing an illegal act [48]. In contrast to Foodsharing
members, dumpster divers consciously accept a violation of legal regulations that oppose
the prevailing market and social system [43]. Bändern has a common aim with Foodsharing
and dumpster diving: to reduce food waste. Like Foodsharing members, Bänderer also
want to raise awareness about the problem of food waste and sensitize consumers for the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 6 of 30

edibility and value of plate leftovers intended for disposal [42]. Nevertheless, depending
on the approach taken (direct transfer of plate leftovers between consumers vs. removal
of plate leftovers from the canteen’s tray return belt), the Bänderer act in a legal grey area.
In contrast to Foodsharing, Bänderer do not actively cooperate with the responsible food
service organizations. Rather, the behavior here is similar to dumpster diving in that it
opposes the food service system. Fundamentally, Bändern is different from Foodsharing
Sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 2021, 13, x
2021, 13, x Sustainability 7 of 32 7 of 32
and dumpster diving in the type of food saved: dumpster diving and7 ofFoodsharing 32
usually
involve food that is still packaged or mainly untouched by consumers. Bänderer, in contrast,
eat plate in thatleftovers
it opposes that
in that itthe
opposes
infood have
that itthe
opposes
service had
food direct
service
the
system. food contact
system.
service
Fundamentally, with
Fundamentally,
system. another
Bändern
Fundamentally,
Bändern is consumer
isBändern
different different
from who
isfrom
Food- Food-
different left
fromthem
Food- as
wastesharingshortly sharing
and before.and
dumpster dumpster
sharing
The
diving and
main diving
in dumpster inofthe type
diving
the characteristics
type food ofthe
in food
saved: of saved:
type
the
dumpster dumpster
of food saved:
three
diving diving
dumpster
different
and and Foodsharing
diving
consumer
Foodsharing and Foodsharing
movements
usuallyfood
usually involve involve
thatfood
usually isinvolvethat is stillthat
food packaged
or is oruntouched
mainly or
still packaged untouched
mainly by consumers.
untouched Bänderer, Bänderer,
by consumers.
are summarized in Table
in contrast,ineat
1.stilleat
contrast,
packaged
plate leftovers platethat
mainly
have that
leftovers had direct
by consumers.
contact
have had with
direct
Bänderer,
another
contact withconsumer who
another consumer who
in contrast, eat plate leftovers that have had direct contact with another consumer who
left them left them shortly
as waste as waste
left themshortly before.
as waste
before. The mainThe
shortly main characteristics
before. The main
characteristics of the threeofdifferent
of thecharacteristics
three different the threeconsumer
consumer different consumer
movements
Dumpster
Table 1.movements areDiving,
movements
are summarized
Foodsharing,
summarized
in are in Table 1.inand
summarized
Table 1.
Bändern.
Table 1.

Characteristics Dumpster Diving

Table Table 1. Dumpster
1. Dumpster Table 1.
Diving, Diving,
Dumpster
Foodsharing,Foodsharing
Foodsharing,
Diving, and Bändern
Foodsharing,
and Bändern and Bändern Bändern
Characteristics
Characteristics Characteristics
Dumpster Dumpster Diving “Foodsharing
Diving Dumpster DivingFoodsharing Foodsharing Foodsharing
[ . . . ] is a community Bändern Bändern Bändern
“Dumpster diving involves “Foodsharing[…] is athat
“Foodsharing[…] commu- is a commu-Bänderer purposefully choose
platform
“Foodsharing[…] in is
Germany
a commu- enables
entering
“Dumpster
a diving
commercial
“Dumpster divingor
“Dumpster
involves involves
en- diving en- nity platform
involves
nityconsumers,
platform nityin
en-Germany
in Germany
platform
that in that
Germany that to eat other consumers’ plate
farmers, organizations
BändererBänderer purposefully
Bänderer
purposefully choose choose
choosepurposefully
Description residential dumpster [ . resi-
tering. . a]commercial
tering a commercial toor enables
resi-and orenables
resi- consumers,
enables farmers,
tering a commercial or consumers,
retailers to offerconsumers,
farmers, and farmers, leftovers instead of buying
collect to eat
to eat other othertoconsumers’
consumers’ eatplate plate
other consumers’ plate
Descriptionretrieve rubbish.” [48]
dential dumpster […]organizations
to organizations
Description Description
dential dumpster dential
[…] to dumpster […]
food to and
to and retailers
articlesorganizations
save retailers
to them andtoretailers to
from leftovers
leftovers instead ofinstead fresh
leftovers
buying meals.
of instead
buying of buying
(p. 1779)
retrieve retrieve rubbish.”
rubbish.” retrieveoffer andoffer
rubbish.” collectand collect
offer
food food
and
articles articles
collect food articles
being wasted” [49] (p. 912) fresh meals. fresh meals. fresh meals.
[48] (p. 1779)
[48] (p. 1779) [48] (p. to
1779)
save themto save
from them fromthem
to save
being beingfrom being
Food Waste wasted”
wasted” [49] [49]
(p. 912) (p. 912)
wasted” [49] (p. 912)
Food Waste
Reuse Reuse Reuse
Hierarchy Option
Food Waste Food Waste
Reuse Reuse Reuse Reuse Reuse Reuse Reuse Reuse Reuse
Hierarchy
Hierarchy Option Option
Hierarchy Option
Consumption Consumption Private Private Public
Consumption Consumption Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public
Context Context Context Context(Household)
(Household)(Household) (Household) (Household) (Household)
(Household) (Household)(Food Service) (Food
(Food Service)
(Food Service) Service)

Time of Time of Time of Time of

Food “Rescue” Food “Rescue”
Food “Rescue” Food “Rescue”

Type of Type of
Type of Type of Surplus Food
Surplus Food Surplus Food
Surplus FoodSurplus Food Plate Leftovers
Surplus FoodPlate Leftovers Plate Leftovers
“Rescued”
“Rescued” Food Surplus
Food “Rescued” FoodFood Surplus Food Plate Leftovers
“Rescued” Food Compliance with
Compliance with Compliance with
ContemptContempt of Legal of Legal
of Legal Contempt FollowingFollowing Legal
Legal Following Legal Legal Legal Legal
ComplianceGerman German Legal
with Legal German Legal
Contempt
Requirements ofRequirements
Requirements
Requirements
Requirements
Legal RequirementsRequirements
Following Requirements
Legal Grey AreaGrey
Grey Area Area
Legal
Requirements
German Legal
Requirements Requirements Grey Area
Requirements
Studies investigating
Studies investigating Studies
the potential the potential
investigating of food of food reduction
thewastage
potential wastage
of foodreduction
wastage food
through through
reductionsharingfood sharing
through food sharing
show varying show results
varying
show results
varying
[50,51]; the[50,51];
results
underlyingthe[50,51];
underlying ofsubject
the underlying
subject the studiesof subject
themight
studies might
of explain
the studies explain
these might these
explain these
discrepancies.
discrepancies. A consumer A consumer
discrepancies. movement movement
A consumer such as Foodsharing
movement
such as Foodsharing such involves consciously
as Foodsharing
involves consciously involves
choosing choosing choosing
consciously
Studies investigating
to share food to reduce
thefood potential
wastage.
of food consumers
wastage reduction through food sharing
to share food to reduce to sharefood food
wastage. to reduceHowever,foodHowever,
wastage.
consumers However,
may have may
consumers
other have otherhave
may
motives, motives,
such othersuch
motives, such
showasvarying as results
the food as the[50,51];
item’s sensory
food item’sthe underlying
appeal
sensory and health
appeal
the food item’s sensory appeal and health aspects [52], which might be more relevant subject
aspects
and health [52],of the
which
aspects studies
might
[52], which be might
more
might explain
relevant
be more these
relevant
discrepancies.
for the food A consumer
for choice.
the food Inchoice.
for athe food
similar movement
In achoice.
similar
vein, Invein,
Morone such
Morone
a similar
et as et
vein,
al. [50] Foodsharing
al. [50]
Morone
show thatshow
etthe involves
that
al.motivation
[50] the motivation
show that consciously
to share choosing
the motivation
to share to share
foodfood food istorelated
is related such to
foodinfluencingsuch influencing
is related tofactors as factors
such influencing as factors
environmentallyenvironmentally
as friendly behavior,
environmentally
friendly behavior, friendly
aware- aware-
behavior, aware-
to share to reduce food wastage. However, consumers may have other motives, such
ness of environmental
ness of environmental ness and of environmental
economic and economic benefits,
and economic
benefits, and collaborativeand collaborative
benefits, behavior.
and collaborative
behavior. Lazell [51] Lazell [51]Lazell [51]
behavior.
as thebuilds
foodonitem’s
builds
the idea
sensory
onofthe
builds
sharing
appeal
ideaonoffood sharing
the idea of
to reduce
and
food to
sharing health
reduce
food food
waste
aspects
food
to and waste
reduce [52],
andwaste
food
investigates
which
investigates
theand
might be
the intervention
investigates
intervention
more relevant
the intervention
for the
of afood
socialofchoice.
a social
media In
of
tool atoasocial
media similar
toolmedia
enable to vein,
enable
food tool toMorone
food
sharing insharing
enable food etinsharing
a university al. [50]
a university inshow
environment. that
environment.
a university the
Evenenvironment.
though motivation
Even though to share
Even though
food the sharing
is related thetool
sharing
to was
such the tool
generallywas generally
sharing
influencing tool
viewed was viewed
generally
positively,
factors positively,
as viewed
it it failed
failed positively,
to
environmentally have the toithave
failed
desired the
friendly desired
toeffect effect
havebehavior,
the
for for awareness
desired effect for
several such
several reasons, reasons,
several such
as uncertainty as uncertainty
reasons, such
about asthe about
safetythe
uncertainty of safety
about
food itemsof food
the anditems
safety and items
of food
mistrust mistrust
due toanda due to a due to a
mistrust
of environmental lack ties
lack of social
and
of sociallackties
between
economic
between
of social
the tiesthe
donator
benefits,
donator
between
and thethe andand the collaborative
donator
recipient. recipient.
and the
Miller et Miller
recipient.
al.
behavior.
[53]etsimilarly
al. [53] similarly
Miller et
show
Lazell
al. [53]show
[51] builds
similarly show
on thethatidea of
foodthat sharing
foodissharing
sharing that food
food
associated to
is sharing
associated
with reduce withfood
aispersonal a personal
associated waste
with
relationship. and
arelationship.
personal
Another investigates
AnotherLazell
relationship.
barrier barrier the
Another[51] intervention
Lazell [51]Lazell [51]
barrier of a
socialfound
media wasfound
tool
the was the
tofound
culturallyenableculturally
was the food
determined determined
culturally
sharing
normative normative
determined understanding
normative
in a university
understanding of food of food wastage:
understanding
environment.
wastage: of foodEven
consum- consum-
wastage: consum-the
though
ing food thating food that
ing is
is theoretically foodtheoretically
that
still is still
butedible
theoretically
edible but edible
still
has already hasbeen already been
butdeclared
has declared
already
as food beenas food is
declared wastage
as foodiswastage is
sharing tool was generally viewed positively, itand
failed to have thewastage
desired effect for several
perceivedperceived
as socially asunacceptable
sociallyas
perceived unacceptable
socially and shameful
unacceptable
and shameful to consume. to consume.
shameful
Therefore, Therefore,
to consume.
the author thecon-authorthe
Therefore, con-author con-
reasons, such as
cludes uncertainty
that recovery
cludes that of about
food
recovery the
already
of foodsafety
considered
already
cludes that recovery of food already considered food wastage is not a socially accepted of food
food
considered items
wastage food and
is not
wastage mistrust
a socially
is not due
accepted
a sociallyto a lack of
accepted
socialprocedure.
ties between the donator and the recipient. Miller et al. [53] similarly show that
procedure.procedure.
food sharing We assumeis We assume
that
associated theWe that the discrepancy
assume
discrepancy
with athat
in in willingness
the discrepancy
willingness
personal to share
relationship. toeat
or share
in willingness food orto
iseat
Another evenfood
share oriseat
more even
barrier pro- more
food pro- more pro-
is even
Lazell [51] found
nounced nounced
when thewhen nounced
shared thefood
shared
when the
is the food is the
shared
plate plateisleftovers
food
leftovers plateof
theanother
of anotherof
leftovers
consumer. consumer.
another
Two perspec- Two perspec-
consumer. Two perspec-
was the culturally
tives on plate determined
tives leftovers
on platetivesleftovers
on plate
thus emerge: normative
thus emerge:
leftovers
plate thus understanding
plate
emerge:
leftovers leftovers
as wasteplateas waste
leftovers
versus of food
versus
as waste
plate wastage:
plate
leftovers leftovers consuming
as anplateas
versus an
leftovers as food
an
that is theoretically still edible but has already been declared as food wastage is perceived
as socially unacceptable and shameful to consume. Therefore, the author concludes that
recovery of food already considered food wastage is not a socially accepted procedure.
We assume that the discrepancy in willingness to share or eat food is even more pro-
nounced when the shared food is the plate leftovers of another consumer. Two perspectives
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 7 of 30

on plate leftovers thus emerge: plate leftovers as waste versus plate leftovers as an edible
option. With our study, we aim to understand this discrepancy better. To do so, we address
the following research question: what do consumers associate with the consumption of
other consumers’ plate leftovers in public space?
Using an explorative quantitative study approach, we investigated 1579 comments
from German news sites and their corresponding Facebook sites discussing the Bänderer
phenomenon of consuming other consumers’ plate leftovers. By capturing the different
consumer perspectives, we aim to create a comprehensive understanding of the consump-
tion of other consumers’ plate leftovers. In doing so, the goal of this paper is explicitly
not to introduce the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers as an intervention
to reduce food waste in canteens. Instead, the goal is to use this intervention that has
emerged from a consumer movement to learn more about consumers’ understanding of,
and relationship with, plate leftovers.
While a few studies investigate the consumption of leftovers within the family context
e.g., [39,54,55], our paper is, to the best of our knowledge, one of the first that investigates
the Bänderer phenomenon. Other studies that analyze sharing surplus food in an out-of-
home setting did this either in the context of a consumer movement, e.g., [43], or considered
it an individual consumer behavior, e.g., [51]. Thus, our data offer the opportunity of an
integrated approach that enables us to investigate the sharing of plate leftovers within a
consumer movement and as an individual consumption behavior. Moreover, this allows
us to address interactions between these two perspectives.
Gaining a better understanding of the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers
in public space can be relevant for several reasons. On the one hand, although the health
risk of consuming plate leftovers from a healthy consumer can be perceived as relatively
low for a healthy consumer in principle, the coronavirus pandemic has shown how quickly
contagion can reach global dimensions. In this context, it must also be emphasized that
infectiousness can already exist during the incubation period, i.e., without the consumer
noticing any signs of illness (e.g., for SARS-CoV-2; [56]). As a side note, our data collection
took place before the COVID-19 outbreak, and thus food-related regimes to contain the
pandemic were not included in the data.
On the other hand, considering the substantial amount of resources necessary to
produce and prepare meals, avoiding the disposal of meals at any point of consumption has
particular social, ecological, and economic relevance. Moreover, it is the last possible point
where these food resources can still be preserved for human consumption. Furthermore,
a better understanding of plate leftovers can help food service organizations to develop
well-founded actions against food waste at the consumption stage.

2. Materials and Methods

Since little is known about the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers, we
used an exploratory qualitative research design to address our research question. Further-
more, to understand in depth the subjective meanings of other consumers’ plate leftover
consumption in the context of out-of-home consumption, we followed the interpretivist
research paradigm in our analysis and interpretation [57].

2.1. Data Source

The phenomenon of Bändern has attracted media attention in Germany; therefore, we
used comments from online news media sites and their corresponding Facebook sites as a
data source for our analysis. We adopt a passive analysis approach, observing discussions
without interacting with the participants [58]. This analysis approach allows direct and
undisguised insights into the participants’ perspectives [59]. Furthermore, online com-
ments are ideal for drawing a broad and multifaceted picture of the research topic because
the participants’ perspectives are varied [59].
We collected online comments in a stepwise process. In the first step, we systemati-
cally searched the news aggregator website Google News for articles about the Bänderer
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 8 of 30

phenomenon. Next, we used the search function on the news media sites on which these
articles appeared. Finally, using a snowball principle, we searched for articles that were
made reference to within the articles from the previous steps. We excluded articles that had
no comment function on the news media sites or had no comment(s) on the news media
sites or Facebook sites. Twenty-seven articles from fourteen news media formed the basis
for our analysis: three articles were exclusively published on the news media sites, eighteen
articles were exclusively published on the Facebook sites, and six articles were published
on both the news media sites and Facebook sites. Of the six articles, one was published
twice on the corresponding Facebook site within a period of one month. Furthermore, the
same article was used as a reference from another news media on its Facebook site. In total,
this results in 35 different data sets (9 news media site data sets, 26 Facebook site data sets).
The news articles were published between March 2016 and December 2019, with 23 articles
appearing in 2016, 2 articles in 2017, 1 article in 2018, and 1 article in 2019. Most of the
articles are about the Bänderer phenomenon at the University of Freiburg, although some
address the phenomenon at other universities in Germany, such as Leuphana University
Lüneburg. The phenomenon was reported in the online offerings of local (e.g., Badische
Zeitung) and national (e.g., Süddeutsche Zeitung) news media.
Both media channels showed a high amount of comments that were mostly on topic.
After removing 13 off-topic comments (8 comments on different pizza toppings, 3 comments
on technical aspects of the news platform, and 2 comments on the columnist), our final
data set consists of 1579 comments with the first comment posted on 11 March 2016 and
the last comment posted on 23 December 2019. Of the 1579 comments, 471 comments were
posted on the news media sites and 1108 comments were posted on the Facebook sites.
The Facebook comments can be further differentiated into comments consisting of text
with or without emojis and/or tags to other Facebook users (907 comments), emojis only
(22 comments), tags only (134 comments), or emojiis and tags but no text (45 comments).

2.2. Participants
Due to our study design, it is difficult to provide information on the commentators’
sociodemographic characteristics, especially without violating ethical guidelines for han-
dling online comments. However, to better understand the interaction structure of the
discussions, we analyzed the share of comments for individual commentators on the
overall discussion. While a few commentators were heavily involved in the discussions
for both channels, most of the commentators only posted one or a few comments (see
Appendix A). Although a similar picture emerges for the news media site and Facebook
site interactions, it may be slightly distorted for the news media site interactions; this might
be due to the option on some news media sites to enter a new nickname for each new
post. However, this, in turn, can increase perceived anonymity of the comments, which,
as Chen and Berger [60] show, can reduce discomfort with a controversial topic and, thus,
increase interaction. The moderating effect of anonymity could also have been decisive
for our comments. While the total number of comments was higher on the Facebook sites
compared to the news media sites, the average number of comments per data set was
higher for the news media sites (MNewsMedia = 52.33 comments) compared to Facebook sites
(MFacebook = 42.62 comments). This is in line with the study of Hille and Bakker [61], show-
ing a higher number of comments on news media sites compared to their corresponding
Facebook sites. Moreover, the comment’s word count was also higher on news media sites
(MNewsMedia = 66.39 words) compared to Facebook sites (MFacebook = 20.27 words).

2.3. Ethical Considerations

Our data collection, analysis, interpretation, and reporting are guided primarily by the
ethical guidelines for internet-mediated research published by The British Psychological
Society [62]. These guidelines require an understanding of online communication as private
or public to make well-founded decisions about the treatment of online data. We consider
the data public because all comments are publicly available on the news media sites
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 9 of 30

and Facebook sites, and no additional registration was necessary to read the comments.
Furthermore, the news media sites are not topic specific but are mass media accessed by a
broad public. Therefore, they have an extensive community that can read and comment on
the articles publicly.
For anonymization of the comments, we first copied the comments manually from the
news media sites and Facebook sites into Word documents. Next, we deleted profile links
to remove the direct link between the comments and the commentator profiles. Finally, for
the reporting, we replaced all profile names and nicknames with numbers. We opted not to
use randomized names because they can lead to gender discrimination, considering we
have no information about the demographic data of the commentators. Furthermore, the
translation of the quotes used in the paper represents an additional step of anonymization.
Since we used a retrospective observational analysis approach, we remained anony-
mous during the data collection because no direct interaction between the researcher and
the commentators occurred. The data, therefore, represented the commentators’ unfiltered
opinions. However, with an interpretivist research approach, the researcher themself is part
of the data interpretation [57]. For example, one author could hardly fathom eating plate
leftovers of any sort, while the other was more positive about consuming other consumers’
plate leftovers. These diverse views allowed for an open-minded interpretation of the data.
Discussions made it possible to understand each other’s opinions and thereby enrich the
interpretation of the data.

2.4. Analytical Process

We analyzed the comments using the thematic analysis proposed by Braun and
Clarke [63]. The thematic analysis is an analytical framework that enables the systematic
identification, analysis, and reporting of patterns [63]. We have chosen the thematic analysis
because we are interested in the meanings and the different facets consumers associate with
the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers. Our goal here is not to present the
relative importance of each construct (e.g., through frequency analysis) but rather to display
the diversity of different perspectives and create an overall picture of the associations with
the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers by integrating the context. In our
analysis, we followed the six phases of the thematic analysis, going back and forth between
the phases until we reached an overall fit between our data set and our coding system (see
Appendix B).
In the first step of familiarizing with the data [63], the first author and a trained
research assistant read the articles and comments independently, making initial notes. In
the second step of searching for initial themes [63], we developed codes using an inductive
approach. Codes represent the smallest unit of meaning; they are closest to the original
commentary and reflect the individual facets of meaning [64]. The inductive approach
enabled us to remain open-minded about understanding the phenomenon in a broader
context. The inductive approach is a data-driven approach, in which codes are generated
from the data, which allows for openness to the research subject and, thereby, does not
exclude facets of the phenomenon under study by predefined codes [63]. After the first
author re-reads all articles and cross-checks them with their notes from the first step,
the first author develop the first draft of a code system. This first draft was given to
the trained research assistant, who compared it with their notes from the first step. In
a follow-up discussion, all codes were discussed, and adjustments and additions were
made. In the fourth step of reviewing themes [63], we independently coded the comments
based on the revised central code system. We evaluated and coded comments manually
to search for patterns, conflicting views, and exceptional cases. The investigation was
technically supported by MAXQDA 2020 (Release 20.4.1 VERBI GmbH, Berlin, Germany),
a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software that assists with coding, aggregation,
visualization, and analysis of qualitative data [65]. We used MAXQDA mainly to assign
comments manually to single or multiple codes within the codebook. Building on this
analysis, we discussed the coding and the overall fit of the code system again. Finally,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 10 of 30

to develop the overarching story of the themes and a solid understanding of the sub-
themes [63], we aligned our final coding with existing theories. Themes are overarching
abstract patterns that summarize codes and have salient meaning for the research question;
not in a quantifiable way, but rather in terms of content [63].
For the direct associations with the consumption of other consumers’ leftovers, a
content fit of our main- and sub-codes with Maslow’s needs categorization [66,67] was
found. In its original form, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ranks five universal needs:
physiological, safety, love and belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization [66,67]. The
extended version of this hierarchy adds self-transcendence as the highest level [68]. The
goal of attaining these needs motivates people to act [69]. According to Maslow [69],
the first four needs represent deficiency needs necessary to experience satisfaction. Self-
actualization needs and self-transcendence needs represent growth needs [68,69]. These
needs are not motivated by compensating for a deficit in need satisfaction but rather
by the need for development and personal growth [69]. Even though the theory has
often been criticized for lack of empirical evidence and conceptualization as a causal
hierarchical process of satisfying needs [70,71], this needs classification provides a suitable
theoretical framework for our purpose. The criticism of a rigid hierarchy is negligible in
our study since the focus is primarily on the classification of the needs. Moreover, Tay
and Diener [72] show that the attainment of physiological and safety needs are usually
aimed at first. Nevertheless, the attainment of other needs can be attained simultaneously,
which suggests a partial hierarchy of needs. Furthermore, they found that the social
circumstances of the country strongly influence the attainment of physiological and safety
needs. In contrast, attainment of the other needs is mainly individually dependent. In
the following subsections, we use Maslow’s needs categorizations as a framework to
investigate the associations with the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers.
In addition to the factors directly associated with the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers, a variety of contextual factors was mentioned that can shape the consump-
tion of plate leftovers. For the main- and sub-themes addressing the context in which the
consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers takes place, the three pillars of Scott’s [73]
institutional theory proved helpful in explaining the content relationships in more depth.
Hence, “institutions comprise regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements that,
together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social
life” [73] (p. 56). In other words, institutions can enable or limit behavior. Scott [73] distin-
guishes several carriers within these pillars or systems, one of which is the “artifact,” or an
object with precise specifications depending on its system affiliation. In the regulative sys-
tem, these are “objects complying with mandated specifications”; in the normative system,
these are “objects meeting conventions, standards”; and in the cultural-cognitive system,
these are “objects possessing symbolic value” [73] (p. 96). Considering other consumers’
plate leftovers as objects with different specifications depending on the corresponding
system allows for an exemplary system-specific analysis of these plate leftovers.
We, therefore, deductively embedded our findings within the theoretical framework
of Maslow’s extended Hierarchy of Needs [66–69] and Scott’s [73] institutional theory.
In order to summarize our findings, in the sixth step of producing the report [63] we
developed a structured and overall picture of the themes by generating thematic maps (i.e.,
“an overall conceptualization of the data patterns, and relationships between them” [63]
(p. 89)) and integrated them into an overall model of the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers.
We analyzed the comments in German, as this is the original language of the comments
and the authors’ native language. A translator, who grew up bilingual and whose native
languages are German and English, translated the comments for this paper.

3. Results and Discussion

Overall, our data show that attitudes toward the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers are diverse. Some participants have an overall positive attitude, although
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 11 of 30

most of them emphasized that eating other consumers’ plate leftovers is not conceivable
for them: “I wouldn’t imitate it, but if it makes people handle their food more consciously and only
take or order what they eat, then that’s a good thing” (960). Others have a relatively neutral
attitude and view food leftover consumption more from an analytical perspective, which is
reflected in the discussion of trade-offs between advantages and disadvantages: “difficult
. . . on the one hand a great idea, but the health concerns must be taken into account . . . ” (269).
Whereas, still others have a negative attitude toward the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers, and some of them even despise this consumption in principle: “unbelievable:
this is how far the Germans’ world-saving madness against any kind of waste has come. I had
a hard time suppressing nausea while reading the article” (810). As a result, almost every
aspect of the discussion about factors associated with the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers is debated contradictorily. We have highlighted conflicting views in the
following discussion at those points where, in our view, they help to understand conflicting
associations better. Otherwise, we refer to associated factors of the consumption of other
consumers’ plate leftovers without explaining every counterposition in detail.
Furthermore, we found that consumers’ associations with the consumption of other
consumers’ plate leftovers are depended on whether the behavior is perceived in the
context of individual consumption or collective consumption. “It is also a difference whether
things are done by (possibly many) individuals, and inconspicuously, subliminally, which is
usually not a problem, or collectively, and deliberately conspicuously, because still connected with
a political message” (760). In this regard, we also differentiate between understanding
leftover consumption as individual consumer behavior or collective behavior within the
consumer movement. By individual consumption or the individual consumer perspective,
we understand such food decisions that consumers make in the perception that they
are acting on their own, without others showing the behavior, or without the consumer
thinking about whether others are showing the behavior. Whereas in the case of collective
consumption or the collective consumer perspective, we assume food decisions that are
made either in a consumer movement or with the perception that there are many other
consumers engaged in the same behavior.
Figure 2 illustrates the main themes and sub-themes associated with the consumption
of other consumers’ plate leftovers embedded in a regulative, normative, and cultural-
cognitive system. Thereby, it represents the main themes (represented by the oval boxes)
and sub-themes (represented by the square boxes) we developed in our qualitative analysis,
highlighting the connection with the needs categorization of Maslow [69], extended by
the understanding of Koltko-Rivera [68] and Tay and Diener [72] as well as Scott’s [73]
institutional theory (represented by the pillars). The main themes and sub-themes, as well
as interventions, will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.

3.1. Attaining Physiological Needs through Satisfying Hunger

Maslow [69] posited that physiological needs, such as hunger, thirst, and procreation,
ensure the survival of human beings. As a basic need for survival, physiological needs,
thus, concern maintaining one’s bodily functions. This might explain why the consumption
of other consumers’ plate leftovers in satisfying hunger was discussed primarily from an
individual consumer perspective.
Webb [74], who transfers Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to food selection, assumes
that in situations of greatest hunger, consumers break taboos regarding food selection
to satisfy basic physiological needs. Consuming other consumers’ plate leftovers can be
seen as such a breach of taboo in the cultural and normative understanding of how to
deal with plate leftovers. “That’s what my cat does, but it’s unworthy of a cultured human
being and just plain disgusting and unhygienic to boot–unless there’s a famine going on among the
students right now. However, nothing of this is known to me” (810). This comment illustrates
that the attitude towards the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers is closely
linked to the life situation of the consumer that eats the plate leftovers. Some respondents
describe the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers without a valid reason as
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 12 of 30

inappropriate; however, the experience of a precarious life situation can legitimize it. As
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 13 she
717 noted, “Everyone is free to eat leftovers if they want, maybe even must, because he or of 32
is
short of cash”.

Consumption of Other Consumers’ Plate Leftovers

Context
Plate Leftovers in an Affluent Society

Regulative Normative Cultural-Cognitive

System System System

Consumer
Mainly Societally Influenced Mainly Individually Influenced

Self- Self-
Physiological Safety Belongingness Esteem
Actualization Transcendence
Needs Needs Needs Needs
Needs Needs

Hunger Health Social Sense of Attention Self-Respect Pursuit of Save the

Prevention Risk Disorder Community Seeking Thread Idealism World

Interventions to Encourage or Discourage the

Consumption of Other Consumers’ Plate Leftovers

Caption: – Main Themes

– Sub-Themes

Figure
Figure 2. Main and
2. Main and sub-themes
sub-themes associated
associated with
with the
the consumption
consumption of
of other
other consumers’
consumers’ plate
plate leftovers,
leftovers, taking
takinginto
intoaccount
account
the
the contextual
contextual background.
background.

Furthermore,
3.1. Attaining satisfying
Physiological the physiological
Needs through Satisfying needHunger
of hunger competes for cash with other
needs to secure the basis of existence (e.g., housing). Thus, the free access to food through
Maslow [69] posited that physiological needs, such as hunger, thirst, and procreation,
the consumption of plate leftovers can ensure the attainment of other basic needs. The
ensure the survival of human beings. As a basic need for survival, physiological needs,
legitimization is not limited to a current emergency situation (e.g., not enough money
thus,
to buy concern maintaining
food), but to a certainone’s bodily
degree, functions.
also includesThis pastmight explain
traumatic why the consump-
experiences (e.g., war,
tion
postwar shortages). The definition of an emergency situation and, thus, theprimarily
of other consumers’ plate leftovers in satisfying hunger was discussed from
legitimization
an individual consumer perspective.
of consuming other consumers’ plate leftovers can also depend on the perception of the
Webb [74],
consumer’s who transfers Maslow’s
sociodemographic status and Hierarchy of Needs
the country’s to food
social selection,
structure. assumes
Accordingly,
that in situations
932 noted, “in our of society
greatestthere
hunger, consumers
is absolutely break taboos
no reason regarding
to eat leftovers foodcan
if you selection to
afford it”.
satisfy basic physiological needs. Consuming other consumers’ plate
Furthermore, “in Germany, no one has to be poor. There you get enough from the state if you leftovers can be seen
as
aresuch a breach
penniless” of taboo
(891). in thesome
Further, cultural and normative
commentators understanding
point of how to deal
out that a consumer who witheats
plate
other consumers’ plate leftovers without being in an emergency situation poses aand
leftovers. “That’s what my cat does, but it’s unworthy of a cultured human being just
threat
plain disgusting and unhygienic to boot–unless there’s a famine going
to the satisfaction of the physiological needs of those who do suffer from hunger. Theon among the students right
now. However, nothing
legitimization of this is known
of the consumption to me”consumers’
of other (810). Thisplate
comment illustrates
leftovers only forthat the atti-
consumers
tude towards
suffering fromthe consumption
hunger follows aofpro-sociality
other consumers’logic ofplate leftovers
sharing food. is closely
The linked tologic
pro-sociality the
life situation of the consumer that eats the plate leftovers. Some respondents
implies that leftover food should be given to poor people that in the eyes of the consumer describe the
consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers without a valid reason
really need the food [75]. Moreover, it highlights the underlying symbolic value of plate as inappropriate;
however, the experience
leftovers embedded of acommentators’
in the precarious life cultural-cognitive
situation can legitimize system:it. As 717leftovers
plate noted, “Eve-are
ryone is free to
considered aneat leftovers
edible foodifsource,
they want,
butmaybe
only in even
foodmust, because
shortage he or she is short of cash.”
situations.
Furthermore, satisfying the physiological need of hunger competes for cash with
other needs to secure the basis of existence (e.g., housing). Thus, the free access to food
through the consumption of plate leftovers can ensure the attainment of other basic needs.
The legitimization is not limited to a current emergency situation (e.g., not enough money
to buy food), but to a certain degree, also includes past traumatic experiences (e.g., war,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 13 of 30

3.2. Attaining Safety Needs through the Protection of Individual Health and Social Order
Safety needs that motivate behavior include “security; stability; dependency; pro-
tection; freedom from fear, from anxiety and chaos; need for structure, order, law, limits;
strength in the protector; and so on” [69] (p. 39). We identified two overarching safety
themes associated with the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers: the perceived
health impact of the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers and the perceived
impact of the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers on social order.
Here, the perceived health impact associated with the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers was the most discussed topic in the comments. The reason for focusing on
this topic might be grounded in an understanding of food safety standards in developed
countries such as Germany. Physiological and safety needs are considered as strongly
societally influenced, whereas the other needs are mainly individually influenced [72]. In
developed countries such as Germany, food availability, food security, and public health are
at a high level [19,76]. Even if the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers occurs
collectively, for most consumers, it does not threaten their fulfillment of hunger needs
because the consumption of plate leftovers would not compete with the consumption of
fresh food. While the supply of fresh food would not be affected by the consumption of
plate leftovers, the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers may be perceived as a
threat to society if it causes diseases to spread more rapidly. The fulfillment of safety needs
is not only deeply rooted in the regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive system of
Germany but may also be taken for granted to a certain extent, as 859 stated: “food hygiene
has a high priority in Germany. For this, food is also thrown away, which is the price you have to
pay for hygiene”. Therefore, behavior that challenges those safety needs can be perceived as
a severe threat to the consumer.
Perceived health risk through the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers
was mainly associated with the perceived physical contamination of these leftovers through
the previous eater. Physical contamination is based on contact between a contamination
source and the recipient of the contaminated object, directly or indirectly via a medium [77].
Based on the discussion on the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers, two types
of physical contamination can be differentiated: natural contamination, in which germs
and bacteria are passed on through the food from the previous eater to the next eater, and
deliberate contamination, in which intentional contamination of the plate leftovers affects
the next eater.
Commentators connect deliberate contamination with the addition of substances such
as “ipecacuanha or phenolphthalein” (184) or objects such as “chewing gums” (125), “napkin[s]”
(180), “fine [.] metal shavings or the smallest [.] glass fragments” (184). There was no evidence
in our data that the commentators were contaminating plate leftovers themselves in this
way. They were merely discussing the idea that something like this could be done. A feeling
of psychological ownership might explain the inducement of deliberately contaminating
plate leftovers. Psychological ownership goes beyond legal ownership and emerges as an
affective component in articulating property claims [78]. We see these claims of ownership
when the commentators talk about “their” plate leftovers. Furthermore, psychological
ownership can go beyond the state of disposal; even after disposal, some commentators
want to decide who gets the plate leftovers or what happens to them. By modifying plate
leftovers, the previous eater can teach the one taking his or her plate leftovers a lesson
or directly prevent someone else from finishing his or her leftovers: “On my food scraps
I can dump a little ipecac or phenolphthalein, after all, it should be disposed of ” (184). While
changing the appearance of plate leftovers (e.g., through mixing or adding napkins) makes
contamination of the previous eater directly visible, the previous comment, however, shows
that deliberate contamination might not always be identifiable for a potential eater of these
plate leftovers. Whereas visible deliberate contamination can trigger a sense of disgust
in the potential eater and thus prevent consumption, invisible deliberate contamination
would represent a direct health risk since the substance or object would be consumed
without notice.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 14 of 30

In contrast to deliberate contamination, which commentators associated with a neg-

ative impact on health, natural contamination of plate leftovers is either associated with
a negative health impact (i.e., spread and transmission of diseases) or a positive health
impact (i.e., long-term strengthening of the immune system): “The repeatedly nibbled on food
by different people is the best way to catch any disease” (739), in contrast to “A little dirt keeps
you healthy. The human immune system needs viruses, bacteria and parasites. This protects against
allergies and cancer”. (3).
Argo et al. [79] show that a product another consumer has touched can prompt
negative reactions such as decreased purchase intentions. Furthermore, they show that
the emotion disgust can mediate this negative relation. Disgust describes the fear of being
soiled, which can intensify with physical proximity to a disgusting object (e.g., contact
with bodily secretions) [80]. In the case of the consumption of other consumers’ plate
leftovers, this could be the fear of being soiled by strangers’ saliva. The feeling of disgust in
connection with the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers was also mentioned
repeatedly in the comments with expressions such as “gross!”, “eeeew,” and “ugh!” (e.g., 157;
232; 134). Others noted physical consequences associated with the feeling of disgust, such
as instant “nausea’” (526). Some commentators react very emotionally to the consumption of
other consumers’ plate leftovers, while others cannot understand the intensity of perceived
disgust. This difference in perception can be explained by a consumer-specific disgust
sensitivity [81]. Individual disgust sensitivity can also influence the amount of food wasted;
consumers with higher food disgust sensitivity tend to waste more food than consumers
with lower food disgust sensitivity [82].
Here, commentators also point out that consumers cannot know for sure what hap-
pened between the time the canteen handed out the fresh food and the plate leftovers
were passed on. This period represents a black box that forces the consumer to make
assumptions about what might have happened in the time in between. These assumptions
can have a fundamental influence on how the impact on health is perceived.
For example, Morales et al. [83] assume that there has to be a contamination cue that
triggers perceptions of contact. In our case, the plate leftovers’ appearance might be such a
cue. It can trigger the awareness that another consumer has already started eating the meal.
Our data show that the willingness to eat other consumers’ plate leftovers is associated
with the appearance of these leftovers: “presumably the Bänderer will also select and not touch
disgusting looking leftovers from unappealing looking people” (554). This can be compared
to studies that have shown that liking of a meal increases when the meal is presented
attractively and neatly [84,85].
The previous eater might be another clue that can influence the perceived level of
contamination of plate leftovers. Argo et al. [86] show that the negative contamination
effect can be reversed by the touch of a highly attractive person of the opposite gender.
Some commentators refer to this aspect and state that the appearance of the previous
eater can influence the willingness to eat their plate leftovers. In this context, however,
commentators mainly argue that a certain appearance would hinder the consumption of
other consumers’ plate leftovers rather than encourage it. Therefore, the previous eater’s
appearance might be used as a heuristic to decide whether plate leftovers are acceptable
for consumption or not: “the visual appearance of some students alone would prevent me from
consuming food sneezed or nibbled on by them” (813).
While we did not find any evidence of a reversal effect of the previous eaters’ ap-
pearance in the comments, our data show that for some commentators, the willingness
to eat other consumers’ plate leftovers can increase with stronger relationship proximity.
These commentators pointed out that many people would share plate leftovers within their
family without hesitation, but few would share plate leftovers with unknown others. This
discussion provides insights into the understanding of perceived relationship proximity
as an influencing factor in plate leftovers’ acceptability for consumption. There seems to
be a continuum of relationship proximity for the acceptability of plate leftovers: while
some commentators refused to eat plate leftovers at all, some would only eat plate leftovers
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 15 of 30

from their closest companions, such as their partner or family. In contrast, others perceive
the consumption of plate leftovers from friends, acquaintances, or work colleagues as
acceptable. Only a few stated that they could imagine eating the plate leftovers of un-
known others. This is in line with Miller et al.’s [53] findings that sharing food is associated
with personal bonding and intimacy. Furthermore, Lazell [51] suspects that social bonds
guarantee trust in food safety. This assumption is also reflected in our data. The closer
a relationship, the more someone might feel capable of assessing the state of health of
this person, as this conversation indicates: “occasionally, I also taste from my wife’s plate in
restaurants (and vice versa). In your opinion, is this also a disregard for the simplest rules of
hygiene?” (947). “No. Because you (should) know the exact state of health of your wife. You will
not eat from one plate with her if she has a contagious disease right now” (862). In contrast, the
health assessment of an unknown previous eater is difficult or impossible.
In assessing the health risk of eating other consumers’ plate leftovers, some commen-
tators made analogies to other situations, noting that consuming other consumers’ plate
leftovers does not represent as great a health threat as, for example, public places, public
transport, public restrooms, or the exchange of physicality such as touching, kissing, or
sex: “if the ‘predecessor’ next to you in the cafeteria, in the lecture, on the bus . . . sneezes you will
also get the viruses. If you touch the door handle the person with the virus touched before, you will
get the viruses. If you kiss your boy/girlfriend . . . You can think what you want about Bändern, but
your panic about diseases is not rationally justified” (387), or “I think kissing and sex would be
more questionable. And a student would hardly let that stop him/herself either”. (887).
Other commentators compared the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers
with the consumption of food items from dumpster diving. These commentators noted that
food consumed by dumpster divers is typically packaged and, therefore, protected from
prior contact with another consumer. In contrast, plate leftovers have had direct contact
with another consumer, which makes it, from a health protection point of view, even more
problematic for them: “from a hygiene point of view I regard dumpster diving much more harmless
than to eat food that someone before me has already worked on, perhaps spit on, unintentionally or
intentionally, because he does not like the people by the conveyor belts” (69). This perception of an
increased health risk for plate leftover consumption compared to dumpster diving might
be attributed to the reduced physical proximity between the contamination source and the
contaminated object. Argo et al. [79] assume that physical proximity might be exceptionally
high for food items. Surplus food rescued through dumpster diving and plate leftovers
rescued through Bändern differ by the barrier represented by the presence or absence
of packaging. The absence of packaging can intensify the perceived physical proximity
between the previous eater as a source of contamination and their plate leftovers as an
object of contamination. It, thus, can lead to a decrease in the willingness to consume these
plate leftovers compared to, for example, dumpster diving for food. Physical proximity
regarding the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers can also be influenced
by the type of food and associated eating behaviors. Some commentators differentiate
between eating with cutlery and eating with fingers, noting that both forms are sources of
contamination but with different perceived contamination potential. For example, “meat
that has been cut cleanly with a knife, untouched side dishes in extra bowls” is perceived as less
contaminated than “potato salad or mashed potatoes, half of which has already been eaten” (120).
Again, commentators held conflicting opinions on the health risk of contamination
when comparing eating with cutlery or with hands, as the following conversation shows:
“the illness may have occurred a few days ago, that is easily enough for further spreading. Not
everyone washes their hands” (872). “The greatest risk is actually in the food that is eaten by hand.
A bit on pretzel is much more risky than, for example, meat with gravy, potatoes and vegetables”
(947). “No, do you take a new piece of cutlery for every bite? The 10 viruses that wander from the
used fork/spoon/knife back into the food are enough” (872). This conversation also shows that
the impact of physical proximity on perceived physical contamination can be influenced
by the presumed hygiene practice of the previous eater.
 when comparing eating with cutlery or with hands, as the following conversation shows:
“the illness may have occurred a few days ago, that is easily enough for further spreading. Not
everyone washes their hands” (872). “The greatest risk is actually in the food that is eaten by hand.
A bit on pretzel is much more risky than, for example, meat with gravy, potatoes and vegetables”
(947). “No, do you take a new piece of cutlery for every bite? The 10 viruses that wander from the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 16 of 30
used fork/spoon/knife back into the food are enough” (872). This conversation also shows that
the impact of physical proximity on perceived physical contamination can be influenced
by the presumed hygiene practice of the previous eater.
Figure
Figure 33 summarizes
summarizes the the health-related
health-related findings and provides a conceptual model of
the
the health-related
health-related interactions
interactions associated
associated with the the consumption
consumption of other
other consumers’
consumers’ plate
leftovers.
leftovers. This
This conceptual
conceptual model
model aims
aims toto present
present the
the variety of
of the
the codes related with the
health
health risk of the consumption
consumption of of other
otherconsumers’
consumers’plateplateleftovers
leftoversinina astructured
structuredway.
way.It It
is
is based
based onon the
the interpretation
interpretation ofof comments,
comments, taking
taking into
into account
account existing
existing theories
theories andand mod-
models,
els, as discussed
as discussed above.
above. However,
However, in absence
in the the absence of a quantitative
of a quantitative analysis
analysis of theofcomments,
the com-
ments, no conclusion
no conclusion can be can be drawn
drawn about about the relative
the relative importance
importance of theofdifferent
the different
codes.codes.
This
This can
can be begoal
the the goal of a future
of a future quantitative
quantitative survey,
survey, for which
for which this conceptual
this conceptual modelmodel can
can serve
as a basis.
serve as a basis.

Consumption of Other Consumers’ Plate Leftovers

Safety
Needs

Health Risk

Physical
Proximity
Natural
Contamination

Relational
Proximity
Source of Leftover Perceived
Disgust
Contamination Appearance Health Risk
Physical
Appearance

Deliberate
Perceived Contamination
Psychological
Ownership

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Conceptual
Conceptual model
model of
of the
the health-related
health-related interactions
interactions associated
associated with
with the
the consumption
consumptionof
ofother
otherconsumers’
consumers’plate
plate
leftovers.
leftovers.

The
The commentators’
commentators’discussion
discussionabout
abouthealth
healthrisks associated
risks with
associated thethe
with consumption
consumption of
other consumers’
of other consumers’plate leftovers
plate also also
leftovers determines the discussion
determines aboutabout
the discussion the security of social
the security of
order. Here, commentators
social order. Here, commentatorsreferred to thetopossible
referred economic
the possible damage
economic caused
damage by costs
caused for
by costs
for the health care system if consumers fall ill from the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers. In addition, they also mentioned private-sector damage to the canteen—for
example, lost income or possible claims for damages if a consumer falls ill as a result of
eating other consumers’ plate leftovers in the canteen. This private-sector damage is further
linked to economic damage by the commentators, pointing out that German university
canteens are subsidized by the state.
In addition to a financial threat to society, commentators commonly mentioned the
threat to the normative and cultural-cognitive system by the consumption of other con-
sumers’ plate leftovers. Some considered the consumption of other consumers’ plate
leftovers as breaking a social taboo: “it is an absolute ’NOGO’ to eat from the plates of totally
unknown strangers” (89). Such behavior is associated with disgust or shame and is declared
as not worthy for a human being: “for me personally this is not about germs (they may be
meaningless), but about a psychological component that has something to do with food culture,
disgust threshold, sense of shame, dignity and self-respect” (810).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 17 of 30

This comment points out the differentiation of food into edible and non-edible [74].
Here, a regulative understanding of food waste could shape consumers’ understanding of
non-edible food items. After returning plate leftovers to the food service organization, plate
leftovers are classified in a regulatory sense as food waste and must, therefore, be disposed
of professionally. This understanding can implicitly influence consumers’ understanding
of plate leftovers, considering they will return their plate leftovers to the canteen after
finishing their meal.
Furthermore, from a normative and cultural-cognitive point of view, once the food is
classified as waste it cannot simply be recovered in a socially acceptable way [51]. This,
in turn, might be manifested in the disgust that some commentators feel when they think
about eating the plate leftovers of others. Here, the feeling of disgust does not refer to
pathogenic disgust, as with the fear of possible disease transmission and, thus, physical
contamination. Instead, it can be interpreted as moral disgust [87], triggered by the threat
to the social norm of nutritional etiquette. As was already apparent in the comments on
the satisfying of hunger, for many the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers is
legitimate only in an emergency. Otherwise, the consumption of other consumers’ plate
leftovers can be accompanied by a feeling of social disadvantage: “there have always been
and will always be these rule-breaking marginalized groups, who, because others adhere to rules
for an orderly coexistence, can lead an unscathed freeloading life” (336). According to Rozin
et al. [87], moral disgust is caused by moral offenses and can serve to protect the social
order. The threat to the social order is particularly mentioned when the consumption of
other consumers’ plate leftovers is perceived as a collective consumer behavior. Comments
indicate that the reason for this might be that the behavior is carried out by consumers not
only collectively but also deliberately to criticize the existing social system.
In addition, the prevalence of behavior appears to be a key component in the percep-
tion of threats to social order. Commentators noted that the behavior could be tolerated
as long as only a few people show the behavior. Whereas some commentators perceive
the Bänderer as a “cranky minority” (321), still others perceive the behavior as disruptive
because of its prevalence: “if someone asked me, if they could have it–I’d love to, maybe if I had left
more I would even ask if they wanted it. But not if there are 40 people hanging around and lunging
at every tray” (412). A possible reason for the different perception of the phenomenon might
be the understanding of the associated context: compared with the local, regional, national
or international population, 40 consumers constitutes only a marginal group. However, if
these 40 consumers eat other consumers’ plate leftovers in a canteen, this might no longer
seem to be a minority compared to the comparatively small number of canteen visitors and
could, therefore, be perceived as a threat to the social order. Furthermore, many consumers
who act individually (i.e., not collectively in a consumer movement) are perceived as less
problematic than many consumers who jointly take action against an existing social order.
Finally, some commentators make a clear distinction between what they perceived as
behavior acceptable in the private sphere but not in the public sphere. “Maybe students, as
future elite, should simply learn that in public spaces other customs apply than among friends or at
home” (760).

3.3. Attaining Belongingness Needs through a Sense of Community

Love and belongingness needs refer to the need for interpersonal relationships, which
includes being part of a community [69]. A threat to this need exists when someone feels
excluded or rejected [69]. The consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers can be
either a vehicle to attain belongingness needs or a threat to them. The difference harks
back to the consumption of plate leftovers as collective behavior in a consumer movement
or as individual consumer behavior. Consumers who are part of the Bänderer movement
experience a sense of community, which can help them to attain their belongingness needs;
at the same time, the sense of community experienced by the Bänderer can threaten the
attainment of belongingness needs of those who are not part of this movement: “the
community among the Bänderer is also special. You don’t sit in isolation when eating, it’s like a
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 18 of 30

big family. If there is something good, like fries, and you see that someone else wanted to get it
too, you give them some. I’ve made a lot of new friends here” (news media article 5). “So you
make the world a little bit better, in community of course, while the others are all sitting there
isolated (no community at all)” (392). This differentiation reflects the social identity approach
of in-groups and out-groups, or inclusion and exclusion [88,89]. Those consumers who
consume other consumers’ plate leftovers represent the in-group; they form the community.
By consuming other consumers’ plate leftovers, this community acts collectively and
according to its standards and values. Consumers that do not belong to this group are
isolated. Therefore, the consumption of plate leftovers can be a symbolic act that determines
whether a person belongs to the in-group or not. Furthermore, Kniazeva and Venkatesh [90]
(pp. 423–424) attribute a “bonding power” to meals. Plate leftovers can have this kind of
bonding power for the movement. Maslow [69] concludes that the need for belonging and
community in the face of a perceived common threat from outside ties young rebel groups
together and motivates them to act together. The goal of reducing food waste, fostering
a change in the existing food system and the joint consumption of plate leftovers, can
contribute to this sense of community. The Facebook group “Die Bänderia” enables and
exemplifies such cohesiveness by facilitating an exchange between those fighting against
food waste and the system that encourages this food waste.
Nevertheless, this sense of community for the Bänderer can lead to the experience of
exclusion among other consumers. Compared to the sense of community in the consumer
movement, we observed feelings of exclusion in the comments for consumers who would
consider themselves part of the out-group. Assuming a partial hierarchy of needs proposed
by Tay and Diener [72], this feeling of exclusion might be intensified by a dilemma of
conflicting needs between the attainment of safety needs and belongingness needs. For
example, some commentators stated that the feeling of disgust when thinking about eating
other consumers’ plate leftovers makes them unable to do so, as stated by 526: “I could not
do it, I immediately feel nauseous with such things”. This can be linked to the protection of
safety needs. In contrast, refusing to eat other consumers’ plate leftovers could lead to a
feeling of rejection from the consumer movement, which, in turn, can cause a threat to the
belongingness needs.
When focusing on the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers from an
individual consumer perspective, the bonding power of plate leftovers is not observable.
Here, we found a reverse understanding of the in- and out-group. The individual consumer
who decides to consume other consumers’ plate leftovers perceives themself as being
in the minority. Therefore, the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers rather
threatens the belongingness needs. The normative perspective that this kind of food
decision represents an unacceptable behavior from the public’s point of view shapes a
feeling of shame when consuming other consumers’ plate leftovers: “I have already done
that at the end of the 80s in our large university canteen. It always took some effort because it
was embarrassing and all, but it always tasted great. It was best when people left it at the table.
At the conveyor belt it was always a bit embarrassing, but if worth it . . . fun time” (234). The
differentiated picture of the social effect of plate leftover consumption, depending on the
perception as collective or individual consumption behavior, could further explain the
restrained motivation to share food observed by Lazell [51].

3.4. Attaining Esteem Needs through Gaining Attention and Protecting Self-Respect
For the esteem needs, Maslow [69] differentiates between the need for receiving
appreciation and attention from another person and the need for self-appreciation. Eating
other consumers’ plate leftovers can bolster and threaten esteem needs, depending on the
perspective on the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers as an individual or
collective food decision.
According to Webb [74], the desire for attention and respect can be displayed in
choosing high-cost and prestigious food items that express wealth and success. Plate
leftovers might represent the opposite. Some consumers expressed that they would feel
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 19 of 30

stingy and impoverished if they would have to eat plate leftovers that other consumers
no longer wanted. They further associate this with a negative impact on self-esteem and
pride: “for me, it would be beneath me to eat something that a stranger disdained. In addition, as a
generous person, I would feel extremely stingy and would have the feeling that I could not afford my
own food, which in turn has something to do with self-esteem and pride” (810).
Thus, eating other consumers’ plate leftovers can negatively influence the achieve-
ment of esteem needs and would, therefore, be avoided. Nevertheless, considering the
consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers as a symbolic act in a consumer movement,
leftover consumption could become a vehicle to demonstrate one’s values. Considering
the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers as socially unacceptable, consuming
these leftovers might lead to even greater attention than the consumption of more accepted
food items such as the food saved from dumpster diving. Here, the consumption of plate
leftovers could help to attain attention. Furthermore, respect can be received from other
consumers in the movement or from sympathizers outside the group. A threat to esteem
needs might arise if someone feels not respected enough, for example, within the consumer
movement. Here, the individual behavior and the individual is lost in the group behav-
ior, which in turn can threaten self-esteem needs. Therefore, additional ways of gaining
attention can emerge: “that it is all about self-promotion became clear yesterday when the people
from the television station were here. Suddenly there were 10 Bänderer standing at the conveyor
belt in front of the cameras. Normally there is max. 1 person standing there. But when one of them
climbed on a table and shouted through the cafeteria that we shouldn’t forget that he was the first to
start doing it, I didn’t believe anything anymore. I guess it’s not about ‘saving’ food, but about the
attitude towards life” (149).
While commentators discussed respect shown by others for the consumption of other
consumers’ plate leftovers contrarily, the self-respect through the consumption of other
consumers’ plate leftovers is mainly perceived as threatened.

3.5. Attaining Self-Actualization Needs through Idealism and Self-Transcendence Needs through
Reducing Food Waste
Self-actualization needs refer to the development of one’s best self [69]. Finally, at the
level of self-transcendence needs, the fulfillment is motivated by a higher purpose [68].
Concerning self-actualization and self-transcendence needs, the comments on the
factors and threats associated with the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers
become blurred. Therefore, we carry out the discussion of the two needs together.
For both stages, the underlying goal of contributing to a sustainable development by
reducing food waste through the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers can be
emphasized. For self-actualization needs, reducing food waste by eating other consumers’
plate leftovers is associated with strengthening one’s idealism. Thus, it is directed toward
one’s development into a sustainable self and can be defined by one’s sustainable actions
and being. For self-transcendence needs, reducing food waste through the consumption of
other consumers’ plate leftovers is associated with the higher purpose of reducing the social
and environmental consequences of food waste to save the world. In this context, positive
comments underline the quest associated with fulfilling self-transcendence needs, whereas
negative comments question this quest for a higher purpose. Here, it seems irrelevant
whether the behavior is perceived collectively or individually.
In the argumentation for attaining self-transcendence needs by the consumption of
other consumers’ plate leftovers, it becomes apparent that it is not only a matter of reducing
plate leftovers in the canteen but also of understanding the problem of food wastage from
a holistic point of view. Indeed, some commentators explicitly reference the dissolution
of egocentrism and the achievement of a higher purpose with the consumption of other
consumers’ plate leftovers: “what a meta-egomania you’re getting lost in here. It’s not about
rebellion and pallid stories in old age. It is about food waste, while others have to starve, animals die
unnecessarily. This happens in the NOW and is completely independent of age and especially of
ego” (451).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 20 of 30

A further indication for achieving a higher purpose represents the consumption of

meat-containing plate leftovers by vegetarians, who act against their idealistic goals and
eat other consumers’ plate leftovers even when they contain animal-based ingredients.
According to them, it is more important to avoid waste and thus the unnecessary death of
an animal than to stick to the principles of a vegetarian diet (e.g., new media article 7; 645).
Some commentators also highlight that the consumption of other consumers’ plate
leftovers can not only enable an immediate reduction of the amount of food waste, but it
can also create awareness of the problem of food wastage. This, in turn, might lead to a
long-term change in other consumers’ consumption and disposal behavior. Nevertheless,
not all commentators were convinced that consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers
can lead to a sustainable behavioral change. Furthermore, they did not see any benefit
for society from the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers: “what’s interesting
[ . . . ] is that the students sell the Bändern in a way as a social act, as a reference to food waste.
This raises the question for me: What is actually bad about the waste? It doesn’t hurt anyone for
now. Conversely, however, it serves no one by eating the leftovers except their own wallets. If they
collected the money they saved and donated it, it would be a completely different matter. This way it
seems dishonest and stingy to me” (936).
The divergence of opinions on the extent to which the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers represents an altruistic food decision in favor of a higher purpose is apparent
in the emotionality of the discussion. Moreover, as the last comment demonstrates, for
some consumers, the fulfillment of self-actualization needs is instead perceived as an
excuse to justify the fulfillment of lower personal needs at the expense of others: those
who eat other consumers’ plate leftovers benefit in that they do not have to pay for it.
Furthermore, some commentators argued that it is rather about humiliating those who
leave the plate leftovers by demonstrating to them their apparent misconduct: “nonsense.
With it (save the world! Stop waste!) these ‘Bänderer’ justify their behavior, in order to not have to
admit that they are freeloaders. And they admit it, too: ‘ . . . I could afford it, but . . . ’ And then they
are also still insulted as ‘squanderers’, who make it possible for the ’Bänderer’ to eat for free” (328).
Those commentators who are more open-minded towards the consumption of other
consumers’ plate leftovers associate the behavior more likely with attaining self-transcendence
needs. Whereas those who are more critical about the behavior question these higher
goals and suspect self-fulfilling goals behind the behavior. In so doing, they deny the
satisfaction of transcendence needs and contextualize the behavior on lower need levels,
such as improving one’s idealism for attaining self-actualization or gaining attention to
fulfill self-esteem needs.

3.6. Implications Based on the Associations with the Consumption of Other Consumers’
Plate Leftovers
Although a qualitative study is not able to generalize results, the online discussions
give the first impression that the number of consumers who can imagine eating other
consumers’ plate leftovers, especially in the public space, seems to be very small. This
raises the question of whether such a consumer intervention is relevant to effectively
reducing food waste. From our point of view, there is no clear answer to this question.
What the movement has achieved with its intervening food decisions is to draw at-
tention to the issue of food waste, at a point where food disposal has a particular social,
environmental, and economic relevance. Although awareness can be considered a prereq-
uisite for behavior change, it does not necessarily lead to behavior change [91]. Our study
highlighted various factors associated with the consumption of other consumers’ plate
leftovers that may serve as barriers to changing behavior towards the consumption of other
consumers’ plate leftovers. Furthermore, awareness itself can be a barrier. Studies show
that consumers are often unaware of the amount of food they are discarding. They assume
that they are wasting nothing, or far less food than they actually do [92], and less than
other consumers [93]. Therefore, the awareness of discarding plate leftovers, even though
they are still edible—a behavior that one does not ascribe to oneself—can lead to cognitive
dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a perceived state of tension that can arise, for example,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 21 of 30

from diverging attitudes and actions [94]. For the consumption of other consumers’ plate
leftovers, someone has to leave food on their plate. The fact that someone else continues to
eat these leftovers can make the previous eater aware that they have wasted edible food.
Furthermore, holding an attitude towards food waste as an avoidable behavior would
demonstrate the discrepancy between their attitude and their wasteful behavior. To resolve
this state of cognitive dissonance, consumers use various strategies, including adapting
their own opinions to their behavior to resolve the state of cognitive dissonance [95]. One
option for consumers in this situation would be to negate the problem of food wastage and
reinterpret it. This negation of the problem is also reflected in some comments noting that
reducing one’s own food waste would not effectively combat poverty in other countries.
The plate leftovers are also paid for, which in the eyes of the commentators legitimizes
the consumer’s decision to waste the food. “Pft. What do you mean, sin? Seriously? Besides,
it’s all paid for. I don’t feel bad about that. P.s. Do you send your leftovers to Africa to the
starving children?” (328). Furthermore, commentators pointed out that the plate leftovers
are not wasted but rather recycled, for example, in industrial processing: “’uneaten food
will otherwise end up in the trash.’ Wrong – leftover food from canteens, cafeterias, etc. ends up
as raw material in biogas plants and not in the trash” (389). This demonstrates that drawing
attention to the problem of food wastage does not automatically lead to a favored behavior
change. Instead, it may trigger other reactions that run counter to the intention of reducing
food wastage.
A first impulse could, therefore, be to hamstring the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers. The Studierendenwerk Freiburg Schwarzwald did this by installing covers
over the tray return belt so that the Bänderer no longer had access to the plate leftovers.
However, such an approach, which may seem understandable from a legal perspective,
as 872 pointed out, “the responsible parties cannot react in any other way, they are obliged to
implement the HACCP concept according to EC 852/2004. Whether you think this is good or not
is irrelevant”, does not address the fundamental problem of the disposing of edible food
denounced by the Bänderer. A more reasonable approach from a sustainability perspective
would be to prevent plate leftovers in the first place. For this, interventions need to be
implemented that aim to address the reasons that are responsible for the occurrence of
plate leftovers. Various preventive interventions were proposed in the online discussions:
adjusting portion size (i.e., selection of different portion sizes, e.g., 759; smaller portions
but free seconds, e.g., 121; freely selectable quantities, e.g., 412), changing the choice
architecture (i.e., letting people choose the composition of dishes themselves, e.g., 840;
buffet instead of service lines, e.g., 1034), incentives for plate leftover reduction through
a targeted pricing policy (e.g., offering smaller portions relatively cheaper than larger
portions, 159; paying by weight, especially in buffet forms, e.g., 101), improving food
quality (i.e., improving the taste experience, e.g., 554; improving food appearance, e.g.,
645; offering more fresh dishes instead of convenience food, e.g., 413), and analyzing the
discarded plate leftovers (i.e., type and quantity of different components, and exploring the
reasons for disposal through interaction with consumers, e.g., 1070). These interventions
address various reasons for the occurrence of plate leftovers in canteens discussed in the
literature (e.g., portion size [11–13,96]; food quality [12–14]).
Although food wastage prevention is, in principle, the preferred approach when
addressing food wastage reduction [36], it is unlikely to prevent all food from being lost or
wasted. This, in turn, places the consumer movement of the Bänderer back in focus. The
point here is not to consider the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers as an
intervention, but rather to use this kind of food decision as inspiration for interventions.
At its core, the consumption of plate leftovers is about the reuse of edible food leftovers.
Reuse of food resources for human consumption represents the preferable intervention
after prevention [36]. This hierarchy is based on the fundamental idea that food resources
should be preserved for human consumption for as long as possible [41]. Thus, from a
sustainable development perspective, reuse of food leftovers is preferred over recycling
food leftovers in industrial processes [41]. Furthermore, this illustrates that, contrary to
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 22 of 30

the view of some commentators (e.g., 389), consuming plate leftovers instead of recycling
them can make a difference. The reuse of plate leftovers can be addressed by food service
organizations using multiple interventions. This includes, for example, offering different
portion sizes or the possibility of a second helping [96]. However, when an adjustment
of portion size is not possible, consumers can be informed already at the food counter
that sharing food is possible. For this purpose, additional empty plates and bowls can be
provided. Here, consumers can be actively encouraged to share food considering certain
hygiene rules (e.g., sharing food before the first bite, not touching the food with bare
hands). Such an approach could reduce the (perceived) health risk associated with the
consumption of shared food. However, the discussions about the normative and cultural-
cognitive understanding of consuming plate leftovers in public space demonstrate that the
effect of such an intervention might be, however, limited.
As an alternative to sharing meals, 784, for example, suggests offering doggy bags for
plate leftovers, so consumers can take plate leftovers home for later consumption. Even
though this is a viable option to avoid disposing of plate leftovers in canteens—also from
a legal point of view—studies show that most consumers do not actively ask for doggy
bags [13,97]. In a study by Mirosa et al. [97], only 5.3% of respondents reported actively
asking for doggy bags in restaurants. Studies show that there are several reasons for
this [13,97–99]. Forty-two percent of respondents in a study by Giorgi [13] indicated that
asking for a doggy bag is “embarrassing” to them. Furthermore, Hamerman et al. [99]
found that when consumers are eating with someone they want to impress, they are less
willing to take plate leftovers. Doggy bags can thus represent a dilemma for consumers: on
the one hand, they want to reduce food waste; on the other hand, they find themselves in a
situation where it would not be acceptable for them to ask for a doggy bag, for example,
due to personal norms [98]. Sirieix et al. [98] point out that in order to solve this dilemma,
it is necessary to make the takeaway of plate leftovers easy and to consider it as the normal
or desired behavior. A possible solution could be that takeaway possibilities are actively
offered by the food service organizations. Hamerman et al. [99] show that actively offering
a doggy bag can increase the likelihood of taking leftovers. The legislation that came into
force in France in 2016 takes up this idea to reduce food waste [100]. Accordingly, food
service organizations, such as restaurants that serve more than 180 meals a day, have the
obligation to offer doggy bags [101]. Another reason for restrained use may be the name
doggy bag: consumers either cannot imagine anything under the term doggy bag or find
this term repulsive [13]. Naming was also an issue during the launch in France, where the
hotel and restaurant industry union UMIH developed the term ”le Gourmet Bag” as an
alternative [101]. From a sustainable development point of view, another argument against
these doggy bags could be the additional resource expenditure in the form of packaging
material. However, different studies show that the overall environmental impact of food
wastage is mostly higher than the impact of packaging material [102,103]. With the right
framing, therefore, takeaway options for plate leftovers can be a way to encourage the
reuse of plate leftovers. In order to inform and remind consumers of takeaway options
for plate leftovers in canteens, printed information on the canteen tray would be possible.
Fogg [104,105] highlights that motivation, ability, and a prompt, triggering the behavior at
the moment when the behavior should be exhibited, are necessary to initiate a behavior.
The takeaway option for plate leftovers would allow consumers to take their plate leftovers,
and the printed information on the tray would provide a reminder when the behavior
change should be initiated. If there is sufficient motivation, the likelihood of plate leftovers
being reused could be increased.
In addition to the regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive contextual factors,
our study showed that plate leftover consumption is associated with various motivational
associations. Although we observed a tendency to decline the consumption of other
consumers’ plate leftovers in public spaces, the nature of our data limits the generalization
of this conclusion. Nevertheless, the aim of our paper was not to present the consumption
of other consumers’ plate leftovers as an intervention but rather to use this intervention,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 23 of 30

which emerged from a consumer movement, to develop a broad understanding of the

consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers. Besides the generalizability of the results,
the study bears other limitations.
First, although the discussions refer to actual behavior in the real world, the findings
are based on comments made in the virtual world. Therefore, even though the different
associations provide a coherent picture of the consumption of other consumers’ plate
leftovers, this aspect must be considered when interpreting the results. Furthermore, as
already mentioned in the methods section, the data do not allow conclusions about the
identity of the commentators. In that case, the study is also limited to Germany. However,
due to the particular relevance of out-of-home consumption in China [8] and the different
regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive systems, it would be interesting to investigate
the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers in a comparison between the countries.
Second, although the online discussions are confined to the out-of-home context, our
findings on perceived health risks are reflected in studies investigating plate leftovers
in the household (e.g., [54]). In order to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the
individual influencing factors, future research can quantitatively investigate these interac-
tions in the out-of-home and household context. Figure 3, in particular, provides an initial
conceptualization of the perceived health risks associated with plate leftover consumption.
Third, since the data collection took place before the COVID-19 pandemic, no con-
clusion can be made about how the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers is
viewed in times of pandemics such as COVID-19. However, some comments in our dataset
indicate that the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers can be associated with
a great health risk through highly contagious viruses (e.g., “as long as nothing happens
it’s all cool and alternative. But, let ten people get sick with a highly contagious virus”, 1070).
In times when hygiene issues are ubiquitous, such perceptions may become even more
prominent. This, in turn, might create a dilemma for those for whom food waste reduc-
tion is an important issue and who, because of hygiene concerns, now feel less able to
consume surplus food (whether in Bändern or by food sharing). Furthermore, a study by
Burlea-Schiopoiu et al. [106] shows that COVID-19 can increase awareness of food waste,
especially among students. By breaking down old behaviors, the need to reflect on one’s
behavior, and necessary behavioral changes (e.g., due to cafeteria closures), students be-
came more aware of food wastage issues [106]. This awareness of food wastage could also
lead to greater effectiveness of prevention and reuse interventions in the future. Studies
show that awareness of and interest in food wastage reduction can be a key driver for food
wastage prevention [107]. Therefore, the tension between health concerns and the reuse
of surplus food or plate leftovers can offer an exciting starting point for future research.
Integrating food wastage concerns into our conceptual model (see Figure 3) can provide an
initial framework for this.

4. Conclusions
Considering the vast amount of food that is wasted worldwide, a change in perspective
is needed. This also includes questioning the prevailing understanding of food wastage,
especially plate leftovers. Are plate leftovers waste, or are they edible food items? In our
study, we used the behavior of the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers to
gain insights into understanding plate leftovers in out-of-home settings such as canteens.
The analysis of comments from online discussions demonstrates that the understanding
of plate leftovers is embedded and shaped by the regulative, normative, and cultural-
cognitive system. Furthermore, associations with the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers are psychologically determined and associated with the satisfaction of
universal needs. We observed a clear distinction between whether the consumption of
plate leftovers is understood as part of a consumer movement or as an individual consumer
behavior. In the context of a consumer movement, the consumption of other consumers’
plate leftovers can play a particular role in achieving a sense of community and reducing
food waste for idealistic or environmental and social reasons. Considered as an individual
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 24 of 30

consumer behavior, the consumption of other consumers’ plate leftovers can satisfy hunger
but can also represent a threat to health and social order.
Due to the complex relationships underlying the understanding, generation, and
handling of food wastage, a multidimensional solution is necessary to determine the
best way to reduce the vast amount of food wastage. Even though consumption of other
consumers’ plate leftovers might only constitute a marginal reduction of food waste directly
or indirectly, the results of this study demonstrate that the difference between waste and
edibility begins in the regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive system and manifests
in the mind and, as a result, in the behavior of consumers. Thus, interventions to reduce
food wastage should start there. Furthermore, considering plate leftovers as a valuable
resource beyond industrial processing not only opens up a new perspective for further
research but also provides sensitization to the value of food.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.D.; methodology, L.D.; analysis and coding, L.D.;
interpretation of data, L.D. and C.C.G.; writing–original draft preparation, L.D.; writing–review,
L.D.; design of figures: L.D.; revision–original draft, C.C.G. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This publication was funded by the University of Bayreuth Open Access Publishing Fund.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Subjects consent was waived due to the non-intrusive character of
the research method (non-interventional, passive observation, retrospective comments analysis) and
the assumption of freely accessible online forums as public space.
Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study may be available on
request from the corresponding author, L.D. These data are not publicly available for reasons of
anonymization.
Acknowledgments: We are very grateful for the support of Natalie Lehner, Malte Tobias Schichtel,
Julie Sobirey, and Helen Christina Bommel in data collection and preparation. Furthermore, we
would like to thank Michelle Simon for helping with the coding and Lisa Michelle Ross for translating
the comments and codes. Moreover, we would also like to thank the reviewers for their appreciative
and constructive feedback.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 26 of 32
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The sponsor had no role in the
design, execution, interpretation, or writing of the study.
Appendix A. Sample
Appendix A. Sample

FigureA1.
Figure A1. Structure
Structure of comment
of comment distribution.
distribution.

Table A1. Structure of comment distribution.

Comments
Total News Media Site Facebook
per Person
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 25 of 30

Table A1. Structure of comment distribution.

Comments per Person Total News Media Site Facebook

1 80.72% (875) 75.20% (185) 82.24% (690)
2 10.52% (114) 8.94% (22) 10.97% (92)
3 4.52% (49) 6.10% (15) 4.29% (36)
4 1.75% (19) 3.66% (9) 1.19% (10)
5 0.74% (8) 1.63% (4) 0.48% (4)
6 0.37% (4) 0.81% (2) 0.12% (1)
7 0.28% (3) 0.41% (1) 0.24% (2)
8 0.46% (5) 1.63% (4) 0.12% (1)
... ... ... ...
10 0.18% (2) ... 0.24% (2)
... ... ... ...
15 0.09% (1) 0.41% (1) ...
... ... ... ...
18 0.18% (2) 0.41% (1) 0.12% (1)
... ... ... ...
23 0.09% (1) 0.41% (1) ...
... ... ... ...
34 0.09% (1) 0.41% (1) ...
100% (1084) 100% (246) 100% (839)
Note: “ . . . ” equals empty cells; number of commentators in parentheses; one name was identical and used on
the news media site and Facebook; therefore, the sum of the news media site and Facebook counts one person
more than the total count.

Appendix B. Code System

Table A2. Code system.

Inductive Deductive
Sub-Codes (Initial Codes) Codes Sub-Themes Main Themes
Satisfying Hunger Satisfying Hunger
Bändern for Monetary Reasons;
Life Situation of the Consumer
Comparison/Distinction of Homelessness Preventing Hunger through the Attaining Physiological
Consumption of Other Consumers’ Needs through
Throwaway Society/Affluent Society Socioeconomic Status of Residency Plate Leftovers in Emergency Satisfying Hunger
Legitimization through Securing Situation
Poverty
Existence
Unfair Behavior Social Fairness
Health Risk; Diseases; Health Promotion Perceived Health Risk
Contamination Source; Hygiene Natural Contamination
Modification of Leftovers Deliberate Contamination
Disgust Disgust
Leftover Appearance Leftover Appearance
Partner; Family; Friends; Acquaintances; Work Relations Proximity to Contamination
Colleagues; Strangers; Sympathy/Interpersonal Source Perceiving Health Risk through the
Consumption of Other Consumers’
Physical Appearance of Contamination
Visual Appearance Plate Leftovers
Source
Eating Habits; Comparison/Distinction Physical
Touching (Comparison/Distinction Kissing; Physical Proximity to Contamination
Comparison/Distinction Sexual Activities); Source
Comparison/Distinction Dumpster Diving
Attaining Safety Needs
Perceived Ownership; Entitlement to Leftovers No through the Protection
Perceived Ownership of Plate Leftovers
Longer Exists of Individual Health
Fundamental Criticism of the Legal Framework; and Social Order
Protection Mentality; Bureaucracy; Possession and
Ownership Claims; Liability; Theft; House
Legal Aspects
Rules/Domiciliary Right; Comparison/Distinction
Legal Situations; Hygiene Regulations; Responsibility
of the Bänderer; Responsibility of the Cafeteria
Economic Damage for the Health Care
Economic Damage Creating Social Disorder through the
System
Consumption of Other Consumers’
Harm from Bändern; Subsidizing the Cafeteria; Cost Plate Leftovers
Benefit from Ribboning; Profit-Orientation of the Private Sector Damage
Cafeteria
Skepticism Toward Leftovers; Unpleasant; Alienating;
Undignified; Contradicts Rules/Norms/Codes of Social Norm of Eating Culture
Conduct
Dissemination of the Phenomenon “Bändern“ Prevalence of the Behavior
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 26 of 30

Table A2. Cont.

Inductive Deductive
Sub-Codes (Initial Codes) Codes Sub-Themes Main Themes
Making Friends; Sense of Community Being Part of a Community Experiencing a Sense of Community Attaining Belongingness
through the Consumption of Other Needs through a Sense of
Differentiation from Others (In-group/Outgroup) Experience of Exclusion Consumers’ Plate Leftovers Community
Protest; Rebellion Gaining Individual Attention
Seeking Attention through the
Wanting to Prove Something/Putting Yourself on Consumption of Other Consumers’ Attaining Esteem Needs
Demonstrating Values through Gaining
Display Plate Leftovers
Attention and
Shame Losing Self-Respect Threatening Self-Respect through the Protecting Self-Respect
Consumption of Other Consumers’
Pride Gaining Respect from the Community Plate Leftovers
Idealism/Moralism Strengthening Idealism
Do-gooder; Unrealistic Do-Gooder
Pursuing Idealism through the
Inconsistent Behavior; Hypocrisy; Self-Enhancement; Consumption of Other Consumers’
Self-Elevation Plate Leftovers Attaining
Conscience Calming;
Self-Actualization Needs
Personal Enrichment Freeloader through Idealism and
Neutral View Food Wastage; Problem Clarification Understanding Food Wastage/Food Self-Transcendence Needs
Food Wastage; Problem Negation Food Wastage Wastage Consequences through Reducing Food
“Saving the World” through the Waste
Reducing Social and/or
Reduce/Prevent Food Wastage Consumption of Other Consumers’
Environmental Impact
Plate Leftovers
Create Attention/Awareness; Be a Role Model; Bring Helping Others to Reduce Food
About Behavior Change Wastage
Prohibition of Bändern; Interventions Against Prevention of Bändern (by the
Bändern; Other Destructive Reactions Canteen)
Refusal to Allow Access to Leftovers; Other Prevention of Bändern (by
Destructive Responses Consumers)
Bänderer Fee; Bänderer Contract; Signs; FairTeiler for
Leftovers; Leftover Exchange Table; Provide Support for Bändern (by the Canteen)
Microwaves; Other Solutions
Passing on Leftovers Directly to Bänderer; Direct
Approach; Bänderer Ribbon (Obvious Identifier of Support for Bändern (by Consumers)
Sharing Interest); Other Solutions Interventions to Encourage or
Adjust Portion Sizes; Offer Buffet Style/Pay by Weight; Discourage Consumption of Other
Adjust Pricing Policy; Improve Quality Prevention of Plate Leftovers (by the Consumers’ Food Leftovers
(Taste/Appearance); Analyze Leftovers; Adjust Canteen)
Production; Donate Food/Leftovers; Other Solutions
Cooking for Yourself; Assessing Your Own Hunger;
Putting Less on Your Plate; Using Second Helpings, Prevention of Plate Leftovers (by
Emptying Your Plate; Education/Training on Consumer)
Handling of Food
Reuse of Excess Ingredients; Reuse of Excess Dishes; Alternative Reuse Options for Plate
Reuse of Leftovers Leftovers (by the Canteen)
Sharing Food Before Eating; Having Leftovers Alternative Reuse Options for Plate
Wrapped/Packaged; Taking Leftovers for Pets Leftovers (by Consumers)
Note: term in italics are displayed in Figures 2 and 3.

References
1. Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U.; van Otterdijk, R.; Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and
Prevention; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011. Available online: www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
2. United Nations Environment Programme. Food Waste Index Report 2021; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021. Available online:
www.unep.org/resources/report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021 (accessed on 1 December 2021).
3. Stenmarck, Å.; Jensen, C.; Quested, T.; Moates, G. Estimates of European Food Waste Levels; FUSION: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016.
Available online: www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste%20levels.
pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
4. Beretta, C.; Stoessel, F.; Baier, U.; Hellweg, S. Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Manag.
2013, 33, 764–773. [CrossRef]
5. WRAP. Food Surplus and Waste in the UK: Key Facts; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2021. Available online: https://wrap.org.uk/resources/
report/food-surplus-and-waste-uk-key-facts (accessed on 23 November 2021).
6. Schmidt, T.; Schneider, F.; Leverenz, D.; Hafner, G. Food Waste in Germany—Baseline 2015—Summary Thünen Report 71.
Available online: www.thuenen.de/media/institute/lr/Startseite_Aktuelles/baseline_summary_190916.pdf (accessed on 1
December 2021).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 27 of 30

7. forsa Politik-und Sozialforschung GmbH. Ernährungsreport 2019/2020: Ergebnisse Einer Repräsentativen Bevölkerungsbefragung;
forsa Politik-und Sozialforschung GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2020. Available online: www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/
_Ernaehrung/forsa-ernaehrungsreport-2020-tabellen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 (accessed on 1 December 2021).
8. Xue, L.; Liu, X.; Lu, S.; Cheng, G.; Hu, Y.; Liu, J.; Dou, Z.; Cheng, S.; Liu, G. China’s food loss and waste embodies increasing
environmental impacts. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 519–528. [CrossRef]
9. Malefors, C.; Callewaert, P.; Hansson, P.-A.; Hartikainen, H.; Pietiläinen, O.; Strid, I.; Strotmann, C.; Eriksson, M. Towards a
Baseline for Food-Waste Quantification in the Hospitality Sector—Quantities and Data Processing Criteria. Sustainability 2019, 11,
3541. [CrossRef]
10. Garrone, P.; Melacini, M.; Perego, A. Opening the black box of food waste reduction. Food Policy 2014, 46, 129–139. [CrossRef]
11. Silvennoinen, K.; Nisonen, S.; Pietiläinen, O. Food waste case study and monitoring developing in Finnish food services. Waste
Manag. 2019, 97, 97–104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Betz, A.; Buchli, J.; Göbel, C.; Müller, C. Food waste in the Swiss food service industry—Magnitude and potential for reduction.
Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 218–226. [CrossRef]
13. Giorgi, S. Understanding out of Home Consumer Food Waste; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2013. Available online: https://wrap.org.uk/
sites/default/files/2021-08/understanding-out-of-home-consumer-food-waste.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2021).
14. Lorenz, B.A.; Hartmann, M.; Langen, N. What makes people leave their food? The interaction of personal and situational factors
leading to plate leftovers in canteens. Appetite 2017, 116, 45–56. [CrossRef]
15. Derqui, B.; Fernandez, V.; Fayos, T. Towards more sustainable food systems. Addressing food waste at school canteens. Appetite
2018, 129, 1–11. [CrossRef]
16. Engström, R.; Carlsson-Kanyama, A. Food losses in food service institutions: Examples from Sweden. Food Policy 2004, 29,
203–213. [CrossRef]
17. Papargyropoulou, E.; Steinberger, J.K.; Wright, N.; Lozano, R.; Padfield, R.; Ujang, Z. Patterns and Causes of Food Waste in the
Hospitality and Food Service Sector: Food Waste Prevention Insights from Malaysia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6016. [CrossRef]
18. Silvennoinen, K.; Heikkilä, L.; Katajajuuri, J.-M.; Reinikainen, A. Food waste volume and origin: Case studies in the Finnish food
service sector. Waste Manag. 2015, 46, 140–145. [CrossRef]
19. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020: Transforming Food Systems for Affordable
Healthy Diets; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. Available online: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9692en/ (accessed on 22
November 2021).
20. Smil, V. Improving Efficiency and Reducing Waste in Our Food System. Environ. Sci. 2004, 1, 17–26. [CrossRef]
21. FAO. Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/
018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2021).
22. FAO. Food Wastage Footprint: Full-Cost Accounting; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3991e/i399
1e.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2021).
23. United Nations Headquarters. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations Head-
quarters: New York, NY, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/
generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2021).
24. Boulet, M.; Hoek, A.C.; Raven, R. Towards a multi-level framework of household food waste and consumer behaviour: Untangling
spaghetti soup. Appetite 2021, 156, 104856. [CrossRef]
25. Buzby, J.C.; Hyman, J. Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States. Food Policy 2012, 37, 561–570. [CrossRef]
26. FUSION. FUSIONS Definitional Framework for Food Waste; FUSION: Stockholm, Sweden, 2014. Available online: www.eu-fusions.
org/phocadownload/Publications/FUSIONS%20Definitional%20Framework%20for%20Food%20Waste%202014.pdf (accessed
on 1 December 2021).
27. Lebersorger, S.; Schneider, F. Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies.
Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1924–1933. [CrossRef]
28. Roodhuyzen, D.M.A.; Luning, P.A.; Fogliano, V.; Steenbekkers, L.P. Putting together the puzzle of consumer food waste: Towards
an integral perspective. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 37–50. [CrossRef]
29. Thyberg, K.L.; Tonjes, D.J. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2016, 106, 110–123. [CrossRef]
30. Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 3065–3081. [CrossRef]
31. Quested, T.; Johnson, H. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2009. Available online: www.wrap.org.
uk/resources/report/household-food-and-drink-waste-uk-2009 (accessed on 1 December 2021).
32. Koivupuro, H.-K.; Hartikainen, H.; Silvennoinen, K.; Katajajuuri, J.-M.; Heikintalo, N.; Reinikainen, A.; Jalkanen, L. Influence of
socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households.
Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 183–191. [CrossRef]
33. Porpino, G.; Parente, J.; Wansink, B. Food waste paradox: Antecedents of food disposal in low income households. Int. J. Consum.
Stud. 2015, 39, 619–629. [CrossRef]
34. Osner, R. Food Wastage. Nutr. Food Sci. 1982, 82, 13–16. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 28 of 30

35. BMEL. Das Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft Informiert zu Möglichkeiten der Mitnahme Nicht Verzehrter Speisen;
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft: Berlin, Germany, 2019. Available online: www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/
Pressemitteilungen/DE/2019/082-speisenmitnahme.html;jsessionid=A40D9C46CAAFA1E50035A2C292736431.live921 (accessed
on 1 December 2021).
36. Papargyropoulou, E.; Lozano, R.; Steinberger, J.K.; Wright, N.; bin Ujang, Z. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the
management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 106–115. [CrossRef]
37. Andrews, L.; Kerr, G.; Pearson, D.; Mirosa, M. The attributes of leftovers and higher-order personal values. Br. Food J. 2018, 120,
1965–1979. [CrossRef]
38. Kantor, L.S.; Lipton, K.; Manchester, A.; Oliveira, V. Estimating and Addressing America’s Food Losses. Food Rev. 1997, 20, 2–12.
39. Cappellini, B. The sacrifice of re-use: The travels of leftovers and family relations. J. Consum. Behav. 2009, 8, 365–375. [CrossRef]
40. Stancu, V.; Haugaard, P.; Lähteenmäki, L. Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite
2016, 96, 7–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Teigiserova, D.A.; Hamelin, L.; Thomsen, M. Towards transparent valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: Clarifying
definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 136033. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Kleemann, B. Stadtgespräch|“Bändern” gegen Essen im Müll: Euer Garbage, unser Life; detektor.fm: Leipzig, Germany, 2016. Available
online: https://detektor.fm/gesellschaft/stadtgespraech-baendern-gegen-essen-im-muell (accessed on 1 December 2021).
43. Gollnhofer, J.F.; Weijo, H.A.; Schouten, J.W. Consumer Movements and Value Regimes: Fighting Food Waste in Germany by
Building Alternative Object Pathways. J. Consum. Res. 2019, 46, 460–482. [CrossRef]
44. Board of foodsharing e.V. Lebensmittel Retten Wiki: Kontext und Selbstverständnis; Foodsharing e.V.: Köln, Germany, 2020. Available
online: https://wiki.foodsharing.de/Kontext_und_Selbstverst%C3%A4ndnis (accessed on 1 February 2020).
45. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. EU Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 28 January 2002 Laying down the General Principles and Requirements of Food Law, Establishing the European Food
Safety Authority and Laying down Procedures in Matters of Food Safety. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002R0178&from=EN (accessed on 1 December 2021).
46. Rombach, M.; Bitsch, V. Food Movements in Germany: Slow Food, Food Sharing, and Dumpster Diving. Int. Food Agribus. Manag.
Rev. 2015, 18, 1–24.
47. Schanes, K.; Stagl, S. Food waste fighters: What motivates people to engage in food sharing? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1491–1501.
[CrossRef]
48. Fernandez, K.V.; Brittain, A.J.; Bennett, S.D. “Doing the duck”: Negotiating the resistant-consumer identity. Eur. J. Mark. 2011, 45,
1779–1788. [CrossRef]
49. Ganglebauer, E.; Fitzpatrick, G.; Subasi, Ö.; Güldenpfenning, F. Think Globally, Act Locally: A Case Study of a Free Food Sharing
Community and Social Networking. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work &
Social Computing, Baltimore, MD, USA, 15–19 February 2014; pp. 911–921.
50. Morone, P.; Falcone, P.M.; Imbert, E.; Morone, A. Does food sharing lead to food waste reduction? An experimental analysis to
assess challenges and opportunities of a new consumption model. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 749–760. [CrossRef]
51. Lazell, J. Consumer food waste behaviour in universities: Sharing as a means of prevention. J. Consum. Behav. 2016, 15, 430–439.
[CrossRef]
52. Steptoe, A.; Pollard, T.M.; Wardle, J. Development of a Measure of the Motives Underlying the Selection of Food: The Food
Choice Questionnaire. Appetite 1995, 25, 267–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Miller, L.; Rozin, P.; Fiske, A.P. Food sharing and feeding another person suggest intimacy; two studies of American college
students. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 423–436. [CrossRef]
54. Aleshaiwi, A.; Harries, T. A step in the journey to food waste: How and why mealtime surpluses become unwanted. Appetite
2021, 158, 105040. [CrossRef]
55. Cappellini, B.; Parsons, E. Sharing the Meal: Food Consumption and Family Identity. Res. Consum. Behav. 2012, 14, 109–128.
[CrossRef]
56. Böhmer, M.M.; Buchholz, U.; Corman, V.M.; Hoch, M.; Katz, K.; Marosevic, D.V.; Böhm, S.; Woudenberg, T.; Ackermann, N.;
Konrad, R.; et al. Investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak in Germany resulting from a single travel-associated primary case: A
case series. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 920–928. [CrossRef]
57. Walsham, G. Doing interpretive research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2006, 15, 320–330. [CrossRef]
58. Eysenbach, G.; Wyatt, J.C. Facilitating research. In Medicine and the Internet: Introducing Online Resources and Terminology, 3rd ed.;
McKenzie, B.C., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002; pp. 211–225.
59. Giles, D. Online Discussion Forums: A Rich and Vibrant Source of Data. In Collecting Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide to Textual,
Media and Virtual Techniques; Braun, V., Clarke, V., Gray, D., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 189–210.
60. Chen, Z.; Berger, J. When, Why, and How Controversy Causes Conversation. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 40, 580–593. [CrossRef]
61. Hille, S.; Bakker, P. Engaging the social news user: Comments on news sites and Facebook. Journal. Pract. 2014, 8, 563–572.
[CrossRef]
62. The British Psychological Society. Ethics Guidelines for Internet-Mediated Research; Leicester University Press: London, UK,
2017. Available online: www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/ethics-guidelines-internet-mediated-research-2017 (accessed on 1
December 2021).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 29 of 30

63. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [CrossRef]
64. Boyatzis, R.E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998.
65. Kuckartz, U.; Rädiker, S. Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA: Text, Audio, and Video; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2019.
66. Maslow, A.H. The Instinctoid Nature of Basic Needs. J. Personal. 1954, 22, 326–347. [CrossRef]
67. Maslow, A.H. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychol. Rev. 1943, 50, 370–396. [CrossRef]
68. Koltko-Rivera, M.E. Rediscovering the Later Version of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Self-Transcendence and Opportunities for
Theory, Research, and Unification. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2006, 10, 302–317. [CrossRef]
69. Maslow, A.H. Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed.; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1970.
70. Wahba, M.A.; Bridwell, L.G. Maslow Reconsidered: A Review of Research on the Need Hierarchy Theory. Organ. Behav. Hum.
Perform. 1976, 15, 212–240. [CrossRef]
71. Neher, A. Maslow’s Theory of Motivation: A Critique. J. Humanist. Psychol. 1991, 31, 89–112. [CrossRef]
72. Tay, L.; Diener, E. Needs and Subjective Well-Being Around the World. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 101, 354–365. [CrossRef]
73. Scott, W.R. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities, 4th ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.
74. Webb, G.P. Nutrition: Maintaining and Improving Health, 5th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020.
75. Gollnhofer, J.F.; Hellwig, K.; Morhart, F. Fair Is Good, but What Is Fair? Negotiations of Distributive Justice in an Emerging
Nonmonetary Sharing Model. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2016, 1, 226–245. [CrossRef]
76. WHO. Food Safety: Data by WHO Region; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. Available online: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/
view.main.IHRREG11v?lang=en (accessed on 29 April 2020).
77. Nemeroff, C.; Rozin, P. Back in Touch with Contagion: Some Essential Issues. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2018, 3, 612–624. [CrossRef]
78. Pierce, J.L.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K.T. The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research. Rev.
Gen. Psychol. 2003, 7, 84–107. [CrossRef]
79. Argo, J.J.; Dahl, D.W.; Morales, A.C. Consumer Contamination: How Consumers React to Products Touched by Others. J. Mark.
2006, 70, 81–94. [CrossRef]
80. Angyal, A. Disgust and related aversions. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1941, 36, 393–412. [CrossRef]
81. Haidt, J.; McCauley, C.; Rozin, P. Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Disgust: A Scale Sampling Seven Domains of Disgust
Elicitors. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1994, 16, 701–713. [CrossRef]
82. Egolf, A.; Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. How people’s food disgust sensitivity shapes their eating and food behaviour. Appetite 2018,
127, 28–36. [CrossRef]
83. Morales, A.C.; Dahl, D.W.; Argo, J.J. Amending the Law of Contagion: A General Theory of Property Transference. J. Assoc.
Consum. Res. 2018, 3, 555–565. [CrossRef]
84. Zellner, D.A.; Siemers, E.; Teran, V.; Conroy, R.; Lankford, M.; Agrafiotis, A.; Ambrose, L.; Locher, P. Neatness counts. How
plating affects liking for the taste of food. Appetite 2011, 57, 642–648. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Zellner, D.A.; Loss, C.R.; Zearfoss, J.; Remolina, S. It tastes as good as it looks! The effect of food presentation on liking for the
flavor of food. Appetite 2014, 77, 31–35. [CrossRef]
86. Argo, J.J.; Dahl, D.W.; Morales, A.C. Positive Consumer Contagion: Responses to Attractive Others in a Retail Context. J. Mark.
Res. 2008, 45, 690–701. [CrossRef]
87. Rozin, P.; Haidt, J.; McCauley, C.R. Disgust. In Handbook of Emotions, 3rd ed.; Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J.M., Barrett, L.F., Eds.;
Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 757–776.
88. Balaam, B.J.; Haslam, S.A. A Closer Look at the Role of Social Influence in the Development of Attitudes to Eating. J. Community
Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 8, 195–212. [CrossRef]
89. Tajfel, H.; Turner, J.C. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations; Austin, W.G.,
Worchel, S., Eds.; Brooks/Cole: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1979; pp. 33–47.
90. Kniazeva, M.; Venkatesh, A. Food for thought: A study of food consumption in postmodern US culture. J. Consum. Behav. 2007, 6,
419–435. [CrossRef]
91. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental
behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [CrossRef]
92. Sebbane, M.; Costa, S. Food leftovers in workplace cafeterias: An exploratory analysis of stated behavior and actual behavior.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 88–94. [CrossRef]
93. Neff, R.A.; Spiker, M.L.; Truant, P.L. Wasted Food: U.S. Consumers’ Reported Awareness, Attitudes, and Behaviors. PLoS ONE
2015, 10, e0127881. [CrossRef]
94. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1957.
95. Festinger, L.; Carlsmith, J.M. Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1959, 58, 203–210. [CrossRef]
96. Kallbekken, S.; Sælen, H. ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure. Econ. Lett. 2013, 119,
325–327. [CrossRef]
97. Mirosa, M.; Liu, Y.; Mirosa, R. Consumers’ Behaviors and Attitudes toward Doggy Bags: Identifying Barriers and Benefits to
Promoting Behavior Change. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 563–590. [CrossRef]
98. Sirieix, L.; Lála, J.; Kocmanová, K. Understanding the antecedents of consumers’ attitudes towards doggy bags in restaurants:
Concern about food waste, culture, norms and emotions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 153–158. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13564 30 of 30

99. Hamerman, E.J.; Rudell, F.; Martins, C.M. Factors that predict taking restaurant leftovers: Strategies for reducing food waste. J.
Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 94–104. [CrossRef]
100. Zero Waste Europe. France’s Law for Fighting Food Waste: Food Waste Prevention Legislation; Zero Waste Europe: Brussels, Belgium,
2020. Available online: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/library/france-law-for-fighting-food-waste/ (accessed on 21 November
2021).
101. Chazan, D. ‘Doggy Bag’ Law Introduced in France; The Telegraph Online: London, UK, 2016. Available online: https://
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12079039/Doggy-bag-law-introduced-in-France.html (accessed on 22
November 2021).
102. Williams, H.; Wikström, F. Environmental impact of packaging and food losses in a life cycle perspective: A comparative analysis
of five food items. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 43–48. [CrossRef]
103. Silvenius, F.; Katajajuuri, J.-M.; Grönman, K.; Soukka, R.; Koivupuro, H.-K.; Virtanen, Y. Role of packaging in LCA of food
products. In Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management; Finkbeiner, M., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp.
359–370.
104. Fogg, B.J. A behavior model for persuasive design. In Persuasive ‘09: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive
Technology, Claremont, CA, USA, 26–29 April 2009; Chatterjee, S., Dev, P., Eds.; ACM: New York, USA, 2009.
105. Fogg, B.J. Tiny Habits: The Small Changes That Change Everything; Virgin Books: London, UK, 2019.
106. Burlea-Schiopoiu, A.; Ogarca, R.F.; Barbu, C.M.; Craciun, L.; Baloi, I.C.; Mihai, L.S. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food
waste behaviour of young people. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126333. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
107. Pocol, C.B.; Pinoteau, M.; Amuza, A.; Burlea-Schiopoiu, A.; Glogovet, an, A.-I. Food waste behavior among Romanian consumers:
A cluster analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9708. [CrossRef]