Food Surplus Management in Retailing: A Global Perspective – KEY FACTS

• There’s no shared definition of food waste across 19 global retailers
• Bananas, berries and meat top global rankings for wasted products
• Regulatory differences are huge, with fines up to €1,000 per item
• Stores handle 95–97% of waste sorting, driving operational burden
• Markdown practices differ widely, though 30% discounts dominate worldwide
• Exit routes differ widely, with donations low and data often unreliable

Retailers define food waste very differently, even within the same market

Across the 19 retailers surveyed worldwide (representing €620 billion in sales and 45,000 stores), there is no shared definition of what counts as food waste.

Around half do not classify food donated to humans or animal feed as waste. Meanwhile, the vast majority classify anaerobic digestion and composting as waste — but even here, notable exceptions remain.

This lack of alignment makes benchmarking difficult and obscures the true scale of waste across the industry.

What gets wasted most? Bananas, berries and high-value meat

Retailers consistently rank bananas and berries among the items most frequently wasted by volume. When measured by value, meat and berries generate the highest financial loss.

Other regularly cited problem items include salads, lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes, mushrooms, watermelons, oranges and onions.

These patterns highlight why fresh produce and protein departments remain a central focus for waste-reduction efforts.

Regulations vary wildly, and fines can reach €1,000 per item

Food waste and expiry-date rules differ sharply across countries. More than half of surveyed retailers operate in markets where food-waste disposal is restricted or banned, including parts of the USA, France, Germany, Sweden and South Africa.

In Europe, fines for selling expired goods can reach €1,000 per item per store, and repeated failures can trigger store closures. UK retailers report fines in the millions, and managers can even face imprisonment.

South Africa has mandated a 50% reduction in landfill food waste by 2023, moving to full elimination by 2027. These regulatory disparities shape retailer behaviour more than almost any other factor.

Stores shoulder as much as 95–97% of all sorting

For many retailers, almost all food-surplus sorting happens in stores. One European retailer reported 95–97% of sorting occurring at store level.

A handful of exceptions exist, such as warehouse-based sorting networks in parts of the Netherlands.

But the dominant model worldwide puts the responsibility firmly on stores, with major implications for labour, accuracy and efficiency.

Markdowns vary enormously, and 30% off is the global norm

Approaches to markdown timing and levels differ widely. Some retailers discount items three to four days before expiry; others wait until the day of expiry. While most use a single-step markdown, some run two or three steps.

53% of retailers use fixed percentage discounts, 47% use dynamic algorithms, and across countries and store visits, 30% markdowns appear to be the most common level.

Retailers cite labour, margin erosion, cannibalisation and training customers to “wait for the deal” as their top concerns.

Donation, data, animal feed and recycling: Four exit routes, one shared challenge

Charity partnerships are widespread, yet donation volumes often remain low. One retailer donates only 5% of donatable food despite 90% charity coverage in its stores.

Most retailers donate on the day of expiry, and 76% rely on a single-step donation chain with no backup if a charity cannot collect. And donation data is often incomplete or unreliable.

Animal-feed routes exist but can be heavily constrained by regulation. While some retailers can generate revenue from this route; others face weak demand or high logistics costs.

Recycling and landfill practices vary widely. In some regions, anaerobic digestion is scarce or expensive; in others, it is cheaper than landfill, shaping disposal decisions accordingly.

Together, these variations show why no single “exit route” solves the waste problem and why retailers must juggle multiple imperfect options.

Quoting us? Please credit ECR Retail Loss and link back to the research.