Building and managing sustainable schools: the case of food waste

UPCommons Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints Aquesta és una còpia de la versió author’s final draft d'un article publicat a la revista Journal of cleaner production. URL d'aquest document a UPCommons E-prints: https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/173496 Article publicat / Published paper : Derqui, B.; Grimaldi, D.; Fernandez, V. Building and managing sustainable schools: the case of food waste. "Journal of cleaner production", 10 Gener 2020, vol. 243, 118533. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118533 © 2019. Aquesta versió està disponible sota la llicència CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1 Building and Managing sustainable schools: The case of food waste Abstract The global sustainability imperative requires dealing with food waste. This study explores how the management of school canteens can help school leaders on their path towards building more sustainable institutions. Despite scholars have largely shown the magnitude of food waste generated at school canteens, this paper shows that headteachers mistakenly perceive their canteens to be efficient in adjusting the amount cooked and that their pupils leave little plate waste. Data were collected through a survey among 420 school headteachers and a clustering analysis based on the schools’ sustainability profile was applied. Results show that schools can be categorised in 4 clusters: Activists, Environmentalists, Socials, and Laggards. A relevant contribution of this paper is that even in those clusters largely engaged in sustainability issues, canteen food waste reduction initiatives are rarely applied. Increasing school management’s visibility and awareness on the issue of food waste would result in more sustainable educational institutions. Another conclusion of the study is that although school sustainability is related to environmental rather than social initiatives, schools can follow two different paths on their way towards sustainability: either the social or environmental avenues. 1. Introduction Climate change is real and currently recognised by the international community as a major threat to human development (Garnett, 2008). There is indeed an increasing apprehension surrounding the impacts of climate change, especially with regard to the ability of the world to provide sustainable diets for all its future population (Godfray et al., 2010). Not surprisingly, reducing food waste has been suggested as one of the most promising measures to improve food security in the coming decades (Kummu et al., 2012) and to progress towards sustainability of the food system. Food waste has an impact on all three dimensions of sustainability: it is a growing ethical, environmental and economic problem. In developed countries most food waste occurs at the final levels of the supply chain and, consequently has a higher impact on the environment (Parfitt et al., 2010). For this reason education and awareness campaigns, although not enough, have become important in achieving the goal of improving sustainability of the food system (Garnett, 2008). The global sustainability imperative requires increasing awareness of the challenge and, as stated by Kronlid (2014), this is closely related to school education. Furthermore, schools have been identified as being in a primary position to offer education on nutrition and sustainability and in being able to influence present and future consumption patterns. Their role is crucial as food consumption patterns heavily affect the sustainability of the global food supply chain (Benvenuti et al., 2016). Therefore, the application of initiatives to reduce food waste at school canteens becomes an opportunity to promote more sustainable food habits among future generations (Boschini et al., 2017). Through reducing food waste, schools can be contributors to a more sustainable present and future food system, while reducing costs at the same time (Cohen et al., 2015; EPA, 2014). However, literature is too scanty to propose solutions to achieve this objective. In order to shed light on this issue, the empirical approach chosen consisted of a quantitative survey among 420 school headteachers aiming to identify, characterise and classify patterns of behaviour towards sustainability in general and food waste in particular. The goal of this research is to develop a set of criteria to cluster schools based on sustainability concerns and initiatives of their top management teams and to prioritise food waste reduction initiatives that could aid in its reduction. 2 2. Literature Review 2.1 Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Sustainable Schools Education is considered by UNESCO as a key instrument to achieve Sustainable Development Goals. As stated in several Unesco reports (e.g. UNESCO, 2017, 2015, 2005), education should become the engine of sustainable development and the key for a better world: “Education can, and must, contribute to a new vision of sustainable global development” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 32). This recognises the importance of education on the interaction between development and the environment. With its roots in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), the concept of sustainable schools, understood as those that embed sustainability principles and values in school culture, is in continuous evolution (Kadji-Beltran et al., 2013). A sustainable school has been defined as an organisation guided by the principles of care for one self, care for each other and care for the environment, integrating sustainability concerns into its daily operations (DCSF, 2008; Gough, 2005). Resource management, and thus, waste management too, are essential considerations for sustainable school policies. According to Birney et al., sustainability is much more than “another initiative” for schools. They state that sustainability is “life giving to people and their organisational purposes, policies and practices” (Birney and Reed, 2009, p. 46). They continue affirming it provides schools with a robust moral framework to work within (Birney and Reed, 2009). A sustainable school should then guarantee opportunities for all staff members in learning and teaching the principles of ESD and related action (Youngs and King, 2002). 2.2. The Role of School headteachers in building Sustainable Schools Managers’ characteristics and behaviours have been found by scholars as being closely related to environmental management (Fernández et al., 2006). Sustainable school leaders place sustainability at the centre of a school’s vision, mission and culture, aiming to educate students to be equipped to create more sustainable societies. These agents facilitate all staff members (teachers and administrative personnel) in developing the principles of ESD. Furthermore, Henderson (2004) states that a whole school sustainability approach implies embedding sustainability in all curriculum areas, using action learning and engaging the whole school community (Henderson and Tilbury, 2004). At this point the role of school headteachers is crucial. Jackson (1986) concluded in her research that school headteachers who promote sustainability in their schools are usually underpinned by their personal values and thus, are passionate about sustainability. The result is a strong conviction in their engagement with sustainability. This said, Jackson (1986) found a discrepancy between the implementation of sustainable school policies and initiatives and what school headteachers say they do. Besides, Kadji et al. (2013) when exploring constraining factors towards sustainable schools also highlight the relevance of school leaders. They point towards the limited commitment of headteachers to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), their limited willingness to challenge the status quo and weak engagement in initiatives for supporting ESD, among other limiting factors towards building sustainable schools. They also found overall frequency of ESD actions implemented in schools was significantly linked with the headteacher’s encouragement of contemporary pedagogical approaches, with participation in outside-the-classroom activities influenced by this type of encouragement. Scott (2013, p. 10) highlights the centrality of having a leadership that “understands the issues and owns the process of addressing them” and posits that without this, no change towards the development of a sustainable school will 3 take place. He describes 4 different stages explicitly related to the role of the school leader, starting from uncoordinated initiatives lead by interested teachers, followed at a second stage by isolated curriculum activities supported or at least tolerated by school leaders. The next stage emerges with the explicit support of school leaders in taking advantage of benefits of a broad view of sustainability. Finally, at the most advanced stage, the goals of a transformed school and even educational perspective become priorities to their leaders, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Stages in Developing a Sustainable School (Adapted from Scott 2013) 2.3. Food Waste at schools Despite the fact that there is no consensus among scholars on the definition of food waste (Lebersorger and Schneider, 2011) and that diverse categorisations make its quantification difficult (Buzby and Hyman, 2012), most researchers agree on its magnitude (e.g. Mena et al., 2011) and although a great variation is observed in the quantifications performed by researchers at school canteens, results are impressive. For instance, Byker (2014) examined over 300 meals in an elementary school in the US and concluded that 45% of total food served was wasted; Boschini (2018) estimated an average of 107 g of avoidable plate waste per student and day in five primary schools in Italy, and Wrap (2011) estimated the monetary value of the food wasted at schools in the UK in 26% of the total food budget. Food waste includes losses during preparation and cooking, discards due to preparation of too much food, expired use-by or open dates, spoilage as well as plate waste (Clarke et al., 2015), being the latter the major source of FW at schools (Betz et al., 2015). Buzby & Guthrie (2002, p. 1) list as potential causes of plate waste school scheduling constraints, the difficulty in adapting meals to widely varying student energy needs and preferences, and availability of substitute foods from competing sources. Researchers highlight the diverse benefits of tackling food waste at schools: from improved nutritional intake by students (Byker et al., 2014) and creating more responsible future consumers (Silvennoinen et al., 2012) to more efficient water, energy and land use; diverting food waste from landfills, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Parfitt et al., 2010; Wrap, 2011) and, finally, preventing unethical behaviours in a world where millions of people are still undernourished (Roe et al., 2008). Other benefits of reducing food waste at schools include financial savings for both schools and families (Cohen et al., 2013). 2.4 Food Waste Reduction Interventions As a conclusion from different studies, scholars have come up with many and various recommendations and initiatives for institutions and firms to minimise food waste at school canteens. Mirosa et al. (2016) introduced consumer insights when analysing the reasons for wasting food, and concluded that in order to be effective, interventions should appeal to students’ personal values. They reported that in order to increase student’s buy-in, the reasons for reduction efforts should be explained clearly and appropriately and, thus, proper communication is Uncoordinated initiatives led by interested teachers Isolated curriculum activities supported or at least tolerated by school leaders Explicit support of school leaders in taking advantage of benefits of a broad view of sustainability A transformed school is the goal 4 vital (Mirosa et al., 2016). On the other hand, Betz (2015) highlights the importance of increasing the staff’s awareness on the issue. Given that, in most studies, plate waste has been revealed as the largest source of waste in food service institutions (Derqui et al., 2018; Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama, 2004), suggested intervention policies have often focused on reducing diners’ leftovers. Initiatives aiming to reduce plate waste include awareness campaigns such as discussing the issue in class, or even involving students in the measurement of plate waste and displaying the results in the canteen (Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama, 2004). In their study, Engström et al. reported a 35% reduction in plate waste because of an awareness campaign. The practice of pedagogic lunches at schools – teachers discussing nutrition during the meals and teaching students how to behave in the dining room - was also mentioned as a method to minimise plate waste by Engström et al. (2004). Waling (2017) conducted a survey among 3,629 Swedish teachers on whether school lunches should be considered an educational activity or just a time to get a break from education, and found that 72% agreed on the concept of educational lunches while 28% believed lunch time should be a break from educational activities. Most respondents thought it was a good occasion for educating about healthy eating and food waste. Research at a university residential college in New Zealand suggested that pre-ordering food can be an effective intervention technique which supports hedonism value through providing consumers’ preferred meal option (Mirosa et al., 2016). Other studies suggest adding to the pre-booking of food improving the accuracy of meal forecasts before cooking and offering flexible portions (Ferreira et al., 2013). In contrast, Buzby et al. (2002) suggest plate waste could be reduced by improving food quality as well as better adapting serving sizes to students’ appetites. Similarly, Guthrie (2002) concluded that increasing meal flexibility results in reduced food waste. Interestingly, Chapman (2017) suggested that whenever recess was held before lunch time instead of afterwards, in a phenomenon described as reverse recess, plate waste is reduced; similarly, Bergman (2004), from his research in elementary school lunches, added to this conclusion the fact that nutrient consumption increases when children have more time to eat. Finally, with regard to the infrastructures and available resources, tray-free dining has also been pointed out by researchers (e.g. Ferreira et al., 2013; Whitehair et al., 2013) as a reduction measure, together with enhancing the number and the role of caregivers. 3. Objectives Although there are quite a few studies performed by scholars on the issue of food waste (FW) at school canteens, literature is too scanty to analyse how the management of the school canteen can help school leaders in their path towards building more sustainable schools. In order to shed light on this issue, we performed research with the following goals: 1.- To understand the level of awareness on FW generated at school canteens and whether food waste generation is related to the sustainable performance of the school. 2.- To understand to what extent schools are currently applying interventions that minimise food waste at their canteens. 3.- To understand the different typologies in which schools can be categorized and to prioritise a short list of food waste reduction interventions based on their potential applicability/acceptability by each type of school. 4. Materials and Methods 5 4.1. Methods Quantitative research methods were used to respond to the above-mentioned research objectives, distributing a selfcompleted questionnaire sent by email to 5,441 school headteachers in Spain, covering the whole school universe of both private and public, primary and secondary schools in Catalonia. The questionnaire was pretested on a small number of respondents (3 headteachers) to identify the potential problems and to eliminate them. The final research sample was subsequently chosen from official open access databases and the survey was sent to all the schools in the database. E-mails including a link to the questionnaire were sent out in February 2016. We received 548 valid responses out of which we used 420 (77%) for our research. These were chosen given the usefulness to our research objectives in responses from schools which offered dining services to their students. Thus, 128 responses were purposely excluded as these schools did not offer canteen service to their students. 4.1.1 Measures Being Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards (GRI, 2016) the most commonly accepted metrics (Székely and Knirsch, 2005; Willis, C. A., 2003), GRI criteria were followed to investigate at which stage in the path towards sustainability the schools were. Although there is still a debate on which are the best guidelines to follow when measuring the sustainable performance in the public and third sector, and despite their current lack of taking up GRI guidelines (at least not as often as in the private sector), using them represents an opportunity to achieve more (Dumay et al., 2010). Questionnaire items were developed using GRI criteria, aiming to measure whether headteachers consider their institutions as having a clear and consistent sustainability strategy and to what extent they devoted efforts and resources to reducing their environmental impact. Moreover, a list of diverse potential activities was prepared and tested to confirm the level of maturity of the school with regard to sustainability. These activities included for instance the grade to which the school devotes efforts and resources to reduce the consumption of energy and water, or to promote social causes and volunteerism, among others. Furthermore, previous research suggests that different actors are involved in the generation of food waste (Beretta et al., 2013) and that different behaviours result in different amounts of food wasted. Therefore, food wasting was measured with three variables: perceived amount of food wasted; level of involvement of the different players in reducing food waste and who is considered responsible for food waste reduction measures. Finally, the food waste reduction initiatives included in the questionnaire were chosen based on an extensive literature review (36 scientific papers were analysed). The initiatives were classified in three categories based on their scope (Derqui, Fernandez, & Fayos, 2018): the first category, interventions related to increasing awareness on the topic; the second, interventions that require modifying operational issues; and the third, those related to infrastructures and resources. Overall, the questionnaire consisted of five sections and 78 items and was self-administered by the respondents. The complete questionnaire is included in Appendix 1. In section one, we asked for personal (name and position of the respondent) and institutional information (number of pupils, whether the school had a canteen, and whether it had a sustainability certification of any type). Section two included questions on how the canteen was managed, the number of students that typically used it, and whether they performed food waste audits. Section three aimed at understanding the school’s engagement towards sustainability, including questions related to the amount of resources and effort dedicated to sustainability issues. This section included eleven 5-point Likert scale questions concerning the degree to which headteachers thought the school was engaged with sustainability. Three of the questions (CS1 to CS3) concerned general aspects related to corporate sustainability (CS), four questions (ES1 to ES4) delimited the characteristics of the institution’s environmental sustainability (ES) profile, and another four questions determined the social sustainability (SS) profile (SS1 to SS4). Section four aimed at understanding school 6 perspectives on food waste (FW), trying to ascertain how relevant the issue is in their institution as well as who they consider responsible for the effort of reducing waste. In this section, twelve Likert scale questions (FW1 to FW12) were used. The Likert scales in both section 3 and 4 were 5-point scales where 1 was “I do not agree at all” and 5 was “totally agree”. Finally, in section five, several interventions were listed and respondents had to grade them using a 5-point Likert scale based on how interesting, and applicable, they perceived the intervention to be in their school setting, where 1 indicated “I do not think this is interesting at all”, and 5 was “We should definitively implement it in my school”. In cases where the initiative was actually being implemented at that time at the school, the respondent could answer “currently implemented” instead of using the ranking scale. Although the questionnaire was sent in Spanish and Catalan languages, in this paper we have included an English translation in Appendix 1. On top of asking about the interviewees’ general interest on applying measures to reduce food waste in general (S1), 14 concrete interventions were included in section 5 in our questionnaire, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Food Waste Interventions found in the literature Typology Intervention Author Awareness Plate waste awareness campaigns addressing pupils (Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama, 2004) Kitchen waste awareness campaigns addressing staff (Betz et al., 2015) Im prove training of caretakers on food waste and sustainability (Derqui et al., 2018) Cost estimations of Food Waste (Wrap, 2011) Fruit peeling workshops (teaching the youngest on how to properly peel fruit to minimise waste) (Derqui et al., 2018) Operations Modified timetables so that there is a recess before lunch (Chapman et al., 2017) Longer lunch times (Bergman et al., 2004) Improve kitchen – school communication, to be able to better adjust cooked food to real needs (Derqui et al., 2018) Flexible portions (Guthrie and Buzby, 2002) Optional side dishes (Guthrie and Buzby, 2002) Limiting availability of bread (Guthrie and Buzby, 2002) Infrastructure s & Resources Improved canteen atmosphere by noise reduction (Wrap, 2011) Facilitating school compost or food donations (Wrap, 2011) Increase the number of caretakers (Waling and Olsson, 2017) 7 5. Results 5.1 Demographics The study target population consisted of Primary and Secondary Education Schools in Catalonia, Spain. A total of 82% (n = 346) respondents had a top management role in the school (Director/ Headteacher); 7% (n = 28) were responsible for the management of the canteen and the rest had administrative or pedagogical roles in the school (Head of studies/Administration), as shown in Table 2. Most of the schools in our sample (76%) were public while the rest were private. By number of students, 23% of the centres in the study sample were big schools (over 400 students), 38% were medium schools (between 200 and 400 students) and 39% were small schools (fewer than 200 students), as shown in Table 2. The average number of students dining daily in the school canteen in our sample was 125, with 20 schools with over 400 pupils eating at school daily, 179 between 100 and 399 and 219 serving food to below 99 students on average. Table 2. Sample profile (in %) Canteen Business Model Respondent Role at School Size of Schools (Number of Students) In situ kitchen 63 % Top Management 82% Mean (SD) 263 (362) Cooked outside 38% Administration 11% Up to 200 39% Number of students dining at School Canteen Manager 7% Over 400 23% Mean (SD) 125(143) 200 – 400 38% 5.2 School Approach on Sustainability 5.2.1 Feature Selection method and School Sustainability Feature selection methods aim to create a more accurate predictive model based on a large dataset. Independent variables are latent constructs measured through the survey items. To find the most influential combinations of inputs, a factor analysis was conducted aiming to reduce complexity. After reducing the number of variables, the resulting simpler model is easier to understand and explain. Concretely, we applied a filter method (Guyon, 2003) which consists on selecting subsets of variables as a pre-processing step, independently of the prediction performance of the model. Accordingly, we filtered each construct computing the Internal Consistency Reliability (ICR) as measured by Cronbach alpha factor (see Table 3). By evaluating the scores, we determined if some items are to be kept or removed from the dataset in order to satisfy the conventional thresholds of 0.7 for Cronbach alpha (Peterson, 1994). Results in Table 3 show that the items do not present any outlier and are convergent (valid) for the constructs they measure. Table 3: Feature Selection technique Constructs Variable Abbreviation Combined items Factor analysis Suggested Interventions SI S1 to S17 ICR = 0.83 8 School environmental sustainability efforts ES ES1 to ES5 ICR = 0.84 School social sustainability efforts SS SS1 to SS4 ICR = 0.74 When asked whether they perceived the school to have a clear strategy on sustainability (Item CS1), our respondents’ average grade was 3.2, as shown in Table 4. We can infer from these answers that school headteachers are quite confident with the sustainability performance of the schools led by them. With regard to sustainability certifications (Item I4), 36% (n = 152) schools gave a positive answer to the question on whether they had a sustainability or environmental certification of any kind. Furthermore, results suggest that school headteachers perceive their schools as being more engaged in environmental sustainability than in social or corporate sustainability, as the average grade for environmental items (ES mean = 4.53) was higher than for social sustainability issues (SS mean = 3.46). On a different matter, the majority of school managers agree on the pedagogical purpose of school lunches (FW1 mean = 4). Table 4: Means and Standard Deviation for Scores of School Sustainability Mean Standard Deviation CS1: Clear Sustainability Strategy 3.21666667 1.07619427 CS2: Ahead of other Schools 2.69285714 1.03561699 ES: Environmental Sustainability 4.53869048 1.83816288 SS: Social Sustainability Efforts 3.46071429 1.78358141 FW1: Canteen in Educational Project 4.00238095 1.12574305 5.2.2 The issue of Food Waste With regard to food waste produced at the canteen (Table 5), consistently with the literature, school managers do not think the canteens generate a lot of food waste: the average grade to the question “Do you agree with the statement: a lot of food is wasted in the school canteen?” (Item FW2) was only 2.3. At the same time, the mean answer to whether the amount of food cooked is usually greater than needed was low (FW4 mean = 2.6). Moreover, our respondents mostly agreed with the statement “Children usually completely finish the food on their dishes” (FW3 mean = 3.9). We can infer from these results that school headteachers’ awareness on food waste is low, a fact that we connect to its low visibility, as concluded by Derqui et al. (2016) as well as to headteachers not being close to where waste is produced (US General Accounting Office, 1996). Table 5: Means and Standard Deviation for Scores of Food Waste Management MEAN Standard Deviation FW2: A lot of FW is generated 2.2952381 1.03332362 FW3: Most pupils eat everything 3.9 0.88987945 15 schools can be split into 4 clusters where the largest one (the Activists) outperforms in all sustainability issues while the smallest group is out of scope. We may conclude that Spanish schools are largely engaged in sustainability issues although this does not often include canteen food waste reduction. This result echoes previous research: school headteachers do not consider food waste to be a relevant issue in their canteens, despite the results of numerous quantifications done by scholars at school canteens. School leaders are not concerned about FW because they are not aware of it being a relevant issue, while scholars agree on the fact that a lot of food is wasted. We suggest that increasing school management’s visibility and awareness on the issue of food waste would result in a step forward for schools on their path towards sustainability. 8. Bibliography Benvenuti, L., De Santis, A., Santesarti, F., Tocca, L., 2016. An optimal plan for food consumption with minimal environmental impact: the case of school lunch menus. J. Cleaner Production 129, 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.051 Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U., Hellweg, S., 2013. Quantifying food losses and the potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Management 33, 764–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.11.007 Bergman, E., Buergel, N., Englund, T., Femrite, A., 2004. Relationships of Meal and Recess Schedules to Plate Waste in Elementary Schools. The Journal of child Nutrition and Management. Betz, A., Buchli, J., Göbel, C., Müller, C., 2015. Food waste in the Swiss food service industry - Magnitude and potential for reduction. Waste Management 35, 218–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.015 Birney, A., Reed, J., 2009. Sustainability and renewal: findings from the Leading Sustainable Schools research project. Boschini, M., Falasconi, L., Giordano, C., Alboni, F., 2018. Food waste in school canteens: A reference methodology for large-scale studies. J. Cleaner Production 182, 1024–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.02.040 Boschini, M., Falasconi, L., Giordano, C., Franco, S., Cicatiello, C., Marangon, F., Troiano, S., 2017. Preliminary results of a methodology for determining food waste in primary school canteens. J. Cleaner Production 303– 310. https://doi.org/10.13128/REA-22805 Buzby, J.C., Guthrie, J.F., 2002. Plate Waste in School Nutrition Programs: Report to Congress. USDA-ERS Rep. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1700445 Buzby, J.C., Hyman, J., 2012. Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States. Food Policy 37, 561– 570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.06.002 Byker, C.J., Farris, A.R., Marcenelle, M., Davis, G.C., Serrano, E.L., 2014. Food Waste in a School Nutrition Program After Implementation of New Lunch Program Guidelines. J. Nutrition Education & Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.03.009 Chapman, L.E., Cohen, J., Canterberry, M., Carton, T.W., 2017. Factors Associated with School Lunch Consumption: Reverse Recess and School “Brunch.” J. Academy of Nutrition Dietetics 117, 1413–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.04.016 Clarke, C., Schweitzer, Z., Roto, A., 2015. Reducing Food Waste : Recommendations to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee 1–9. Cohen, J.F.W., Richardson, S., Austin, S.B., Economos, C.D., Rimm, E.B., 2013. School Lunch Waste Among Middle School Students. Am. J. Preventive Medicine 44, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.060 Cohen, J.F.W., Richardson, S.A., Cluggish, S.A., Parker, E., Catalano, P.J., Rimm, E.B., 2015. Effects of Choice Architecture and Chef-Enhanced Meals on the Selection and Consumption of Healthier School Foods. JAMA Pediatr. 169, 431. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3805 DCSF, 2008. Sustainable schools: How national recognition schemes can support your school’s progress. 16 Derqui, B., Fayos, T., Fernandez, V., 2016. Towards a More Sustainable Food Supply Chain: Opening up Invisible Waste in Food Service. Sustainability 8, 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070693 Derqui, Belén, Fernandez, V., Fayos, T., 2018. Towards more sustainable food systems. Addressing food waste at school canteens. Appetite 129, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.06.022 Derqui, B., Fernandez, V., Fayos, T., 2018. Towards more sustainable food systems. Addressing food waste at school canteens. Appetite 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.06.022 Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., Farneti, F., 2010. GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for public and third sector organizations: A critical review. Public Management Review 12, 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2010.496266 Engström, R., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 2004. Food losses in food service institutions Examples from Sweden. Food Policy 29, 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.03.004 EPA, 2014. A guide to conducting and Analyzing a Food Waste Assessment. Fernández, E., Junquera, B., Ordiz, M., 2006. Managers’ profile in environmental strategy: A review of the literature. Corp. Soc. Responsibility Environmental Management 13, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.109 Ferreira, M., Martins, M.L., Rocha, A., 2013. Food waste as an index of foodservice quality. British Food J. 115, 1628–1637. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2012-0051 Garnett, T., 2008. Cooking up a storm and our changing climate. Strategy 156. Godfray, Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C., 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383 Gough, A., 2005. Sustainable Schools: Renovating Educational Processes. Applied Environmental Education Communication 4, 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150500302205 GRI, 2016. GRI 101: Foundation. Guthrie, J.F., Buzby, J.C., 2002. Several Strategies May Lower Plate Waste in School Feeding Programs. Food Review 25, 36–42. Guyon, I., 2003. An Introduction To Variable And Feauture Selection 3, 1157–1182. Journal of Machine Learning Research Henderson, K., Tilbury, D., 2004. Whole-school approaches to sustainability: An international review of wholeschool sustainability programs, Report prepared by the Australian Research Institiute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) for the department of th Environment and Heritage. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2812302 Jackson, L., 1986. Leading sustainable schools : what the research tells us. Natl. Coll. Sch. Leadersh. Kadji-Beltran, C., Zachariou, A., Stevenson, R.B., 2013. Leading sustainable schools: exploring the role of primary school principals. Environmental Education Research 19, 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.692770 Kronlid, D.O., Lotz-Sisitka, H., 2014. Transformative Learning and Individual Adaptation, in: Climate Change Adaptation and Human Capabilities. Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, pp. 75–105. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137428042_4 Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012. Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environment 438, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092 Lebersorger, S., Schneider, F., 2011. Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Management 31, 1924–1933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.023 Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., Yurt, O., 2011. The causes of food waste in the supplier-retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resources Conservation Recycling 55, 648–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.006 Mirosa, M., Munro, H., Mangan-Walker, E., Pearson, D., 2016. Reducing waste of food left on plates: interventions based on means-end chain analysis of customers in foodservice sector. British Food J. 118. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 365, 3065–81. 17 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126 Peterson, R.A., 1994. A Meta-Analysis of Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha. J. Consumer Research 21, 381–391. Roe, E., Higgin, M., Maryon-Davis, A., Rigby, N., Royle, T., Sloan, D., Hailes, J., Orrey, J., Jackson|, P., Petrini, C., Longfield, J., Singh, G., Goyal, A., Forsyth, M., Hawkes, C., Arthur, |, Dawson, P., Roberts, P., Heasman, M., Crawley, H., Devereux, C., Lindars-Hammond, G., Rayner, M., 2008. The magazine of the Food Ethics Council. Food Ethics 3. Scott, W., 2013. Developing the sustainable school: thinking the issues through. Curriculum J. 24, 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2013.781375 Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.M., Hartikainen, H., Jalkanen, L., Koivupuro, H.K., Reinikainen, A.A., 2012. FOOD WASTE VOLUME AND COMPOSITION IN THE FINNISH SUPPLY CHAIN: SPECIAL FOCUS ON FOOD SERVICE SECTOR. Proc. Venice 12–15. Székely, F., Knirsch, M., 2005. Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management J. 23, 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.009 UNESCO, 2017. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives Education for Sustainable Development Goals Learning Objectives The Global Education 2030 Agenda. UNESCO, 2015. Rethinking education. UNESCO, 2005. UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. US General Accounting Office, 1996. School Lunch Programs: Role & Impacts of Private Food Service Companies 62. Waling, M., Olsson, C., 2017. School lunch as a break or an educational activity: A quantitative study of Swedish teacher perspectives. Health Educ. 18, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-09-2016-0047 Whitehair, K.J., Shanklin, C.W., Brannon, L.A., 2013. Written Messages Improve Edible Food Waste Behaviors in a University Dining Facility. J. Acaddemy Nutrition Dietetics 113, 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.015 Willis, C. A., A., 2003. The Role of the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in the Social Screening of Investments. J. Business Ethics 43, 233–237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022958618391 Wrap, 2011. Food waste in schools. Banbury, Oxon. Youngs, P., King, M.B., 2002. Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly 38, 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239642 Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire SECTION 1: Institutional Information I1 Name of the person answering the survey: (Not obligatory) I2 Position (Role) I3 Number of students (Primary graders/Secondary graders) I4 Do you have any environmental certification? Yes/No/In process I5 If Yes, which one? I6 Is there a canteen at the school? Yes /No SECTION 2: Canteen Management & Facilities CM1 Is the management of the canteen outsourced? Yes, outsourced to a catering company/Yes, but not to a catering firm/No, it is managed by the school CM2 How is food supplied in the school? The school has an on-site kitchen/The food is brought prepared but cold and is heated at the school/The food is brought prepared, hot and ready to serve CM3 Is there a person with the specific position of head of the canteen or similar? Yes, there is a person solely devoted to management of the canteen/Yes, there is a canteen manager who also has other duties/No 18 CM4 Who are the people who supervise the pupils in the canteen? Teachers/Supervisors just for the canteen/Others (please indicate CM5 The average number of primary school pupils who eat each day in the school is CM6 The average number of supervisors monitoring the primary school meals is CM7 The average number of secondary school pupils who eat each day in the school is CM8 The average number of supervisors monitoring the secondary school meals is CM9 The school has a self-service line Yes/No CM10 The pupils go to the self-service lines to serve themselves. Yes/no/depends on the age CM11 Food is served to the pupils at the tables Yes/No CM12 Plates are used instead of preformed trays Yes/No CM13 Pupils can choose between more than one option for each dish Yes/No CM14 Pupils can choose if they want a side dish Yes/No CM15 Pupils have the option of taking bread Yes/No CM16 Are measurements of food waste carried out in the school? Yes, on a regular basis by the catering company/Yes, on a regular basis on the school´s own initiative/No, never SECTION 3: School Sustainability CS1 Our school has a clear and consistent sustainability strategy 1-5 CS2 Our school is ahead of other schools on sustainability issues 1-5 ES1 Our school devotes efforts and resources to minimising the school´s environmental footprint 1-5 ES2 The school devotes efforts and resources to reducing energy consumption 1-5 ES3 The school devotes efforts and resources to reducing the consumption of paper 1-5 ES4 The school devotes efforts and resources to reducing the consumption of water 1-5 ES5 The school devotes efforts and resources to reducing food waste 1-5 SS1 The school devotes efforts and resources to promoting volunteering among pupils 1-5 SS2 The school devotes efforts and resources to collaboration with NGOs 1-5 SS3 The school devotes efforts and resources to social causes in the school´s area 1-5 SS4 The school devotes efforts and resources to satisfying the needs of the most vulnerable or those at risk of exclusion 1-5 SECTION 4: Food Waste FW1 The canteen is part of the school´s educational project 1-5 FW2 A large amount of food waste is produced in the canteen 1-5 FW3 Most of the pupils eat everything they are served 1-5 FW4 Normally more portions are prepared than are needed 1-5 FW5 Families are very involved in reducing food waste at school 1-5 FW6 The catering company is very involved in reducing food waste at school 1-5 19 FW7 School management is very involved in reducing food waste at school 1-5 FW8 The Regional Government of Catalonia is very involved in reducing food waste at schools 1-5 FW9 Parents are responsible for education about food 1-5 FW10 The school is responsible for the amount of food wasted in the canteen 1-5 FW11 The catering company is responsible for the amount of food wasted in the canteen 1-5 FW12 The Regional Government should apply measures and regulations in order to reduce food waste in schools 1-5 SECTION 5: Suggested Interventions S1 Apply measures in order to reduce food waste in my school 1-5/Currently applied S2 Carry out regular measurements of the food thrown away in my school 1-5/Currently applied S3 Reliably estimate the financial cost of food waste 1-5/Currently applied S4 Promote awareness raising programmes for pupils in order to encourage them to leave less leftovers on their plate 1-5/Currently applied S5 Promote awareness programmes for employees in order to reduce waste in the kitchen 1-5/Currently applied S6 Change timetables so that there is a break time before lunch 1-5/Currently applied S7 Extend the available time for eating 1-5/Currently applied S8 Introduce fruit peeling workshops (teach the little ones to fully make the most of fruit) 1-5/Currently applied S9 Improve school - canteen communication in order to more closely adjust the amount cooked to the planned number of diners 1-5/Currently applied S11 Make portion sizes flexible 1-5/Currently applied S12 Allow the side dish to be optional 1-5/Currently applied S13 Not allow children to take bread until they have finished their starter 1-5/Currently applied S14 Reduce noise in the canteen and create a more pleasant atmosphere 1-5/Currently applied S15 Facilitate composting in the school and the donation of food 1-5/Currently applied S16 Increase the number of canteen supervisors 1-5/Currently applied S17 Make the canteen supervision professional 1-5/Currently applied