Exploring economic challenges and costs of food-sharing initiatives

131 7. Exploring economic challenges and costs of food-sharing initiatives Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan INTRODUCTION Food sharing is becoming an increasingly widespread practice in many cities across the world. It can be found in different stages of the life cycle of food – from production to distribution and consumption. Food can be shared among individuals, as well as informal and formal groups, communities and organisations. These activities include direct exchanges, redistribution through food banks and social supermarkets, communal cooking, and collective food growing and eating (Davies et al., 2019; Falcone & Imbert, 2017). The urban food-sharing landscape is characterised by diverse organisational forms and business models. Among the most notable ones are gifting, bartering, collecting, and both not-for-profit and for-profit selling (Davies et al., 2017). The facilitators of these sharing practices are predominantly non-profit social initiatives and enterprises, which are oriented towards charity and collaborative consumption. Food-sharing initiatives (FSIs) are primarily driven by the goal of addressing significant environmental and social issues, such as food waste, food poverty and unsustainable consumption. These social missions are inherently focused on societal benefit rather than profit generation. Nevertheless, like any other organisation, FSIs face the persistent challenge of securing funding to ensure the continuity and sustainability of their operations. Despite the critical role that economic factors play in the viability of FSIs, scientific research tends to overlook these dimensions (Sadovska et al., forthcoming). This lack of focus on economic sustainability is notable, given the financial struggles of many non-profit FSIs, which rely heavily on donations, grants and volunteer support. Maintaining economic sustainability is a constant challenge, as these initiatives must balance operational costs with their non-profit activities. Additional challenges include the considerable effort Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Understanding the urban sharing economy132 required to coordinate and manage volunteers, which many FSIs rely on, and matching the supply and demand for food (Davies, 2019). This chapter aims to address the economic aspects of FSIs by answering the following questions: 1. What economic challenges do food-sharing initiatives face? 2. What costs are associated with operating different types of food sharing? 3. What funding sources are available to them, and which actors are important for providing them? These questions are first explored through a systematic literature review, the results of which are presented in Sadovska et al. (forthcoming). The classification framework for costs and challenges is then tested using a mobile research lab – an ethnographic method for collecting empirical data in situ (Voytenko Palgan & Sadovska, 2023). The mobile research lab was conducted in Barcelona over one week in March 2024, during which economic challenges and costs were explored through encounters, visits, and co-creation activities with different FSIs. Barcelona was chosen for the empirical inquiry as it hosts a rich food-sharing landscape of over 220 FSIs of various types (Cultivate, 2023). It also has several municipal and regional policies supporting sustainable and healthy food systems, a social and solidarity economy (City of Barcelona, 2022), and urban agriculture (City of Barcelona, 2020), all of which favour FSI development. Based on the insights from the mobile research lab, specific challenges and costs faced by various types of food-sharing organisations were identified, and the classification framework was refined accordingly. This chapter aims to fill the gap in the existing literature on the economic sustainability of food-sharing initiatives. It offers insights for practitioners, policymakers and researchers involved in food-sharing initiatives or interested in their long-term sustainability and impact. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows: the next section introduces the landscape of food sharing, while the following section provides an overview and a classification framework of the economic challenges and costs encountered by different types of FSIs, as reported in the literature. A further section presents the results of empirical work in Barcelona, where various FSIs were studied. The final section presents a concluding discussion. FOOD-SHARING LANDSCAPE Food sharing has historical roots in primitive and contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, where sharing food among households was a common practice (Kishigami, 2021). Anthropological studies have documented these practices extensively, showing how food sharing helped distribute resources more evenly across communities, especially in times of scarcity (Jaeggi & Gurven, 2013). Food sharing in cities has become a growing arena of innovation and experimentation (Davies & Evans, 2019; Davies et al., 2017). Urban food sharing Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Exploring economic challenges and costs of food-sharing initiatives 133 refers to “collective and collaborative practices around food, from shared growing, cooking and eating and the redistribution of surplus food, to the sharing of spaces and devices” (Davies & Evans, 2019, p. 154). Food sharing has evolved to include formal and informal networks and initiatives, often, but not necessarily, facilitated by digital technology, improving the efficiency of food management and connecting users more effectively to food-sharing hubs (Michelini et al., 2018). A growing body of literature encompasses different terms that describe various types of food sharing. Some studies focus on food sharing and urban food commons (Morrow, 2019b), while others investigate community fridges (Visram & Brown, 2020) and food cooperatives (Loh & Agyeman, 2019). These organisations can be found in all parts of the food production, distribution and consumption chain, from growing food to harvesting and processing it to delivering and consuming it, and finally, to composting food waste (Davies et al., 2019). The primary motivations for individuals participating in FSIs are economical, as they offer a way to save money and provide access to food to those in need (Barnes & Mattsson, 2016). Environmental concerns, such as food waste reduction (Falcone & Imbert, 2017), also play a role, but they are often secondary to economic reasons. Additionally, food sharing provides social benefits by building and strengthening community ties, especially in urban areas where social isolation is common. In urban settings, FSIs emerge and operate following different dynamics. A top-down approach is characterised by the public administration’s responsibility for the design and implementation of the initiative. Conversely, FSIs originating from communities, businesses and civil society follow bottom-up approaches (Capdevila & Zarlenga, 2015). Furthermore, hybrid approaches exist where top-down and bottom-up dynamics are not mutually exclusive but can, in fact, enhance the development of an initiative through synergistic interactions among various actors (ibid.). The diversity of FSIs is rich. Davies (2019) offered a classification of organisational types based on the analysis of 4400 FSIs. The main organisational types identified include: 1. Non-profits, which are mission-driven FSIs that typically possess a charitable or non-profit tax status, do not aim to generate profit and rely largely on donations and grants, with volunteer labour complementing a limited number of paid employees. Examples of non-profit FSIs are food banks and community kitchens. 2. Clubs, associations and networks, which require membership and are often informal groups focused on collective action and member support; Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Understanding the urban sharing economy134 they include community gardening groups where members share resources and knowledge to cultivate urban gardens. 3. Cooperatives, which are formally registered consumer, worker and producer organisations that may include businesses identifying as cooperatives. In food cooperatives, members collectively own and run the organisation, sharing responsibilities and benefits. 4. For-profits, which are registered businesses aiming to generate profit, but despite their profit-oriented nature, still engage in food-sharing activities, often leveraging digital platforms. Start-ups and businesses use mobile phone apps to sell surplus food or connect consumers with local food producers. 5. Informal initiatives, which comprise loose networks of people, are not formally registered and may operate under the radar, often escaping regulation. Examples are informal food exchange groups or ad-hoc community feasts organised through social media. 6. Social enterprises, which blend traditional business models with social and environmental goals. They often employ commercial strategies, such as selling products, to achieve these goals. Examples include cafes or restaurants that use surplus food to create meals, with proceeds supporting community projects. ECONOMIC CHALLENGES AND COSTS OF FOODSHARING INITIATIVES: INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE Various types of FSIs, both for-profit and non-profit, incur costs when running their operations and encounter economic challenges. However, the literature is scarce regarding the specific costs and challenges they encounter and how they can sustain themselves over time. A recent study of 52 academic articles (Sadovska et al., forthcoming) identified several types of challenges faced by FSIs, including organisational management, resources, user participation, network management, image and regulations. Financial sustainability is a common barrier, even for commercial FSIs, which often struggle to become profitable. Most FSIs depend on external funding from philanthropic, private and public sectors. Access to essential non-financial resources like equipment, technologies and surplus food is limited due to restricted budgets. FSIs often adopt existing technologies and social media to organise their work. Securing a reliable supply of surplus food from donors, such as retail chains, is challenging due to potential reputational risks for the donors. Additionally, FSIs face limited human capacity and high staff turnover, along with a general lack of knowledge and skills about food waste reduction and surplus food redistribution. Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Exploring economic challenges and costs of food-sharing initiatives 135 More specifically, the study explored the costs that FSIs encounter. It categorised the costs faced by FSIs into seven categories: operational, administrative, asset, personnel, communication and outreach, public relations and image, and legal compliance costs (Sadovska et al., forthcoming). Operational costs are central to the functioning of FSIs and include food sourcing, delivery, sorting and storage. FSIs involved in cooking, eating and redistributing surplus food often incur costs related to acquiring ingredients, especially when donations fall short. Food banks sometimes purchase food directly from manufacturers and participate in the Collaborative Supply Programme (CSP), which aims to secure essential items like milk and cereal at reduced prices (Booth & Whelan, 2014). Transportation and logistics are also significant expenses, with some organisational clients contributing a handling fee to offset these costs (ibid.). Administrative costs vary based on utilities, space rental and office supplies. Some FSIs operate in temporary or shared spaces, reducing rental expenses, while others secure long-term agreements with city councils (Marovelli, 2019). The most substantial administrative costs relate to supporting FSI community members and managing the associated paperwork. Asset costs include investment in ICT tools, which are crucial for FSIs’ outreach and engagement (Morrow, 2019a). Maintenance of premises, especially for those serving meals, necessitates the obtaining of food safety certifications to ensure quality. Equipment costs are significant, particularly for FSIs with limited funds or temporary spaces, as they need professional kitchen equipment for safe food handling (Marovelli, 2019). Community gardening FSIs also face costs for maintaining infrastructure and procuring landscaping tools (Hennchen & Pregernig, 2020). Additionally, asset depreciation remains an ongoing expense for equipment upkeep. Personnel costs are vital for FSIs, so they rely heavily on the volunteer contributions that often occur under resource constraints (Berns et al., 2023). FSIs depend on both paid and unpaid organisers to build community infrastructure and manage operations (Morrow, 2019a). Training staff, especially in food safety, is crucial to prevent cross-contamination and ensure proper handling of sensitive items (Marovelli, 2019). Ongoing training and skill development are essential for managing community resources effectively. Communication and outreach costs are necessary for FSIs to maintain internal and external communication channels, including websites, social media, hotlines and newsletters (Morrow, 2019a). These activities incur costs primarily related to personnel time. Engaging with civic and legal processes, such as lobbying for policy changes, also demands substantial resources. Public relations and image costs focus on building trust and reputation, which are paramount for FSIs. Digital platforms often implement review and rating systems to enhance transparency and minimise user risks (Veen, 2019). Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Understanding the urban sharing economy136 Insurance is vital for maintaining consumer trust, although it represents a significant expense for FSIs. Legal compliance costs are incurred for licensing, certification and the extensive paperwork needed to sign off liability agreements (Davies & Evans, 2019). Taxation of food-sharing activities presents an additional financial challenge due to the diverse models and income scales involved (Zurek, 2016). Engagement in legal processes, including representing community interests in court and lobbying for regulatory changes, requires considerable resources (Morrow, 2019a). Understanding the identified costs and addressing the financial challenges is crucial for the sustainability of FSIs and their effectiveness in tackling social and environmental issues. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FROM BARCELONA AND LITERATURE INTEGRATION ON ECONOMIC CHALLENGES AND COSTS The insights from the literature are integrated with the empirical data gathered through a mobile research lab in Barcelona and are outlined in the following sections. Economic Challenges of Food-sharing Initiatives Economic challenges of FSIs can be divided into several categories and subcategories as summarised in Figure 7.1. Several challenges pertaining to human management are associated with the economic sustainability of FSIs. One of these is the identification and recruitment of volunteers who are passionate about social and environmental causes and willing to contribute their time and effort. The heavy reliance on voluntary labour in all stages of operations renders FSIs dependent on the stability of the flow of motivated participants (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023). The recruitment and retention of volunteers require a continuous effort to maintain their interest and engagement in different FSI activities. This is particularly the case for grassroots or non-profit initiatives since few of them have the financial resources to employ paid staff. It is not feasible for many FSIs to employ even a few individuals on a salaried basis. The prevailing funding schemes for FSIs offer short-term financial assistance that is inadequate for the employment of staff. This leaves smaller FSIs with the sole option of operating entirely with volunteers. Among the FSIs studied in Barcelona, several have addressed this challenge by employing part-time staff who work 50% or less of the standard working week or by hiring personnel through government schemes for the unemployed and people Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Exploring economic challenges and costs of food-sharing initiatives 137 with disabilities. In this manner, the municipality or government bears the full or partial cost of the salary. Regarding the management of human resources, an additional challenge emerges. As FSIs evolve, the range of tasks tends to increase. Completing them is more time-consuming, increasing the volume of work for individuals. Furthermore, the diversity of tasks necessitates a more specialised and professional level of knowledge (Davison et al., 2022). For instance, horticultural work frequently requires the application of specific skills and knowledge, including the selection of suitable fertilisers and the scheduling of planting times. Consequently, community gardens may occasionally experience a dearth of experts capable of fulfilling specific roles. Another example is the establishment of a community kitchen, which necessitates a considerable degree of expertise and information. As such, gathering the information necessary to launch and operate the kitchen requires individuals with particular Figure 7.1 Economic challenges of food-sharing initiatives Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Understanding the urban sharing economy138 skills. Given the high rate of volunteer turnover, it is challenging to retain staff with the necessary skills and to maintain a seamless transfer of knowledge. On the operations side, FSIs encounter challenges connected to distribution and supply models, governance and the scale of operations. Deciding on an efficient and fair distribution model can be complex. Such a model should ensure that the food is distributed to those who need it most while also considering the logistics of transportation and storage. FSIs must define criteria for food distribution to beneficiaries and determine the time and effort required to prepare food before giving it away. If there is an intention to prepare food before distributing it, compliance with food safety regulations and additional space are required. Such requirements are often unachievable for small and informal initiatives. The distribution model is connected to the choice of digital tools to connect with beneficiaries. The choice of these tools can significantly impact the effectiveness and reach of an FSI. To make such tools user-friendly and accessible to a wide range of users, FSIs need either knowledge of digital technologies or resources to hire external suppliers. Another concern is digital security, which protects users’ information. To ensure the smooth operation of the initiative in both offline and online formats, all aspects of the distribution model require attention and resources. The uninterrupted provision of resources for distribution represents a significant challenge, depending on external circumstances. The reliability of food donations from private sources, whether individuals or organisations within the food sector, is inherently uncertain. The volume of donations is also subject to fluctuations. During the crisis associated with the global spread of the novel coronavirus (Covid-19), when normal daily routines were severely disrupted, FSIs observed an increase in food donations (Spoor, 2020). This prompted the emergence of additional initiatives that were required for a specific duration to provide supplementary assistance. Following the stabilisation of the global situation, the volume of donations declined, leading to the cessation of some initiatives. Adopting and renegotiating internal governance and decision-making models over time can be challenging. These models need to be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances while ensuring transparency and accountability. Maintaining a non-hierarchical model and equitable power distribution, reflecting the dynamic participation in a community-based organisation, poses a significant challenge for FSIs (Morrow, 2019a). The spontaneous emergence of hierarchical leadership within one FSI resulted in participant stress, as no one had willingly assumed the leadership roles that were circumstantially assigned to them (Berns et al., 2023). To address these internal governance issues, effective communication and adaptable decision-making processes are crucial to handling the complexities of varying participation levels in FSIs. Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Exploring economic challenges and costs of food-sharing initiatives 139 With the expansion of its operational scale, the management of an FSI’s resources and its paid and unpaid personnel becomes increasingly complex and costly. New tasks emerge, qualified staff come and go, and the work becomes more stressful and demanding (Berns et al., 2023). Internal structures and activities become less clear, preventing new participants from becoming involved (Edwards, 2021). New potential contributors lack entry and participation guidelines, leaving them unsure of how to navigate within the FSI. Operational scaling can be exemplified in geographical terms, such as when an FSI expands its operations to a new area or city. This presents the challenge of engaging with a new community, requiring extra communication efforts and longer transportation distances. In Barcelona, the potential for scaling up beyond the city boundaries involves the necessity to align with other regional food policies and to establish a reputation as a reliable organisation in new environments. Ensuring the operational viability of non-profit FSIs and generating revenue for profit-oriented initiatives requires access to funding. The most significant and pervasive challenges in this domain are faced by all types of FSIs (YamabeLedoux et al., 2023). Reliance on external funding presents two main issues. First, the number of actors willing and capable of providing financial support to FSIs is limited. FSIs depend on funding from both the public and private sectors, which can be sourced from municipal authorities, corporations and philanthropic organisations (Loh & Agyeman, 2019). In practice, the public sector is constrained in terms of resources, while private actors can be an unreliable source of support. Second, the temporary nature of external financial support compounds a challenge. As FSIs have elucidated, the funding is often projector activity-based, resulting in a relatively brief time frame for support. The annual cycle of funding, with a requirement for regular reapplication, is a common reality for many FSIs. In some instances, the cessation of support for projects has left FSIs without the resources to pursue further activities. The flow of resources to FSIs can come in the form of monetary support, products, equipment, or other non-monetary contributions. These resources are utilised to sustain the operations of FSIs, while others, such as food, are redistributed. In this context, the network of actors surrounding FSIs can be categorised into funders, who provide money, equipment, space and other necessities, and donors, who supply food for redistribution. The existence and financial sustainability of FSIs rely heavily on their agency and power within this network of supporting actors. Public and private entities that supply monetary and non-monetary resources often have specific requirements and expectations attached to their support. Given the complex landscape of resource allocation, conflicts can arise as different FSIs compete for the same resources. Braun et al. (2018) note the high probability of conflicts over resource allocation among FSIs, highlighting the competitive nature of securing support from Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Understanding the urban sharing economy146 the Living Lots portal in their projects of organising land access for citizens in New York (Morrow, 2019a). In some instances, communication is not mandatory as certain FSIs prefer to remain small-scale, with new participants learning about them through word of mouth. An informal initiative devoted to collecting food surplus in one area of Barcelona does not incur any communication costs as there is no intention to expand, and new participants come from the network of current members. As food-sharing practices can be subject to food safety concerns and social stigma, FSIs can take actions to build a reliable public image, resulting in associated costs. To cultivate trust, digital FSIs frequently employ review systems, which increase transparency and reduce risks for users. It is vital for an FSI’s credibility to monitor and respond to these reviews, which requires a time commitment from the staff. Trust and reputation hold the same level of importance in direct, face-to-face interactions with FSIs. As discussed, one of the challenges FSIs face is the complexity and fragmentation of food governance. This involves navigating regulations and policies at various levels, from local to national, which incurs costs of legal compliance. Members of FSIs can show involvement by acting as advocates for community interests in court. For example, in enabling community access to land, representatives of a network initiative assisted communities in gaining legal rights to land (Morrow, 2019a). This included engaging in legal processes such as communication with city agencies, following up on paperwork, and participating in court proceedings. An FSI in Barcelona is lobbying for changes in local legislation on food production and consumption in the city. Its members engage in public debate and meet with city authorities to propose policy changes for more sustainable urban food systems. Such processes often take several months and require significant resources, encompassing the immediate expenses of legal representation, the costs of preparing for and attending court hearings, and the administrative load of recording these activities. In terms of licensing and certification, hiring personnel with food safety qualifications is a regulatory requirement that brings about expenses for FSIs, especially in relation to staff training and certification (Edwards, 2021). Nonprofit FSIs working with food surplus confront substantial documentation requirements to obtain permits for surplus food collection and use (Davies et al., 2019). This is particularly true for liability agreements with food donors, who may be reluctant to give away food that may not be properly used and fear legal and reputational consequences. This legal concern requires a considerable amount of administrative effort to ensure compliance with regulations and safety in food distribution. The taxation of food-sharing activities is complex due to the variety of foodsharing models and the differing scales of income generation. Depending on the type of FSI and its market orientation, some initiatives can be treated as Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Exploring economic challenges and costs of food-sharing initiatives 147 standard-rate food suppliers (OECD, 2019). The taxation difficulties are intensified in situations involving food exchanges or contributions to a communal pool, where it is difficult to establish a direct connection between services and in-kind compensation for tax purposes (Zurek, 2016). Moreover, each country has its own set of standards and regulations related to food-sharing initiatives. Funding Sources and Main Stakeholders for Food-sharing Initiatives FSIs have demonstrated an understanding of most costs they encounter. The launch phase of an initiative is particularly demanding due to the need for capital investment for space, equipment, soil, plants, seeds, and so on. Any subsequent expansion of activities also entails significant costs. Consequently, the interviewees underscored the necessity for sustained funding. For all types of FSIs that do not generate profit, support from authorities is a precondition for their existence. Municipalities, in their role as investors, are mentioned in the literature and in the interviews from Barcelona. Municipal investment is provided in the form of grants, space and equipment. Interviews reveal that many initiatives have been funded by public grants, accounting for up to 75% of their funding in recent years. In some cases, the cost of acquiring land can be covered by a municipality, as demonstrated by one community garden included in the study. Indirectly, municipalities support FSIs by encouraging the self-management of public green spaces in cities through initiatives (Cultivate, n.d.), enhancing digital literacy of the population to enable higher participation in food sharing, and catalysing partnerships with food donors (Berns et al., 2023). FSIs can also cover the salaries of employed personnel through financial support from local authorities. Although this support is typically short-term, ranging from three months to a year, it enables the recruitment and retention of a stable workforce with appropriate skills and training. This type of support is even available for for-profit initiatives, as in the case of the social enterprise transforming surplus fruits and vegetables into products for sale in Barcelona, whose employees are hired through the municipal employment programme. Such indirect funding significantly reduces staff costs and benefits vulnerable population groups. Public grants are sometimes supplemented with donations from private organisations, which serve as a tax-deductible transaction for these companies. Donations may be tied to a specific activity to be performed by an FSI or may be unrestricted. They can take the form of monetary contributions or donations of food products. FSIs may handle unavoidable food waste from retailers, ensuring it is redistributed rather than discarded. Another form of donation is when farmers allow volunteers to glean (i.e., to collect what remains in the fields after harvesting) for further redistribution or the processing of gleaned food into jams, soups or pâtés. Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Understanding the urban sharing economy148 During times of crisis, such as the recent spread of Covid-19, many initiatives explored crowdfunding options. This approach provided an opportunity to reach a broader population without the need for physical contact. Once pandemic restrictions were lifted, the use of crowdfunding decreased. The non-commercial nature of most FSIs in Barcelona restricts their choice of income sources. Therefore, most do not engage in the sale of products or services. However, larger, more established initiatives may sell consultancy services related to food-waste management to both private and public organisations. Another potential revenue stream is the provision of cooking classes for a fee. The unique aspect of cooking classes offered by FSIs is their focus on sustainability, specifically addressing food waste and aiding vulnerable population groups. Finally, for-profits and social enterprises produce and sell food products that embed social and environmental values related to food-waste reduction, employing vulnerable population groups, and enhanced community engagement. Finally, for commercial FSIs, bank loans are a viable funding source. In the case of a social supermarket that focuses on supporting local producers in and around Barcelona, a bank loan was acquired to start the initiative. According to the FSI participants, the loan was crucial for the establishment of the supermarket. CONCLUSIONS Economic challenges are a critical issue for the operations and survival of all FSI types. In this chapter, we have classified the economic challenges and costs based on extant literature and empirical ethnographic work in Barcelona. Economic challenges for FSIs can be divided into two categories: general challenges that all FSIs face and specific challenges unique to different types of organisations, such as where they operate within the supply chain, their organisational structure (e.g., cooperative, social enterprise or for-profit) and their operational contexts. Local government support plays a crucial role in FSIs’ economic sustainability. It can be direct funding, such as grants and subsidies, or indirect support, such as providing spaces for operations and facilitating partnerships with other organisations. The empirical work in Barcelona highlighted the importance of government schemes that employ part-time staff through unemployment and disability programmes, reducing the financial burden on FSIs. Future research should focus on exploring innovative funding models and strategies to enhance the economic sustainability of FSIs. Investigating the impact of different organisational structures on economic performance can provide deeper insights. Additionally, understanding the long-term effects of local government support and other external funding sources on the stability Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Exploring economic challenges and costs of food-sharing initiatives 149 and growth of FSIs will be valuable. Empirical studies in diverse geographical and socio-economic contexts can further enrich the understanding of economic challenges and opportunities in the food-sharing sector. REFERENCES Barnes, S. J., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 200–211. Berns, K., Rossitto, C., & Tholander, J. (2023). Learning from other communities: Organising Collective action in a grassroots food-sharing initiative. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal. https://doi .org /10 .1007 /s10606 -023 -09468 -5. Booth, S., & Whelan, J. (2014). Hungry for change: The food banking industry in Australia. British Food Journal, 116(9), 1392–1404. https://doi .org /10 .1108 /BFJ -01 -2014 -0037. Braun, B., Oßenbrügge, J., & Schulz, C. (2018). Environmental economic geography and environmental inequality: Challenges and new research prospects. Zeitschrift fur Wirtschaftsgeographie, 62(2), 120–134. https://doi .org /10 .1515 /zfw -2018 -0001. Capdevila, I., & Zarlenga, M. I. (2015). Smart city or smart citizens? The Barcelona case. Journal of Strategy and Management, 8(3), 266–282. https://doi .org /10 .1108 / JSMA -03 -2015 -0030. City of Barcelona. (2020). Urban agriculture strategy. Urban Planning, Ecological Transition, Urban Services and Housing. https://ajuntament .barcelona .cat / ecologiau rbana /en /what -we - do -a nd -why /g reen -cit y -a nd -biodiversity /urban -agriculture -strategy. City of Barcelona. (2022). The 2030 Barcelona Healthy and Sustainable Food Strategy: A road map for transforming the city’s food system. Ajuntament de Barcelona. Citizen Participation. https://ajuntament .barcelona .cat /par tici paci ociu tadana /en / noticia /the -2030 -barcelona -healthy -a nd -sustai nable -food -strat eg y -a -road -map -for -transforming -the -citys -food -system _1233964. Cultivate. (2023). Barcelona Manual Map. Google My Maps. https://www .google .com /maps /d /u /0 /edit ?mid =1xT _ h -VAqlKsT5opmM7t3o8 _0 _cL8W9U &ll = 41 .37472954284672 ,2 .1274540153684462 &z =12. Cultivate. (n.d.). Finance and Funding for Food Sharing Initiatives. https://cultivate -project .eu /w p - content / upload s /2 02 4 /0 2 /Fi na i nce -a nd -Fund i ng -Webi na r -Take -Away .pdf. Davies, A. (2019). Urban Food Sharing: Rules, Tools and Networks. Policy Press. htt ps:// l ibrary .oapen .org /bitstrea m / ha nd le /20 .500 .12657 /25248 /9781447349860 .pdf ?sequence =1. Davies, A., & Evans, D. (2019). Urban food sharing: Emerging geographies of production, consumption and exchange. Geoforum, 99, 154–159. https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .geoforum .2018 .11 .015. Davies, A. R., Edwards, F., Marovelli, B., Morrow, O., Rut, M., & Weymes, M. (2017). Making visible: Interrogating the performance of food sharing across 100 urban areas. Geoforum, 86, 136–149. https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .geoforum .2017 .09 .007. Davies, A., Cretella, A., & Franck, V. (2019). Food sharing initiatives and food democracy: Practice and policy in three European cities. Politics and Governance, 7(4), 8–20. https://doi .org /10 .17645 /pag .v7i4 .2090. Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Understanding the urban sharing economy150 Davison, N., Young, W., Ross, A., Cockerill, T., & Rajput, S. (2022). Investigating the impacts of behavioural-change interventions and COVID-19 on the food-wastegeneration behaviours of catered students in the UK and India. Sustainability, 14(9), 5486. https://doi .org /10 .3390 /su14095486. Edwards, F. (2021). Overcoming the social stigma of consuming food waste by dining at the Open Table. Agriculture and Human Values, 38(2), 397–409. https://doi .org /10 .1007 /s10460 -020 -10176 -9. Falcone, P. M., & Imbert, E. (2017). Bringing a sharing economy approach into the food sector: The potential of food sharing for reducing food waste. In P. Morone, F. Papendiek, & V. E. Tartiu (eds), Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation (pp. 197– 214). Springer International Publishing. https://doi .org /10 .1007 /978 -3 -319 -50088 -1 _10. Hennchen, B., & Pregernig, M. (2020). Organizing joint practices in urban food initiatives – A comparative analysis of gardening, cooking and eating together. Sustainability, 12(11), Article 11. https://doi .org /10 .3390 /su12114457. Jaeggi, A. V., & Gurven, M. (2013). Reciprocity explains food sharing in humans and other primates independent of kin selection and tolerated scrounging: A phylogenetic meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1768), 20131615. https://doi .org /10 .1098 /rspb .2013 .1615. Kishigami, N. (2021). Food Sharing in Human Societies: Anthropological Perspectives (Vol. 4). Springer Singapore. https://doi .org /10 .1007 /978 -981 -16 -7810 -3. Loh, P., & Agyeman, J. (2019). Urban food sharing and the emerging Boston food solidarity economy. Geoforum, 99, 213–222. https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .geoforum .2018 .08 .017. Luo, X., Tong, S., Lin, Z., & Zhang, C. (2021). The impact of platform protection insurance on buyers and sellers in the sharing economy: A natural experiment. Journal of Marketing, 85(2), 50–69. https://doi .org /10 .1177 /0022242920962510. Makov, T., Meshulam, T., Cansoy, M., Shepon, A., & Schor, J. B. (2023). Digital food sharing and food insecurity in the COVID-19 era. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 189, 106735. https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .resconrec .2022 .106735. Marovelli, B. (2019). Cooking and eating together in London: Food sharing initiatives as collective spaces of encounter. Geoforum, 99, 190–201. https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .geoforum .2018 .09 .006. Michelini, L., Principato, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2018). Understanding food sharing models to tackle sustainability challenges. Ecological Economics, 145, 205–217. https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .ecolecon .2017 .09 .009. Morone, P., Falcone, P. M., Imbert, E., & Morone, A. (2018). Does food sharing lead to food waste reduction? An experimental analysis to assess challenges and opportunities of a new consumption model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 749–760. https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .jclepro .2018 .01 .208. Morrow, O. (2019a). Community self-organizing and the urban food commons in Berlin and New York. Sustainability, 11(13), Article 13. https://doi .org /10 .3390 / su11133641. Morrow, O. (2019b). Sharing food and risk in Berlin’s urban food commons. Geoforum, 99, 202–212. https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .geoforum .2018 .09 .003. OECD. (2019). The Sharing and Gig Economy: Effective Taxation of Platform Sellers: Forum on Tax Administration. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www .oecd -ilibrary .org /taxation /the -sharing -and -gig -economy -effective -taxation -of -platform -sellers _574b61f8 -en. Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Exploring economic challenges and costs of food-sharing initiatives 151 Sadovska, V., Palgan, Y. V., & Mont, O. (forthcoming). Challenges, risks and costs of food sharing: Insights from a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production. Schneider, F. (2013). The evolution of food donation with respect to waste prevention. Waste Management, 33(3), 755–763. https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .wasman .2012 .10 .025. Spoor, E. (2020). Summary findings on the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on food banks. The Trussell Trust. https://policycommons .net /artifacts /2213374 /summary -findings -on -the -impact -of -the -covid -19 -crisis -on -food -banks /2970318/. van Herwerden, L. A., Reidlinger, D. P., & Palermo, C. (2022). The role of communication, building relationships, and adaptability in non-profit organisational capacity for health promotion. Health Promotion International, 37(3), daac074. https://doi .org /10 .1093 /heapro /daac074. Veen, E. J. (2019). Fostering community values through meal sharing with strangers. Sustainability, 11(7), Article 7. https://doi .org /10 .3390 /su11072121. Visram, S., & Brown, E. (2020). What is the role of community fridges in the UK? An exploratory mixed methods study. European Journal of Public Health, 30(Supp5), ckaa165.716. Voytenko Palgan, Y., & Sadovska, V. (2023). Research protocol for mobile research labs on food sharing: Tracing costs, investments, challenges, drivers, and success factors to establish and maintain food sharing initiatives. Lund University. https:// lucris .lub .lu .se /ws /por t a l fi les /por t a l /170297796 /Resea rch _ pr otocol _ for _ Mobile _Research _Labs _on _Food _Sharing _CULTIVATE .pdf. Yamabe-Ledoux, A. M., Saito, O., & Hori, K. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ICT-mediated food sharing in Japan. Sustainability, 15(5), Article 5. https://doi .org /10 .3390 /su15054584. Zurek, K. (2016). Food sharing in Europe: Between regulating risks and the risks of regulating. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(4), 675–687. https://doi .org /10 .1017 /S1867299X00010114. Vera Sadovska, Oksana Mont, and Yuliya Voytenko Palgan - 9781035320547 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 11/10/2025 08:09:56AM via Open Access. This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/