How can we explain the success of anti-waste apps?
10 million tons of products thrown away each year, representing around €16 billion and 3% of greenhouse gas emissions... Food waste thus represents a cost of more than €100 per year per person. This is still significant, given that 8 out of 10 French people said they had changed their eating habits due to inflation. According to a Harris Interactive poll for Cetelem, 87% said they had reduced their food waste.
Béatrice Siadou-Martin, University of Montpellier and Jean-Marc Ferrandi, University of Nantes
Several mobile apps that combat this scourge appeared less than ten years ago and are booming. They are called Optimiam, Phenix, and Too Good to Go. In addition to reducing food waste in restaurants, local shops, and supermarkets, they offer consumers a discount of at least 30%, when it is not a donation to disadvantaged groups. They intervene late in the consumption process, when the use-by date is approaching or the best-before date has passed.
Their use, which we have observed in our work, remains relatively simple, unlike many sustainable practices that are sometimes difficult to implement or whose benefits are perceived as too distant. The adoption rate of these digital devices continues to increase: 38% of French people (more than one in three) use these applications. Too Good to Go, the market leader, reports more than 15,300,000 users, with a 30% increase between 2022 and 2023. This represents more than 55 million "saved" baskets. Phénix, with an estimated turnover of around €18 million, reports a 30% increase in baskets sold between 2021 and 2022 in the Île-de-France region. It has also seen a spectacular increase in users, from 2 million in January 2022 to 5 million today.
Planetary alignment
Three components of this success can be derived from a theoretical model, the COM-B model, which attempts to account for behavioral changes. It highlights three categories of factors, as indicated by the acronym.
First, there is "C," which stands for "individuals' physical and psychological capabilities." This first group of factors emphasizes individuals' skills and knowledge. To leverage this factor, anti-waste mobile apps have developed educational communication around food waste. Beyond overall figures, they offer a concrete "translation" rooted in consumers' everyday lives. For example, the Zero-Gâchis app states that "1 baguette is equivalent to a bathtub full of water" and "1 kg of beef corresponds to 15,000 liters of water, or 10,000 1.5-liter bottles." Similarly, the apps communicate extensively on the number of baskets "saved" or meals "won."
The "O" corresponds to the physical and social opportunities offered by the context. Anti-waste mobile apps have understood that it is necessary to increase consumption opportunities while reducing the sacrifices made by consumers. For example, the Phénix app offers filters that allow users to specify not only their dietary requirements but also the time at which they wish to collect their basket. This flexibility allows them to take their constraints into account. Similarly, the loyalty program, which awards points for each order, encourages consumers to get into the habit of ordering and using the app. Too Good To Go has even recently introduced new services: flash sales for restaurants, the option to have a package of unsold dry goods from major brands delivered according to a theme (an Italian package, a snack package, or an appetizer package, for example), and the option to have a friend pick up the basket.
Finally, the "M" stands for "motivated and automatic." The success of anti-waste mobile apps can also be explained by an interesting alignment between the interests of the planet and individual interests that respond to selfish motivations centered on personal savings. Consumers are doing something "good" for the planet and also "good" for their budget, especially in times of inflation. Some apps also play on the hedonic dimension by offering "surprise baskets" or on the social dimension of behavior by offering referral programs.
What value for food?
A particular behavior is likely to occur if and only if the person concerned has the ability and opportunity to engage in that behavior and is more motivated to engage in that behavior than any other. This model provides a better understanding of the apparent paradoxes of consumer behavior: the delicate balance between wanting and being able. Its key advantage is that it integrates context in a very natural way to explain the behavior adopted.
While initiatives to combat food waste are to be welcomed and encouraged, even though they may sometimes lead to a decrease in donations to humanitarian organizations, the effectiveness of direct or indirect price reductions raises the question of whether consumers will actually change their behavior in the long term... Should reducing food waste necessarily involve offering products at low prices, even though these products have required limited resources (water, agricultural land, etc.)?
In other words, couldn't the fight against waste seek ways to create value by revaluing food? This is the path opened up, for example, by upcycling, which involves recovering products that are no longer used and transforming them into materials of greater utility.
Béatrice Siadou-Martin, Professor of Management Sciences, University of Montpellier and Jean-Marc Ferrandi, Professor of Marketing and Innovation at Oniris, University of Nantes
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.