Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Policy framing, design and feedback can increase public support for costly food waste regulation


Stricter regulation of food waste reduction is widely presumed to increase food prices, which could render its implementation politically unfeasible. Here we empirically tested whether specific policy framing, design and feedback could help ensure public support despite potential food price increases. We used survey experiments with 3,329 citizens from a high-income country, Switzerland. A combined framing and conjoint experiment shows that messages emphasizing national or international social norms in favour of reducing food waste (policy framing) can increase public support for more ambitious reduction targets. Also, most citizens support food waste regulation even if this leads to substantial increases in food prices, but only if such policies set stringent reduction targets and are transparently monitored (policy design). Finally, a vignette experiment reveals that voluntary industry initiatives do not crowd out individuals’ support for stricter governmental regulation, but potentially crowd in support if industry initiatives are unambitious (policy feedback).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Combined policy framing and policy design (conjoint) experiment (n = 1,231).
Fig. 2: Average marginal component effects of policy design attribute values on citizens’ support for differently designed policy proposals to reduce food waste.
Fig. 3: Average marginal component effects of policy design attribute values on citizens’ support for differently designed policy proposals to reduce food waste by combined social norm frames.
Fig. 4: Policy feedback (vignette) experiment (n = 1,897).
Fig. 5: Marginal means for citizens’ preference for government food waste regulation based on average marginal component effects of vignette treatments.

Data availability

The data sets generated during and/or analysed during the current study and relevant study documentation are available for scientific use after registration at

Code availability

Statistical code used to analyse the data sets during the current study are available in the Harvard Dataverse public repository at


  1. Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 992, 987–992 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bajželj, B. et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 924–929 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Waste and the Right to Adequate Food: Making the Connection (FAO, 2018).

  6. Makov, T., Shepon, A., Krones, J., Gupta, C. & Chertow, M. Social and environmental analysis of food waste abatement via the peer-to-peer sharing economy. Nat. Commun. 11, 1156 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Forbes, H., Quested, T. & O’Connor, C. UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2021 (UNEP, 2021).

  8. Reynolds, C. et al. Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions—what works and how to design better interventions. Food Policy 83, 7–27 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gil, J. Going to waste. Nat. Food 1, 192 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barrera, E. L. & Hertel, T. Global food waste across the income spectrum: implications for food prices, production and resource use. Food Policy 98, 101874 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Global Call for Zero Tolerance on Food Loss and Waste (FAO, 2017);

  12. Beretta, C. & Hellweg, S. Lebensmittelverluste in der Schweiz: Umweltbelastung und Verminderungspotenzial (ETH Zürich, 2019).

  13. Fesenfeld, L., Wicki, M., Sun, Y. & Bernauer, T. Policy packaging can make food system transformation feasible. Nat. Food 1, 173–182 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D. & Yamamoto, T. Do survey experiments capture real-world behavior? External validation of conjoint and vignette analyses with a natural experiment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 2395–2400 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tresch, A., Bernhard, L., Lauener, L. & Scaperrotta, L. VOTO-Studiezureidgenössischen Volksabstimmung vom 23. September 2018 (FORS, ZDA, Link, 2018);

  16. Bain, P. G. et al. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 154–157 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stokes, L. C. & Warshaw, C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat. Energy 2, 17107 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fesenfeld, L. The Political Feasibility of Transformative Climate Policy—Public Opinion about Transforming Food and Transport Systems (ETH Zurich, 2020);

  19. Druckman, J. & McGrath, M. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 111–119 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fesenfeld, L. P. & Rinscheid, A. Emphasizing urgency of climate change is insufficient to increase policy support. One Earth 4, 411–424 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fesenfeld, L., Sun, Y., Wicki, M. & Bernauer, T. The role and limits of strategic framing for promoting sustainable consumption and policy. Glob. Environ. Change 68, 102266 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ingold, K., Stadelmann-Steffen, I. & Kammermann, L. The acceptance of instruments in instrument mix situations: citizens’ perspective on Swiss energy transition. Res. Policy 48, 103694 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wicki, M., Fesenfeld, L. P. & Bernauer, T. In search of politically feasible policy-packages for sustainable passenger transport: insights from choice experiments in China, Germany, and the USA. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 084048 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bergquist, P., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 54019 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Druckman, J. N. & Valdes, J. How private politics alters legislative responsiveness. Quart. J. Polit. Sci. 14, 115–130 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Malhotra, N., Monin, B. & Tomz, M. Does private regulation preempt public regulation? Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 113, 19–37 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kolcava, D., Rudolph, L. & Bernauer, T. Voluntary business initiatives can reduce public pressure for regulating firm behaviour abroad. J. Eur. Public Policy 28, 591–614 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Maxwell, J. W., Lyon, T. P. & Hackett, S. C. Self-regulation and social welfare: the political economy of corporate environmentalism. J. Law Econ. 43, 583–618 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Urpelainen, J. Frontrunners and laggards: the strategy of environmental regulation under uncertainty. Environ. Resour. Econ. 50, 325–346 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bendor, J., Diermeier, D., Siegel, D. A. & Ting, M. A Behavioral Theory of Elections (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011).

  31. Denicolò, V. A signaling model of environmental overcompliance. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 68, 293–303 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bernauer, T. & Caduff, L. In whose interest? Pressure group politics, economic competition and environmental regulation. J. Public Policy 24, 99–126 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Potoski, M. & Prakash, A. Green clubs: collective action and voluntary environmental programs. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16, 399–419 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schmid, N., Haelg, L., Sewerin, S., Schmidt, T. S. & Simmen, I. Governing complex societal problems: the impact of private on public regulation through technological change. Regul. Gov. 15, 840–855 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kolcava, D., Rudolph, L. & Bernauer, T. What mode of environmental regulation do post-industrial societies prefer and why? Glob. Environ. Change 68, 102226 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Higgs, S. Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite 86, 38–44 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Robinson, E., Thomas, J., Aveyard, P. & Higgs, S. What everyone else is eating: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of informational eating norms on eating behavior. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 114, 414–429 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).

    Article  CAS  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Huber, R. A., Anderson, B. & Bernauer, T. Can social norm interventions promote voluntary pro environmental action? Environ. Sci. Policy 89, 231–246 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rudolph, L., Kolcava, D. & Bernauer, T. Public demand for extraterritorial environmental and social public goods provision. Preprint at (2021).

  41. Huber, R., Wicki, M. & Bernauer, T. Public support for environmental policy depends on beliefs concerning effectiveness, intrusiveness, and fairness. Env. Polit. 29, 649–673 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Beiser-McGrath, L. F. & Bernauer, T. Could revenue recycling make effective carbon taxation politically feasible? Sci. Adv. 5, eaax3323 (2019).

    Article  PubMed Central  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Save Food Campaign (PUSCH Praktischer Umweltschutz, 2021);

  44. Pierson, P. When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Polit. 45, 595–628 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jordan, A. & Matt, E. Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate. Policy Sci. 47, 227–247 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Soss, J. & Schram, S. F. A public transformed? Welfare reform as policy feedback. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 101, 111–127 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Campbell, A. L. Policy makes mass politics. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 15, 333–351 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Werfel, S. H. Household behaviour crowds out support for climate change policy when sufficient progress is perceived. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 512–515 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. Werner, T. Gaining access by doing good: the effect of sociopolitical reputation on firm participation in public policy making. Manage. Sci. 61, 1989–2011 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Food Waste in der Schweiz (SRF, 2019);

  51. Green, D. P. The price elasticity of mass preferences. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 86, 128–148 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Rinscheid, A., Pianta, S. & Weber, E. U. What shapes public support for climate change mitigation policies? The role of descriptive social norms and elite cues. Behav. Public Policy 5, 503–527 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sparkman, G., Howe, L. & Walton, G. How social norms are often a barrier to addressing climate change but can be part of the solution. Behav. Public Policy 5, 528–555 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. & Yamamoto, T. Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Polit. Anal. 22, 1–30 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mutz, D. C. Population-Based Survey Experiments (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011).

  57. Rudolph, L. et al. Schweizer Umwelt-Panel: Dritte Erhebungswelle: Lebensmittelabfälle (ETH Zürich, 2020);

  58. Rudolph, L., Quoß, F. & Bernauer, T. Swiss Environmental Panel Study 2018–2019, Wave 1–3, Cumulative Data (distributed by FORS, Lausanne, 2021; ETH Zurich, 2020);

  59. Ansolabehere, S. & Schaffner, B. F. Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Polit. Anal. 22, 285–303 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Baker, R. et al. Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. J. Surv. Stat. Methodol. 1, 90–143 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  61. Edlund, J. & Lindh, A. The ISSP 2016 role of government module: content, coverage, and history. Int. J. Sociol. 49, 99–109 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. in The Oxford Handbook of Political Science (ed. Goodin, R. E.) 478–497 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

  63. Leeper, T. J., Hobolt, S. & Tilley, J. Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Polit. Anal. 28, 207–221 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Viviano, D., Wuthrich, K. & Niehaus, P. (When) should you adjust inferences for multiple hypothesis testing? Preprint at (2021).

  65. Greenland, S. Analysis goals, error–cost sensitivity, and analysis hacking: essential considerations in hypothesis testing and multiple comparisons. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 35, 8–23 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank F. Quoss for her valuable support. We thank I. Stadelmann-Steffen, G. Brückmann, D. Kolcava, participants at the Swiss Political Science Association Annual Conference 2021, and participants in research seminars at ETH Zurich and LMU Munich who provided valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. We thank R. Buchs, J. Bruker, C. Waldner and N. Radowsky for excellent research assistance. The Swiss Federal Ministry of the Environment provided financial support for fielding the survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



L.R and L.F. contributed equally to this study. T.B. acquired the grant funding for data collection. L.F., L.R. and T.B. contributed equally to developing the study concept and designing the survey embedded experiment. L.R. had the lead in gathering the data. L.F. had the lead in developing the theoretical argument. L.R. had the lead in data analysis. L.R and L.F. had the joint lead in writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lukas Rudolph.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Manuel Fischer and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–9, Figs. 1–8, supporting information for external validity, supporting information for research design, supporting information for policy design and framing experiment, supporting information for policy feedback experiment, supporting robustness test and additional descriptive evidence

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fesenfeld, L., Rudolph, L. & Bernauer, T. Policy framing, design and feedback can increase public support for costly food waste regulation. Nat Food 3, 227–235 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing