INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 437
www.rsisinternational.org
Bridging Surplus and Sustainability: A Sharing Economy Approach
to Food Waste Reduction in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions
Farah Roslan
1*
, Nur Syifaa Athirah Mohd Said
2
, Nur Izzati Ab Ghani
3
, Hawa Husna Ab Ghani
4
,
Nooramira Ghazali
5
1,3,4,5
Faculty of General Studies & Advance Education, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu,
Malaysia
2
Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, Malaysia
*
Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.930000058
Received: 10 December 2025; Accepted: 16 December 2025; Published: 27 December 2025
ABSTRACT
Food waste is a pressing global challenge with significant environmental, social, and ethical implications, and
higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly recognized as important actors in addressing this issue.
Despite growing interest in sustainability, food redistribution initiatives within many HEIs remain fragmented
and largely ineffective. This study explores the potential of applying sharing economy principles to food waste
minimization at Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA), Malaysia. Qualitative data were collected through
six semi-structured interviews with students, academic staff, and support personnel across UniSZA’s campuses.
The findings reveal two key barriers to food redistribution: social stigma and safety concerns. Stigma
discouraged students from accepting surplus food due to fears of embarrassment or negative social judgement,
while safety concerns particularly related to food hygiene, freshness, and liability undermined trust and limited
willingness to participate in redistribution efforts. In contrast, three main drivers were identified: moral norms,
social norms, and incentives. Moral and religious values encouraged food sharing as an ethical responsibility to
avoid waste, while social norms supported redistribution as an accepted practice within campus communities.
Incentives, such as recognition or symbolic rewards, were perceived as supportive mechanisms to sustain
participation, provided they did not replace intrinsic motivations.
These findings align with core sharing economy principles, where moral and social norms reflect reciprocity,
incentives function as mechanisms of value creation, and stigma and safety concerns highlight trust as a critical
condition for participation. The study offers practical implications for policymakers and university
administrators, emphasizing the need for formal redistribution procedures, stigma-reducing and dignified
mechanisms, and clear food safety governance. By embedding sharing economy principles into institutional
systems, HEIs can transform informal food-sharing practices into structured and scalable solutions that
contribute to sustainable food waste reduction.
Keywords: Sharing economy; food waste reduction; sustainability; higher education institution; Malaysian
university
INTRODUCTION
By 2050, prevailing patterns of production and consumption are projected to demand the equivalent of almost
three planet Earths to sustain the natural resources on which societies depend (UN, 2021). Since these resources
are finite and cannot be replenished at the current pace of exploitation, there is an urgent need to reorient lifestyles
and economic systems toward more sustainable modes of consumption. Practices of overconsumption, the
“throwaway” mentality, and the acceptance of product obsolescence must give way to circular approaches that
prioritize efficiency, durability, and waste minimization.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 438
www.rsisinternational.org
Food waste exemplifies this challenge. Globally, it accounts for 8–10% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions and undermines food security, with millions going hungry while edible food is discarded (Wani et al.
2024). In Malaysia, the problem is particularly acute; more than 16,000 tonnes of food are discarded daily, of
which approximately 3,800 tonnes remain edible (SWCorp, 2020). Much of this waste is generated in urban and
institutional contexts where large-scale food preparation is routine. Higher education institutions (HEIs) in
particular, represent a unique microcosm of society, hosting thousands of students, faculty, and staff, and
operating dining halls, cafeterias, and catering services. Yet, despite this potential for coordinated sustainability
interventions, many universities in Malaysia lack structured mechanisms to manage surplus food, often relying
instead on ad hoc or informal redistribution practices (Ghazali et al., 2025).
To address such inefficiencies, new paradigms of sustainable consumption such as the circular economy, smart
economy, and sharing economy have gained prominence. The sharing economy (SE) is especially relevant in
tackling food waste, as it fosters resource efficiency, social cohesion, and economic inclusion. By redistributing
underutilized goods and services rather than producing new ones, the SE reduces waste and lowers carbon
emissions (Akma et al., 2022). Despite its growing application in various sectors, the SE within HEIs remains
underexplored. Existing studies are limited, fragmented, and discipline-specific, often focusing on how
particular SE initiatives are taught rather than systematically implemented at the institutional level (de la Torre
et al., 2021; Giannoccaro et al., 2021). To date, there has been little effort to integrate SE principles into
university-based sustainability strategies for food waste management. As Kopnina and Padfield (2021)
emphasize, further studies are required to examine the SE holistically, particularly within educational
ecosystems.
This study addresses this gap by synthesizing key themes that explain how sharing economy principles can
support food waste minimization in Malaysian HEIs. Specifically, this study has two aims: (i) to identify barriers
hindering effective surplus food redistribution in university settings, and (ii) to assess factors that motivate
participation in campus-based food redistribution initiatives through sharing economy principles. By situating
food redistribution within broader sustainability discourses, this study contributes to debates on food systems,
sharing economy, and campus sustainability. This study offers a culturally grounded, socially inclusive, and
operationally scalable model that advances Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible
consumption and production, while addressing one of the most overlooked forms of institutional inefficiency,
edible food waste.
This study is organized as follows: Section 2 illustrates the literature review, and Section 3 defines the materials
and methods. Section 4 and Section 5 reports the study’s main outcomes and the discussion, and Section 6
provides the conclusions, the limitations and the future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. The sharing economy as a driver of sustainability
The sharing economy (SE) has emerged as a significant paradigm in sustainable development, frequently framed
as both a novel school of thought and a practical mechanism for transforming production and consumption
systems (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Murray et al., 2017). In contrast to the linear “take–make–dispose” model, the
SE promotes resource circulation, extending product lifecycles and reducing waste by enabling reuse,
redistribution, and collaborative consumption (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Urbinati et al., 2017). Scholars often
align the SE with the principles of the circular economy, which emphasizes restorative and regenerative
processes that redesign systems rather than merely preventing waste (Murray et al., 2017).
Design and innovation are central to SE practices. They require rethinking how products are conceived, how
supply chains are structured, and how industrial systems operate to prioritize efficiency and resilience (Velenturf
& Purnell, 2021). In practice, SE solutions frequently draw on the principles of reduction, reuse, and recycling
(D’Amato & Korhonen, 2021; Ghisellini et al., 2016). These initiatives are not confined to individual firms or
consumers; rather, they necessitate collaboration across multiple stakeholders and scales. Research commonly
distinguishes three levels of transition: micro (products, companies, consumers), meso (supply chains, clusters,
industrial symbiosis), and macro (cities, regions, nations) (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 439
www.rsisinternational.org
When successfully implemented, SE initiatives have the potential to generate triple-bottom-line outcomes.
Environmentally, they reduce dependence on virgin resources, energy inputs, and waste outputs. Economically,
they lower costs, create new market opportunities, and stimulate innovation. Socially, they encourage
cooperative modes of consumption, generate employment opportunities, and foster participatory decision-
making (Korhonen et al., 2018; Pattanaro & Gente, 2017). These multiple benefits underpin the SE’s promise as
a transformative mechanism for advancing sustainability.
B. Previous research on the sharing economy
Over the past decade, scholarship on the SE has expanded across multiple sectors, reflecting its growing
significance for economic, social, and environmental transformation. Much of this research has examined the
mechanisms that underpin SE platforms, including trust, digital infrastructures, and governance structures (Faraji
et al., 2023; Ling, 2023). Technological perspectives have focused on the role of blockchain in enhancing
transparency and supply chain customization (Ye et al., 2025; Kuhn et al., 2025), while organizational studies
have demonstrated how knowledge sharing strengthens innovation, particularly in service-oriented industries
such as hospitality (Haryanto & Alshoushan, 2025). Behavioural research, meanwhile, highlights the importance
of personal relevance, intrinsic motivation, and social norms in shaping participation in digital sharing practices
(Cosme et al., 2025; Lian et al., 2025). Collectively, these studies underscore the multidimensional character of
the SE, encompassing economic efficiency, technological innovation, and social behaviour.
In parallel, scholars have begun to explore the sustainability implications of SE applications. Research in the
mobility sector demonstrates that car-sharing and ride-hailing can reduce vehicle ownership and associated
emissions, although rebound effects remain a concern (Acquier et al., 2017). In accommodation, platforms such
as Airbnb have been linked to expanded tourism access, but also to urban pressures and increased consumption
(Treitler, 2024). More recently, attention has turned to food systems, where SE platforms show promise in
redistributing surplus and reducing edible food waste. Studies indicate that digital food-sharing platforms can
lower transaction costs, expand redistribution networks, and enable the circulation of perishable goods that
would otherwise be discarded (Falcone & Imbert, 2017; Michelini et al., 2020; Richards & Hamilton, 2018). Yet
scholars also caution that the economic savings generated may induce indirect rebound effects, raising questions
about the net impact of such interventions (Makov et al., 2020).
Despite these contributions, the application of SE principles to HEIs remains limited and fragmented. Existing
studies have primarily examined adjacent areas such as digital academic platforms, collaborative learning, or
graduate employability (Tandon et al., 2025; Sulistiawan, 2025; Baban, 2025), but very few have framed these
findings explicitly through the SE lens. Research on resource centralization and vocational clustering in
universities (Gao & Yang, 2025) also stops short of connecting such practices to the logic of shared consumption
or peer-based collaboration. More critically, in the context of food systems, there is little empirical evidence on
whether consumer-side food-sharing practices effectively reduce waste within HEI ecosystems. While
community-based initiatives and digital start-ups demonstrate the redistributive potential of food sharing
(Falcone & Imbert, 2017), university settings remain largely overlooked, particularly in Malaysia where food
waste arises not only from institutional catering services but also from events, meetings, and other campus
activities that involve large-scale food provision.
This study addresses this gap by offering an in-depth understanding of the factors influencing food waste
minimization in Malaysian HEIs from a sharing economy perspective. By situating food redistribution within
the broader discourse on sustainability, this study aims to contribute to the development of culturally grounded,
socially inclusive, and operationally scalable solutions that advance Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12
on responsible consumption and production.
METHODOLOGY
This study employed a qualitative research design to explore and answer the research questions on food waste
minimization by food redistribution in HEIs. A qualitative approach was deemed appropriate for two reasons.
First, the research questions were framed in terms of “what” and “how”, which align with exploratory qualitative
inquiry (Yin, 2009). Second, given the limited empirical research on food redistribution in HEIs, particularly in
Southeast Asia, qualitative methods provided an opportunity to capture stakeholder perspectives and contextual
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 440
www.rsisinternational.org
nuances in depth (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Importantly, the study is anchored in the concept of the sharing
economy, which emphasizes access over ownership and the efficient use of underutilized resources. In this
context, the sharing economy offers a valuable lens for examining food waste reduction through the
redistribution of surplus food generated on campus to those experiencing food insecurity.
A. Study Context
The study was conducted at Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA), a Malaysian public university in East
Coast region with three campuses: Gong Badak, Besut, and Kota Putra. UniSZA was selected as the research
site due to its extensive food service operations across these campuses, including cafeterias, residential hostels,
and event catering, which generate significant daily food surplus. At the same time, many students facing
financial difficulties, especially amid the rising cost of living (Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi, 2025), making
UniSZA an appropriate case for studying the barriers and drivers of food waste reduction within a higher
education context through a sharing economy lens.
B. Research Design and Data Collection
A purposive sampling strategy was used to gather a wide range of perspectives from different parts of the
university community. In August 2024, six semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants
representing students, academic staff, support personnel, and cafeteria vendors. Each interview lasted between
45 and 60 minutes, was audio-recorded with the participants’ informed consent, and later transcribed verbatim.
The interview guide featured open-ended questions aimed at exploring respondents’ views on the barriers to food
redistribution, their motivations for involvement, and their attitudes toward implementing a redistribution model
based on sharing economy principles. Table 1 summarizes the informants, including their assigned codes and
respective categories.
Table 1: Profile of Informants
No.
Informant Code
Category
1
RA01
Student
2
RA02
Support Staff
3
RA03
Student
4
RA04
Academic staff
5
RA05
Food Vendor
6
RA06
Academic staff
Source: Author’s own work
The sample size was guided by Morse (1994), who recommended a minimum of six participants for
phenomenological research. This number was sufficient to allow for in-depth exploration of the research topic
while keeping the data manageable for analysis.
C. Data Analysis
The qualitative data obtained from the semi-structured interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis, a
widely accepted method for identifying, analyzing, and interpreting patterns in qualitative research. The process
began with transcribing the interview recordings, followed by several readings of the transcripts to gain
familiarity with the content. The transcripts were then systematically coded to categorize and label relevant
segments of information. These codes were grouped into broader categories to uncover recurring themes, which
were subsequently refined and interpreted to offer deeper insights into the barriers and enablers of food
redistribution in higher education institutions (Miązek & Światowiec-Szczepańska, 2020).
Thematic analysis was selected for its ability to organize textual data systematically while focusing on elements
most relevant to the study’s research objectives (Anderson, 2007). This method is especially useful for capturing
detailed insights from participants’ experiences and interpreting complex qualitative information (Schreier,
2012). The study followed Braun and Clarke’s (2012) six-phase framework: (1) familiarization with the data, (2)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 441
www.rsisinternational.org
generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and
(6) producing the final report. Through this structured approach, four central themes were identified from the
interviews: (i) norm-driven food sharing practices, (ii) social stigma associated with surplus redistribution, (iii)
conditional readiness for digital platforms, and (iv) motivational drivers for participation. These themes
collectively illustrate the interplay of barriers and enablers that shape efforts to reduce food waste within higher
education institutions.
To improve reliability, two researchers independently coded a subset of the interview transcripts and compared
their results. A high level of inter-coder agreement was achieved, reinforcing the dependability and credibility
of the coding process. As a result, the final themes were firmly rooted in the participants’ narratives while
maintaining a clear and systematic structure.
D. Trustworthiness and Process Documentation
To ensure the rigor of the study, established qualitative research criteria credibility, dependability, confirmability,
and transferability were followed. Several strategies were implemented to uphold these standards. First,
memoing was used throughout the research process to capture the researchers’ reflections, analytical insights,
and key decision points. This approach enhanced reflexivity and ensured transparency in how interpretations
were formed. Second, a decision trail was maintained to document the steps taken during data collection and
analysis, thereby ensuring that the research process remained systematic and traceable (Akkerman et al., 2008).
Data saturation was reached when no new themes or insights emerged from the interviews, confirming that the
sample size was sufficient. The credibility of the findings was further strengthened through triangulation,
drawing on perspectives from a diverse range of stakeholder groups including students, academic staff, support
personnel, and vendors. These measures helped ensure that the study’s results are trustworthy and offer a reliable
account of food redistribution practices within the sharing economy framework at UniSZA.
FINDINGS
The thematic analysis of six interviews identified five interrelated themes influencing food redistribution
practices in the higher education context: moral norms, social norms, incentives, social stigma, and safety
concerns. These themes represent both drivers and barriers to food waste minimization and map directly onto
core sharing economy principles. Moral and social norms reflect reciprocity and collective responsibility, which
are central to solidarity-based and community-oriented sharing practices that prioritize moral obligation and
mutual aid over market exchange (Cesnuitytė et al., 2022; Simonovits & Balázs, 2022). Incentives correspond
to value creation within the sharing economy, where participation is sustained through a combination of intrinsic
motivations, social recognition, and perceived collective benefit rather than purely financial returns (Ritter &
Schanz, 2019; Curtis & Mont, 2020). In contrast, social stigma and safety concerns highlight trust as a critical
enabling or constraining factor in food redistribution, particularly in contexts where participation depends on
perceived hygiene, liability, and social acceptance. Together, these themes illustrate how food sharing in higher
education institutions is embedded in the moral, social, and institutional dynamics that characterize
contemporary sharing economy systems.
A. Social Stigma
A significant barrier to the adoption of food-sharing practices was the social stigma associated with claiming
surplus food. Students, in particular, reported feelings of embarrassment and shame, expressing concern that
accepting free food might be perceived as a reflection of poverty or personal hardship. Even in situations where
food was readily available, cultural sensitivities and social perceptions often discouraged participation. As
articulated by two participants:
“Sometimes food is left out with a sign saying, ‘please take,’ but hardly anyone does. People feel shy or don’t
want others to think they’re desperate.” (RA01)
Another participant recounted:
“There is still stigma here. Even if the food is good, people don’t want to be seen taking it.”(RA06)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 442
www.rsisinternational.org
This finding aligns with existing research in higher education contexts. El Zein et al. (2019) found that stigma
discourages many food-insecure students at U.S. universities from seeking help. Similarly, Papargyropoulou et
al. (2019) identified stigma as a key barrier to food redistribution in collectivist societies, where social
perceptions carry significant weight. Interestingly, this contrasts with contexts like Finland, where Solovyeva et
al. (2023) found minimal stigma due to the social normalization of food sharing. The case of UniSZA highlights
how cultural context significantly influences redistributive practices. In Malaysian universities, implementing
discreet or anonymous systems may be crucial for reducing stigma and promoting the normalization of food
redistribution.
B. Safety concern
Next, safety concern was one of the barriers identified for food sharing initiative. The respondents expressed
reluctance to consume redistributed food because of worries about hygiene, freshness, and liability. In particular,
they highlighted the risk of being blamed if shared food caused illness. These concerns meant that, even when
surplus food was available, it often went to waste rather than being redistributed. According to the participants:
“Even if we want to share, we worry what if someone gets sick? Who’s to blame?” (RA05)
Another participant added:
“Sometimes you don’t know how long the food has been out. It doesn’t feel safe, so people avoid it.”
(RA03)Spindeldreher and Teubner (2018) found that liability concerns are among the most significant
constraints in surplus food initiatives, while Sales et al. (2021) emphasize that measures such as labeling, time-
stamping, and transparent handling protocols are crucial for ensuring safe redistribution. For UniSZA, the
persistence of safety concerns highlights a central paradox: while food sharing has the potential to minimize
waste, fear of contamination or liability prevents surplus from being transformed into a sustainability
opportunity. Without systematic safety protocols, food sharing as a waste minimization strategy risk remaining
underutilized.
C. Moral Norm
Moral and religious values were identified as powerful motivators for the redistribution of surplus food.
Participants framed food sharing as a moral obligation, deeply rooted in Islamic principles that promote charity
and discourage wastefulness. As one academic participant explained:
“It feels wrong to throw food away when others can eat it; Islam teaches us to share what we have.” (RA04)This
finding aligns with Hua et al. (2023) and Srivastava et al. (2024), who note that cultural and moral values
significantly influence food redistribution behaviours, particularly in collectivist societies. However, consistent
with Filho et al. (2021), such intrinsic motivations often fail to translate into systematic waste reduction without
formal institutional reinforcement.
D. Social Norms
Food sharing was also shaped by social expectations within campus communities. Informants described a culture
of sharing surplus food after events, often directed to peers, staff, or cleaners. One participant explained:
“When there’s food left after events, we usually ask cleaners or students to take it, but it is just based on
initiative.” (RA02)
These results are consistent with Solovyeva et al. (2023), who found that social norms can normalize
redistribution practices in Northern Europe. However, as Papargyropoulou et al. (2019) emphasize, informal
norms remain insufficient unless embedded into formal food waste management hierarchies.
E. Incentives as Motivational Drivers
Participants frequently highlighted the role of incentives and recognition in encouraging participation in food
redistribution. While some acknowledged ethical and religious values as important, the majority emphasized that
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 443
www.rsisinternational.org
small rewards or acknowledgement could make sharing more consistent and sustainable. One academic
respondent reflected:
“People here want to do the right thing. But sometimes they need a push some reward or at least
acknowledgement.” (RA04)
This reflects Hamari et al. (2016), who demonstrate that participation in sharing economy platforms is reinforced
when extrinsic motivators complement intrinsic values. Similarly, Sales et al. (2021) highlight the role of
gamification and recognition systems in sustaining engagement. However, as Meshulam et al. (2022) caution,
excessive reliance on incentives can lead to rebound effects, where participation becomes contingent on rewards
rather than genuine commitment. Incentives function as mechanisms of value creation within the sharing
economy, where participation is sustained through a combination of intrinsic motivations, social recognition,
and perceived collective benefit rather than purely financial returns.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The findings of this study indicate that food redistribution practices at UniSZA are shaped by a combination of
enabling and constraining factors that reflect core sharing economy principles. While several drivers support
food sharing through reciprocity and value creation, multiple barriers rooted in trust deficits and institutional
gaps limit the effectiveness of these practices. This section discusses the findings by distinguishing between key
drivers and barriers to food waste minimization in higher education institutions.
Moral norms emerged as a strong intrinsic driver of food redistribution, reflecting reciprocity as a central
principle of the sharing economy. Rooted in ethical and religious values, particularly Islamic teachings on charity
and the avoidance of waste, participants viewed food sharing as a moral obligation. This finding aligns with Hua
et al. (2023) and Srivastava et al. (2024), who demonstrate that moral beliefs encourage food-sharing behaviours
across cultural contexts. However, consistent with Filho et al. (2021), the UniSZA case illustrates that moral
motivations alone are insufficient to achieve sustained food waste reduction without formal institutional support.
Social norms further reinforced redistribution by normalizing food sharing within campus communities.
Informal practices, such as offering surplus food after events to peers or staff, reflect collective reciprocity and
shared social expectations. Similar patterns have been observed in European contexts, where social norms
contribute to the normalization of redistribution (Solovyeva et al., 2023). Nevertheless, as Papargyropoulou et
al. (2019) caution, reliance on informal norms limits scalability. Without integration into formal governance
structures and standard operating procedures (SOPs), such practices remain fragmented and inconsistent.
Incentives functioned as complementary drivers by supporting value creation within the sharing economy.
Participants emphasized that recognition, rewards, or symbolic incentives could sustain engagement by
reinforcing goodwill and participation. This aligns with Hamari et al. (2016) and Sales et al. (2021), who
highlight the role of extrinsic motivators in strengthening participation when aligned with intrinsic values.
However, echoing Meshulam et al. (2022), the findings suggest that incentives should act as light nudges rather
than primary motivators, as overreliance on rewards risks undermining moral commitment and generating
rebound effects.
Despite the presence of these drivers, several barriers significantly constrained food redistribution efforts. Social
stigma emerged as a major barrier, undermining participation by associating surplus food consumption with
embarrassment or perceived poverty. This finding is consistent with El Zein et al. (2019) and prior evidence from
higher education contexts, where stigma discourages students from accessing food assistance. Unlike Northern
European settings where food sharing has been socially normalized (Solovyeva et al., 2023), the UniSZA case
highlights how cultural sensitivities intensify stigma, indicating the need for discreet and dignified redistribution
mechanisms that protect anonymity and social identity.
Safety concerns represented another critical barrier, reflecting a broader trust deficit in food redistribution
systems. Participants expressed anxiety over food hygiene, freshness, and liability, often preferring disposal over
redistribution to avoid potential blame. These concerns mirror findings by Spindeldreher and Teubner (2018),
who identify liability as a key constraint in surplus food initiatives, and by Sales et al. (2021), who emphasize
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 444
www.rsisinternational.org
the importance of labelling and transparent handling protocols. In the absence of standardized safety governance
and institutional accountability, food sharing remains perceived as risky, limiting its potential as a waste
minimization strategy.
Taken together, the findings demonstrate that effective food waste minimization in higher education institutions
requires more than individual goodwill. While reciprocity and value creation support participation, trust-related
barriers—manifested through stigma and safety concerns—undermine the scalability and sustainability of food
redistribution. Embedding sharing economy principles into formal institutional systems is therefore essential.
This includes integrating moral and social norms into policy frameworks, implementing clear SOPs and safety
protocols, reducing stigma through discreet redistribution designs, and deploying incentives as supportive rather
than dominant mechanisms.
By addressing both drivers and barriers in a structured manner, universities can transform fragmented, informal
food-sharing practices into coordinated, scalable redistribution systems aligned with sharing economy principles
and sustainability agendas.
CONCLUSION
This study explored the application of sharing economy principles to food waste minimization in higher
education, using Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) as a case study. The analysis identified five
interrelated themes: moral norms, social norms, incentives, social stigma, and safety concerns. Moral and social
norms emerged as key drivers encouraging food redistribution through ethical, religious, and collective values;
however, these practices remained fragmented and lacked institutional reinforcement. Incentives were perceived
as important extrinsic supports for sustaining participation, though they require careful calibration to avoid
dependency. Conversely, social stigma and safety concerns particularly related to food hygiene and liability
emerged as significant barriers that constrained engagement in redistribution initiatives.
These findings align with core principles of the sharing economy. Moral and social norms reflect reciprocity and
community orientation; incentives function as mechanisms of value creation that reinforce participation; while
stigma and safety concerns illustrate the central role of trust in shaping willingness to share food. Embedding
these principles into university governance and sustainability strategies is therefore essential to transform
informal and ad hoc food-sharing practices into structured and scalable redistribution systems.
The study offers several practical implications. Universities should formalize food redistribution through clear
standard operating procedures (SOPs), address stigma by implementing discreet and dignified redistribution
mechanisms, and strengthen trust through transparent food safety governance, including labelling, handling
protocols, and clear accountability structures. Incentives, when integrated as complementary nudges such as
recognition or digital badges, may further support sustained engagement without undermining intrinsic
motivations.
This study is limited by its small sample size and reliance on self-reported perceptions, which may restrict
generalizability. Future research should extend this work across multiple higher education institutions and
employ mixed-method or longitudinal designs to examine how cultural, institutional, and governance factors
interact to sustain food redistribution over time.
In conclusion, effective food waste minimization in higher education requires more than individual goodwill.
By embedding reciprocity, trust, and value creation into institutional systems, universities can play a
transformative role in advancing responsible consumption and reducing edible food waste in line with global
sustainability goals.
Author Declaration
Conflict of Interest - The authors declare no conflict of interest. The views and opinions expressed in this article
are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of their affiliated institutions.
Funding - This research was funded by Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) under the Sustainability
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 445
www.rsisinternational.org
Research Grant Scheme, titled "Development of Sharing Economy Model for Food Waste Reduction in UniSZA"
(UniSZA/2023/KELESTARIAN/06 | RG006). The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of UniSZA and
extend their appreciation to all participants who contributed their time and perspectives to this study.
Ethical Approval - The study was conducted in accordance with ethical research standards. Informed consent
was obtained from all participants prior to data collection, and confidentiality was assured throughout the study.
Author Contributions - All authors contributed to the conceptualization, data collection, analysis, and writing of
this manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Use of Generative AI - During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors made use of generative AI tools to
enhance language clarity, grammar, and readability. All AI-assisted outputs were critically reviewed, edited, and
validated by the authors to ensure accuracy and scholarly integrity. The authors take full responsibility for the
final content of the article.
REFERENCES
1. Akma, N., Saad, R., Rahman, R. A., Syed Omar, S. R., & Hashim, H. (2022). Sustainable campus:
Engaging university stakeholders in campus sustainability through the sharing economy. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 338, 130493.
2. Amaral, J. F., & Orsato, R. J. (2022). Digital platforms for food waste reduction: The value for consumers.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 367, 132938.
3. Amrutkar, A., Raj, M., Dutta, P., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2024). ECOFEAST: Developing a digital platform
for food surplus redistribution in India. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 198, 107224.
4. Barr, N. (2025). Risk-sharing in pension plans: Multiple options. Economics and Philosophy.
5. Borusiak, B., & Knežević, B. (2024). Surplus food redistribution systems: A systematic literature review
and research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 425, 138674.
6. Brookes, L. (1979). A low energy strategy for the UK. Atom, 269, 3–8.
7. Cesnuitytė, V., Nierling, L., & Behrendt, S. (2022). Critical perspectives on the sharing economy:
Inequality, trust, and sustainability. In V. Cesnuitytė, C. Miguel, G. Avram, J. Schor, L. Nierling, & S.
Behrendt (Eds.), The sharing economy in Europe: Developments, practices, and contradictions (pp. 393–
411). Springer.
8. Chen, Y. (2022). Digital trust in sharing economy platforms: Evidence from food redistribution apps.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121823.
9. Chen, Y. (2024). The sharing economy: Analyses and perspectives from an economic perspective.
Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences.
10. Cosme, D., Chan, H. Y., Sinclair, A. H., Benitez, C., Lydic, K., Martin, R., … Scholz, C. (2025).
Perceived self and social relevance of content motivates news sharing across cultures and topics. PNAS
Nexus.
11. Curtis, S. K., & Mont, O. (2020). Sharing economy business models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 266, 121519.
12. D’amato, D., & Korhonen, J. (2021). Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy
in a strategic sustainability framework. Ecological Economics, 188, 107143.
13. El Zein, A., Mathews, A. E., House, L., & Shelnutt, K. P. (2019). Why are hungry college students not
seeking help? Predictors of and barriers to using an on-campus food pantry. Journal of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, 14(6), 725–740.
14. Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the consumer–once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food
waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429–440.
15. 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. Tartiu (Eds.), Food
waste reduction and valorisation: Sustainability assessment and policy analysis (pp. 197–214). Springer.
16. Faraji, M., Seifdar, M. H., & Amiri, B. (2023). Sharing economy for sustainability: A review. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 421, 140065.
17. Farr-Wharton, G., Choi, J. H. J., & Foth, M. (2014). Food talks back: Exploring the role of mobile
applications in reducing domestic food waste. Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human
Interaction Conference, 352–361.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 446
www.rsisinternational.org
18. Filho, W. L., Shiel, C., Paço, A., Mifsud, M., Ávila, L. V., Brandli, L. L., & Caeiro, S. (2021). Sustainable
food consumption in higher education institutions: An international comparative study. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 313, 127937.
19. Galvin, R. (2020). Who co-opted our energy efficiency gains? A sociology of macro-level rebound effects
and US car makers. Energy Policy, 142, 111548.
20. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy–A new
sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768.
21. Ghazali, M. S. M., Mupit, M., Azni, M. E., & Yaacob, Z. (2025). Sustainable food waste management in
UniKL MICET: Challenges in translating awareness into action. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and
Environment Management, 10, 43–52.
22. Giannoccaro, I., Ceccarelli, G., & Fraccascia, L. (2021). Features of the higher education for the circular
economy: The case of Italy. Sustainability, 13(20), 11338.
23. Greening, L. A., Greene, D. L., & Difiglio, C. (2000). Energy efficiency and consumption—The rebound
effect—A survey. Energy Policy, 28(6), 389–401.
24. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in
collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9),
2047–2059.
25. Haryanto, B., & Alshoushan, A. J. (2025). The influence of digital marketing on innovative performance
with knowledge sharing as a mediation variable in five-star hotels. Journal of Social Research, 4(2).
26. Hua, J., Dong, Y., Gao, J., & Li, J. (2023). Factors influencing purchase intention of food surplus through
online sharing platforms in China. Sustainability, 15(6), 5412.
27. Jevons, W. S. (1865). The coal question: An inquiry concerning the progress of the nation, and the
probable exhaustion of our coal-mines. Macmillan.
28. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2022). Food insecurity on college and university
campuses: A context review. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 122(6), 1231–1245.
29. Kirchherr, J., & Piscicelli, L. (2019). Towards an education for the circular economy (ECE): Five
teaching principles and a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 150, 104406.
30. Kopnina, H., & Padfield, R. (2021). (Im) possibilities of ‘circular’ production: Learning from corporate
case studies of (un) sustainability. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 12, 100161.
31. Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations.
Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46.
32. Kuhn, M., Baumann, M., Volz, F., & Stojanović, L. (2025). Digital product passport design supporting
the circular economy based on the asset administration shell. Sustainability, 17(3), 969.
33. Li, X., & Schnedler, W. (2025). Sharing the fame but taking the blame: When declaring a single person
responsible solves a free rider problem. Management Science.
34. Lian, Q. L., Wong, I. A., & Xiong, X. (2025). Motivating social media sharing of food user-generated
content on Instagram: How incentives drive social commerce. Tourism Review.
35. Ling, J. (2023). The evolution, impact and future of the sharing economy. Advances in Economics,
Management and Political Sciences.
36. Makov, A. S., Krones, J., Gupta, C., & Chertow, M. (2020). Social and environmental analysis of food
waste abatement via the peer-to-peer sharing economy. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1156.
37. Makov, T., & Vivanco, D. F. (2018). Does the circular economy grow the pie? The case of rebound effects
from smartphone reuse. Frontiers in Energy Research.
38. Martinez-Sanchez, V., Tonini, D., Møller, F., & Astrup, T. F. (2016). Life-cycle costing of food waste
management in Denmark: Importance of indirect effects. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(8),
4513–4523.
39. Meshulam, A., Frenkel, A., & Tchetchik, A. (2022). Sharing economy rebound: The case of peer-to-peer
sharing of surplus food. Journal of Cleaner Production, 337, 130478.
40. Miguel, C., Avram, G., & De Paoli, S. (2022). Trust, reputation, and participation in the sharing economy.
In V. Cesnuitytė, C. Miguel, G. Avram, J. Schor, L. Nierling, & S. Behrendt (Eds.), The sharing economy
in Europe: Developments, practices, and contradictions (pp. 33–52). Springer.
41. Moltene, J., & Orsato, R. J. (2022). The sharing economy in practice: An exploratory study of the
Ecofood digital platform in Brazil. Journal of Business Research, 146, 30–40.
42. Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of
the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369–380.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XXX December 2025 | Special Issue
Page 447
www.rsisinternational.org
43. Nikishina, E. (2020). Trust and sharing platforms: The role of digital verification in consumer adoption.
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 15(3), 1–14.
44. Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & bin Ujang, Z. (2019). The food waste
hierarchy as a framework for managing food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219,
1–9.
45. Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., & Ormazabal, M. (2018). Towards a consensus on the circular economy.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 605–615.
46. Puram, P., & Gurumurthy, A. (2023). Sharing economy in the food sector: A systematic literature review
and future research agenda. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 56, 150–164.
47. Ritter, M., & Schanz, H. (2019). The sharing economy: A comprehensive business model framework.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 320–331.
48. Salemdeeb, R., Font Vivanco, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., & zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J. (2017). A holistic approach
to the environmental evaluation of food waste prevention. Waste Management, 59, 442–450.
49. Sales, A., Oliveira, R., & Silva, M. (2021). Building trust in digital platforms for sharing surplus food: A
design guidelines perspective. Sustainability, 13(4), 1768.
50. Shi, X., Zhu, Z., Wu, J., & Li, Z. (2025). A study on the carbon emission reduction pathways of China’s
digital economy from multiple perspectives. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13.
51. Simonovits, B., & Balázs, B. (2022). Food sharing and food insecurity in the sharing economy. In V.
Cesnuitytė, C. Miguel, G. Avram, J. Schor, L. Nierling, & S. Behrendt (Eds.),The sharing economy in
Europe: Developments, practices, and contradictions (pp. 143–161). Springer.
52. Solovyeva, A., Jokinen, J. C., & Kortelainen, M. (2023). To share or not? Drivers and barriers of
sustainable peer-to-peer food sharing. Sustainability, 15(2), 1107.
53. Sorrell, S. (2007). The rebound effect: An assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings
from improved energy efficiency. UK Energy Research Centre.
54. Spindeldreher, K., & Teubner, T. (2018). A stakeholder view on reputation systems in the sharing
economy. Journal of Business Research, 86, 341–350.
55. Srivastava, S., Kumar, V., & Singh, A. (2024). Food waste in academic institutions: Causes,
consequences, and interventions. Sustainability, 16(2), 812.
56. SWCorp. (2020). Laporan Kajian Sisa Makanan Kebangsaan. Solid Waste Management and Public
Cleansing Corporation.
57. Treitler, I. (2024). Sharing economy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology.
58. United Nations Environment Programme. (2021). Food Waste Index Report 2021. United Nations
Environment Programme.
59. Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., & Chiesa, V. (2017). Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business
models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 487–498.
60. Velenturf, A. P., & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 27, 1437–1457.
61. Wani, N. R., Rather, R. A., Farooq, A., Padder, S. A., Baba, T. R., Sharma, S., ... & Ara, S. (2024). New
insights in food security and environmental sustainability through waste food management.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(12), 17835–17857.
62. Ye, Z., Wang, J., & Zhao, H. (2025). Blockchain for mass customization: The value of information
sharing through data accuracy by contract coordination. Mathematics, 13(3), 404.
