Austria: Policy Highlights and Opportunities

Austria has incorporated the EU General Food Law Regulation and Hygiene Package into its national law through the Food Safety and Consumer Protection Act. EU Guidelines on Food Donation clarify relevant provisions of EU food law as they relate to the charitable donation of food. Austria has supplemented these with several donation-specific guidelines that add flexibility for certain traceability and allergen labeling requirements, although the guidance remains diffuse and difficult to access for those working in food recovery.

EU Regulation No 1169/2011 (Food Information to Consumers), which is directly applicable in Austria, requires all foods to bear either a safety-based (“use by”) date or a quality-based (“best before”) date. Food after its “best before” date may be donated, but food past its “use by” date may not.

Austria does not have a liability protection law that explicitly protects food donors and/or redistribution organizations from potential civil liability or criminal responsibility for food donations made in good faith.

Businesses in Austria can claim an income tax deduction for monetary and in-kind donations to charitable, nonprofit organizations, subject to a cap of 10% of their current year’s profit. Individuals are also eligible for a deduction on their taxable income for donations to qualified organizations, subject to a cap based on total income.

Austria’s Landfill Ordinance, passed in 2004, bans landfilling most organic waste including food waste. Instead, waste must be incinerated or go through mechanical-biological treatment. The ordinance also imposes a tax on waste, which encourages waste prevention at higher tiers of the waste management hierarchy such as donation and recycling.

In Austria, a small amount of ESF+ funding from the EU has gone to food recovery efforts, including the recovery of surplus fruits and vegetables from farms, to be provided to those experiencing poverty. The Austrian government has provided limited funding through its Social Ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Climate and Environmental Protection, Regions and Water Management to prevent waste including support for efforts that reduce production waste, improve waste prevention by optimizing logistics, and raise awareness about waste prevention.

Austria is subject to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Waste Framework Directive. The CSRD requires individual companies meeting certain criteria to report on their waste generation and diversion. Under the Waste Framework Directive, Austria must measure and report food waste averages at each stage of the supply chain.

While Austria has shown a national commitment to reducing FLW through several initiatives, coordination and continued momentum remain limited. To increase momentum and coordination ahead of completing its plan to comply with the EU Waste Framework Directive, a platform where those involved in reducing FLW and increasing food recovery can work together alongside the government would ensure the efficient use of resources and increase collaboration. Such a platform should be designed with input from those currently working in food recovery including food banks.

Due to the complexity of current law, Austria should publish a unified, practice-oriented, cross-agency circular for businesses on food safety for donations. A single, easy-to-use document that includes all rules for food hygiene, date labeling, storage, and traceability and that uses flowcharts and checklists to increase accessibility would clarify guidance and reduce barriers for companies that want to donate food but do not currently understand the requirements to safely do so. This guidance would also simplify and standardize processes for charitable food redistribution organizations.

Because some businesses that may donate food, such as farmers, tend to have lower taxable incomes that make tax deductions less beneficial than tax credits, Austria should consider creating a tax credit that would encourage those businesses to donate more food. This may increase donations from primary producers that account for almost 15% of Austria’s food waste.

To provide maximum legal clarity about potential liability tied to food donations, Austria should consider adopting legislation that explicitly protects food donors and food recovery organizations that operate in good faith and adhere to prescribed food safety standards from civil liability and criminal responsibility, except in cases of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.

Austria should consider enacting a law to require the donation of surplus food that is safe to eat. A requirement for certain food businesses (e.g., restaurants, hotels, caterers, and supermarkets above a certain size) to donate food that is still safe to eat instead of choosing an alternative under the waste management hierarchy could help Austria comply with its obligations under the Waste Framework Directive and ensure safe, edible food goes to its best use.

Austria should consider providing grants for investments in cold chain infrastructure and other “last-mile” logistics. For many potential donors and food recovery organizations, a barrier to food recovery is the cost of storage and transportation, particularly for perishable products that require refrigeration. Grants for cold chain infrastructure, including blast freezers, would allow companies selling prepared foods and other perishable products to chill them, helping to avoid spoilage and maintain correct temperature controls while food is in transit to food recovery organizations.

While Austria’s existing reporting framework provides a strong foundation for environmental and waste disclosure, gaps remain. A requirement for retailers of a certain size to publicly report how much food they send back to suppliers and the reasons for the rejected shipments would provide more insight into where FLW occurs along the food supply chain and the reasons behind it. Because many food producers and suppliers cannot challenge food rejection by retailers and are often stuck looking for an alternative market for rejected shipments, reporting requirements could help reduce FLW by creating new market opportunities.