Food

Sustainability
Index 2021
Global Executive Summary

WITH THE SUPPORT OF

Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary 2

Contents

3 About the Food Sustainability Index

4 Key findings of the 2021 FSI

7 Food loss and waste

9 Sustainable agriculture

11 Nutritional challenges

13 Conclusion

© The Economist Group 2021

Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary 3

About the Food

Sustainability Index

Food systems are at the heart of the 17 UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The
Food Sustainability Index (FSI), now in its fourth
iteration, has been developed by Economist
Impact with the support of the Barilla Center
for Food and Nutrition Foundation (BCFN).
The first edition of the FSI was published in
2016 and ranked the food sustainability of 25
countries. In 2017 this was expanded to 34
countries, followed by 67 countries in 2018. The
2021 Index examines the food systems of 78
countries, using 95 individual metrics across three
key pillars: food loss and waste, sustainable
agriculture, and nutritional challenges. The
Index now covers more than 92% of global
GDP and 92% of the global population.
The 2021 FSI also contains a number of updates
to better capture the most salient issues of
2020 and 2021. Covid-19 has highlighted the
importance of preventing zoonotic diseases,
embracing the One Health Approach,1 and
strengthening food supply chain resilience.
The enduring threat of climate change calls for
assessments of the sustainability of food-based
dietary guidelines (FBDGs), the affordability
of sustainable diets, and climate change
mitigation and adaptation efforts. Beyond this,
the 2021 FSI revised its methodology for several
indicators to improve the Index.2 In addition,
it aims to shift away from country rankings
and instead focus on broader groupings and
the lessons these generate for best practices
in food sustainability. A first analysis of the
2021 FSI was conducted on G20 countries.3

The 2021 Index examines the 78 This global executive summary was written
food systems of 78 countries. 67 by Economist Impact’s Martin Koehring and
Martina Chow, with support from Lian Lin.

34
25

2016 2017 2018 2021

1 https://www.fao.org/one-health/en/
2 A more detailed explanation of these updates can be found in the 2021 FSI Methodology Paper.
3 https://foodsustainability.eiu.com/g20/fixing-food-2021-paper/about-this-report/

© The Economist Group 2021

Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary 4

Key Findings of Overall performance in FSI

Very high High Medium Low

the 2021 FSI Sweden

Japan
Canada
Mexico
Brazil
Romania
Finland Egypt
Austria Bangladesh
Denmark Malta
Australia Jordan
Netherlands Philippines
Estonia Saudi Arabia
As a group, the FSI’s top performers have Germany United Arab Emirates
strong outputs and policies across the Portugal Russia
three pillars, but in particular in food loss France Indonesia
and waste and nutritional challenges. Poland Nigeria
Countries in the top quartile performed well Latvia Vietnam
on key indicators in the Index, including: food South Korea Uganda
waste targets, private institutions, formal land
Italy Rwanda
rights, public financing and research institutions
Croatia Cote d'Ivoire
for agricultural innovation, the prevalence of
Ireland Ethiopia
undernourishment, and the affordability of
Czech Republic Morocco
healthy and sustainable diets. ●
United Kingdom Pakistan
Luxembourg Ghana
Spain Kenya
Bulgaria Zambia
Argentina Senegal
Slovakia Angola
Belgium Sudan
Cyprus Malawi
Turkey Lebanon
Hungary Tunisia
United States Sierra Leone
Greece Zimbabwe
Lithuania Burkina Faso
China Cameroon
Slovenia Algeria
Colombia Mozambique
South Africa Mali
Tanzania Democratic Rep of Congo
India Niger
Israel Madagascar

© The Economist Group 2021

Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary 5

The key challenges faced by today’s society
are deeply intertwined with our food
systems. Countries performing well on the
FSI also perform well on social and economic
indicators such as human development,
progress in achieving SDGs, income levels,
gender equality, health expenditure and higher
education.4 Achieving human and economic
development or redressing social inequalities
can have benefits for food sustainability, and
vice versa. These relationships stress the
importance of a systems-based approach
that moves away from siloed thinking.

Performance in the FSI correlates with a number of key background indicators

The horizontal axis lists FSI countries in order of their performance on the FSI. The vertical axis shows countries' relative
performance on the FSI, gender inequality, SDG index, health expenditure, HDI and GDP per head respectively. Sweden is
the strongest performer in the FSI while Madagascar is the weakest.

FSI Gender inequality SDG index Health expenditure HDI index GDP x head

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Slovakia
Belgium
Cyprus
Turkey
Sweden
Japan
Canada
Finland
Austria
Denmark
Australia
Netherlands
Estonia
Germany
Portugal
France
Poland
Latvia
South Korea
Italy
Croatia
Ireland
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Spain
Bulgaria
Argentina

Hungary
United States
Greece
Lithuania
China
Slovenia
Colombia
South Africa
Tanzania
India
Israel
Mexico
Brazil
Romania
Egypt
Bangladesh
Malta
Jordan
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Russia
Indonesia
Nigeria
Vietnam
Uganda
Rwanda
Cote d'Ivoire
Ethiopia
Morocco
Pakistan
Ghana
Kenya
Zambia
Senegal
Angola
Sudan
Malawi
Lebanon
Tunisia
Sierra Leone
Zimbabwe
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Algeria
Mozambique
Mali
Democratic Rep of Congo
Niger
Madagascar

4 Very strong correlations refer to where the correlation is above (+/-) 0.8;
strong correlations refer to correlations where the coefficient is above (+/-) 0.65
© The Economist Group 2021
Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary
The Human Development Index (HDI)5 and
food sustainability: very strong correlation
(correlation coefficient of 0.85). There are
a few exceptions, such as Croatia, Estonia,
Italy, Latvia, Poland and Portugal, which do
not perform as well on the HDI as they do on
the FSI, but they are still among the top 40
for the former. Overall, however, countries
doing well on human development also
do well in ensuring food sustainability.
SDG progress and food sustainability: very
strong correlation (correlation coefficient of
0.86). Countries performing well on the FSI
also perform well on the SDG Index6 which
tracks progress towards achieving the goals.
Of the top 20 performing countries in the FSI,
16 rank top in the SDG Index. Countries with
more sustainable food systems are therefore
making better progress in meeting the SDGs.
Gender inequality7 and food sustainability:
very strong negative correlation (correlation
coefficient of –0.86). Where gender inequality
is low, food sustainability is high. Of the top-
performing countries in the FSI, all but five have
among the lowest levels of gender inequality.
Food sustainability outcomes are harder to
achieve where gender inequality prevails.
5 http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/137506
6 https://www.sdgindex.org/
7 http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii
6
These relationships stress
the importance of a systems-
based approach that moves
away from siloed thinking.
Current health expenditure and food
sustainability: strong correlation (correlation
coefficient of 0.69). While outliers exist—
Lebanon performs well on health expenditure
but is in the bottom 20 in the FSI, while the
reverse applies to Bangladesh—higher levels
of health expenditures per head tend to
support more sustainable food systems.
GDP per head and food sustainability:
strong correlation (correlation coefficient of
0.73). Countries with a higher GDP per head
tend to perform better on the FSI, but there are
notable exceptions. Tanzania, for instance, sits
in the bottom 20 in terms of its GDP per head,
but is among the top 40 performers on the FSI.
Although GDP per head is not the only measure
of a country’s wealth, it nonetheless speaks to the
relationship between food systems and income
levels. Wealthier countries can spend more on
health, education and innovation, all of which
support more sustainable food systems.
© The Economist Group 2021
Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary 7

Food loss Food loss and waste performance

Very high High Medium Low

and waste Canada

Italy
Germany
Mexico
Bangladesh
Greece
Japan Slovenia
Netherlands Indonesia
Sweden Romania
Australia Israel
United States Egypt
Portugal Vietnam
Key takeaways: Latvia Russia
Argentina Jordan
• Food waste is a global issue that
Denmark Tanzania
affects countries across the income
Finland Nigeria
spectrum, while food loss still affects
Estonia Cote d'Ivoire
low-income countries more acutely.
Bulgaria Lebanon
• In countries performing best in this pillar, France Zambia
food loss is less of an issue than food Poland Philippines
waste, with strong policy responses Austria Uganda
being put in place to tackle the problem. Spain Zimbabwe
India Sierra Leone
• Countries in the top 20 and across the
Croatia Angola
FSI are setting food waste targets
United Kingdom Ethiopia
and starting to measure food waste
Turkey Kenya
more systematically, but many could
still expand their set of actions and South Korea Burkina Faso

make better use of the legislation, Czech Republic Mozambique

market-based instruments and voluntary Ireland Senegal

agreements in a complementary way. Belgium Malta

Luxembourg Mali
China Rwanda
South Africa Malawi
Cyprus Morocco
Slovakia Sudan
Hungary Madagascar
Brazil Tunisia
Pakistan Ghana
Lithuania Cameroon
Saudi Arabia Democratic Rep of Congo
United Arab Emirates Niger
Colombia Algeria

© The Economist Group 2021

Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary
High levels of food loss are more common in
low-income countries, where infrastructure
gaps and uneven access to electricity make it
difficult to store and transport food safely. In
countries where food loss is high, third parties
are active in providing safe storage solutions, but
government action is lacking. Of the 32 countries
that have a national food loss strategy addressing
the entire supply chain, most are either high- or
upper-middle-income countries. Food waste is
a global issue, yet just 22 countries across the
entire FSI have a dedicated food waste strategy.
Among the top 20 performers in this pillar,
average food loss is below the FSI average
(3% of all food produced is lost compared
with 6%), and all but two countries have
food loss strategies that address different
8
stages of the supply chain. Household food
waste levels are also below the FSI average
of 85 kg per head per year in all but 2 of
these 20 countries (Australia and Portugal),
but there is still room for improvement.
Top performers are using the Target,
Measure, Act approach to tackle food
waste. These countries all have dedicated
food waste strategies, targets, research and
private institutions working to tackle the issue.
That said, even among these countries, food
waste legislation, market-based instruments
and voluntary agreements remain underused.
Just three countries in the top quartile—France,
Italy and the US—have adopted all three of
these approaches to address food waste.
Food waste is a global
issue, yet just 22 countries
across the entire FSI
have a dedicated food
waste strategy.
© The Economist Group 2021
Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary 9

Sustainable Sustainable agriculture performance

Very high High Medium Low

agriculture Finland
Estonia
Austria
Egypt
Niger
Cyprus
Tanzania Zimbabwe
Sweden Mozambique
Ireland Sierra Leone
South Korea Kenya
Nigeria United Kingdom
Poland Burkina Faso
Key takeaways: Czech Republic Romania
Germany Senegal
• The top performers for sustainable
Uganda Democratic Rep of Congo
agriculture generally have robust policy
Denmark Mexico
responses to tackle key issues around
Lithuania Italy
sustainable water management
Croatia Angola
and encouraging private sector
Australia Mali
investment in sustainable agriculture.
Cote d'Ivoire Zambia
However, these need to be monitored
Portugal South Africa
and properly implemented to ensure
that the right results emerge. Japan Cameroon
Philippines Bangladesh
• Spending on research and Bulgaria Jordan
development (R&D) is high among Greece Spain
the top performers in this pillar, Ethiopia Belgium
which can support more sustainable
Hungary Saudi Arabia
innovation efforts in agriculture.
Malta Turkey

• Some low-to-lower-middle-income Latvia Vietnam

countries in the FSI—such as Côte Ghana Argentina

d’Ivoire, Nigeria and Zimbabwe—are Rwanda Madagascar
setting examples on how to better Sudan Pakistan
integrate climate action with Slovakia Russia
agricultural activities. However, Slovenia Brazil
some of the largest total agricultural Netherlands Indonesia
greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters in the France Tunisia
Index are falling short on this front. Luxembourg India
Morocco China
Canada United States
Colombia Algeria
Malawi Lebanon
Israel United Arab Emirates

© The Economist Group 2021

Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary
High-income countries perform better on
sustainable agriculture, with an average score of
67.1, compared with the overall FSI average of
64.1. However, low- and lower-middle-income
countries score an average of 62.5 in this pillar,
thereby performing better than their upper-
middle-income counterparts, which score
60.3 on average. Of the top 20 performers, 5
are low- or lower-middle-income countries.
The top 20 performers in this pillar do
comparatively better across water,
land and air compared to FSI averages.
Governments in these countries are spending
an average of 1.7% of GDP on R&D in science,
technology and innovation, compared with the
FSI average of 1.1%. More specifically, all 20
have research institutions providing technical
assistance to farmers, sustainable agriculture
training programmes, and public financing for
agricultural innovation. Of the 20 countries,
18 also have formal land rights and laws
protecting smallholders from acquisition.
Top performers are adopting a number
of policy measures, but are falling behind
on key outputs. Even though 14 of the 20
Just 4 of the top 20 countries —all
of which are low- or lower-middle-income
countries— are prioritising agriculture in
their international climate commitments.
10
countries have sustainable water management
policies for agriculture, almost half are in the
medium or low categories for their water
footprints of production and baseline water
stress. Similarly, 19 of the 20 countries have
sustainable agriculture strategies but half of
them are among the worst performers regarding
pesticide use, and 70% sit in the bottom 20 for
their use of synthetic fertilisers. Given that 15 of
the 20 also promote private sector investment
in these strategies, there are opportunities
to direct finance towards encouraging more
sustainable agricultural practices such as
reducing pesticide and synthetic fertiliser use.
17 of these countries are mainstreaming climate
change into their agriculture policies, and almost
half are among the largest per hectare agricultural
GHG emitters in the study. Yet just 4 of these
countries—all of which are low- or lower-middle-
income countries—are prioritising agriculture
in their international climate commitments.
Setting the right policies is a crucial first step,
but these policies need to be monitored over
time and linked to clear quantitative targets to
ensure that they result in measurable outcomes.
© The Economist Group 2021
Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary 11

Nutritional Nutritional challenges performance

Very high High Medium Low

challenges Japan
Sweden
Denmark
Morocco
Indonesia
Colombia
France Bangladesh
China Israel
Netherlands Romania
Luxembourg Tunisia
United Kingdom United States
Austria Ghana
Key takeaways: Australia Egypt
Slovenia Rwanda
• The nutritional challenges faced by the
South Korea Philippines
better-performing, high-income countries
Finland South Africa
are different from those faced by middle-
Ireland Bulgaria
to-low-income countries that perform
Belgium Tanzania
less well in the pillar. Overnourishment
Canada Vietnam
and poor diet composition are key issues
Portugal Saudi Arabia
faced by the former, while malnutrition,
Croatia Kenya
low life expectancy and high non-
communicable disease (NCD) mortality Greece Uganda

rates remain prevalent in the latter. Spain Senegal

Latvia Ethiopia
• Top performers in this pillar are starting Czech Republic Sudan
to strengthen the nexus between Cyprus Zambia
diets and sustainability, but for low- Malawi
Poland
to-lower-middle-income countries,
Estonia India
the affordability of healthy and
Malta Lebanon
sustainable diets represents a significant
Slovakia Angola
obstacle that is difficult to overcome.
United Arab Emirates Cameroon
Turkey Nigeria
Lithuania Pakistan
Hungary Cote d'Ivoire
Italy Sierra Leone
Jordan Zimbabwe
Germany Burkina Faso
Argentina Democratic Rep of Congo
Algeria Madagascar
Brazil Mali
Russia Niger
Mexico Mozambique

© The Economist Group 2021

Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary
Top performers in this pillar have low levels
of stunting, wasting, undernourishment,
underweight, anaemia, and mortality rates
from NCDs. They also have adequate levels of
iron and longer and healthier life expectancies.
Healthy eating policies are in place across all
20 countries, but more than half continue
to subsidise the sugar industry and lack any
taxes on sugar or sugar-sweetened beverages.
Overweight is an increasingly important
issue alongside the overconsumption of
sugar, meat, salt and saturated fat.
However, overnourishment and
undernourishment are not mutually
exclusive. For some countries in the FSI,
the double burden of malnutrition prevails
whereby overnutrition and undernutrition
coexist.8 Argentina, Colombia, Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco and Saudi Arabia
all sit in the bottom 40 for the prevalence
of overnourishment (overweight in children
and in adults) and undernourishment alike.
8 https://www.thelancet.com/series/double-burden-malnutrition
12
Healthy eating policies are
in place across all 20 top
performing countries, but
more than half continue
to subsidise the sugar
industry and lack any
taxes on sugar or sugar-
sweetened beverages.
A healthy and sustainable diet is affordable in
all but one of the top-performing countries—
China, the only upper-middle-income country in
the group. Despite this, the environmental impact
of diets among these countries—captured by the
water footprint of consumption—is slightly higher
than the FSI average: around 1,577 m3/head/
year compared with the FSI average of 1,509
m3/head/year. China is once again an exception
here. Despite high baseline water stress, the
water footprint of consumption is significantly
below average (985 m3/head/year), making it
one of the top 10 performers in this indicator.
Despite this, more than half of the
top performers are yet to incorporate
sustainability into their FBDGs. Of the
15 countries in the FSI overall that do
so, 7 are the top performers in this pillar.
Top performers are therefore paving the
way in this respect, but can still do more
to ensure that dietary recommendations
account for environmental impacts.
© The Economist Group 2021
Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary
Conclusion
As the world moves to act on pressing
climate targets and embrace a food systems
agenda—all while we continue to overcome
the effects of covid-19—the results of
the FSI highlight common lessons on how
best to tackle key food systems challenges
faced by countries around the world.
13
• Our correlation analysis shows that efforts
to tackle food sustainability sit alongside
efforts to address key social and economic
objectives such as human development,
sustainable development, gender equality,
health spending and support for innovation.
• Food loss and waste needs to be addressed
using the Target, Measure, Act approach
which combines a comprehensive range
of policy approaches from legislative,
financial and strategic angles and
brings together a variety of actors.
• Sustainable agriculture policy responses
must be tracked against dedicated
quantitative targets, specifically with regard
to reducing baseline water stress, pesticide
and fertiliser use, and GHG emissions.
• For many low-to-lower-middle-income
countries, healthy and sustainable diets
are unaffordable. Ensuring that these diets
are accessible across the world will be a
crucial first step. Where these diets are
affordable, countries must take the next
step and incorporate sustainability concerns
into their dietary recommendations.
© The Economist Group 2021
Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary 14

While every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of this information,
Economist Impact cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by
any person on this report or any of the information, opinions or conclusions
set out in this report. The findings and views expressed in the report do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.

© The Economist Group 2021

Food Sustainability Index 2021: Global Executive Summary
LONDON
20 Cabot Square
London, E14 4QW
United Kingdom
Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000
Fax: (44.20) 7576 8500
Email: london@economist.com
NEW YORK
750 Third Avenue
5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States
Tel: (1.212) 554 0600
Fax: (1.212) 586 1181/2
Email: americas@economist.com
HONG KONG
1301
12 Taikoo Wan Road
Taikoo Shing
Hong Kong
Tel: (852) 2585 3888
Fax: (852) 2802 7638
Email: asia@economist.com
15
GENEVA
Rue de l’Athénée 32
1206 Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: (41) 22 566 2470
Fax: (41) 22 346 93 47
Email: geneva@economist.com
DUBAI
Office 1301a
Aurora Tower
Dubai Media City
Dubai
Tel: (971) 4 433 4202
Fax: (971) 4 438 0224
Email: dubai@economist.com
SINGAPORE
8 Cross Street
#23-01 Manulife Tower
Singapore
048424
Tel: (65) 6534 5177
Fax: (65) 6534 5077
Email: asia@economist.com
© The Economist Group 2021