ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
The ESG-FLW Index: A Multidimensional Composite Index for Comparing Food Loss and Waste Valorisation Pathways.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food loss and waste (FLW) constitutes a structural challenge for agri-food systems. However, current analytical tools for assessing management and valorisation options remain fragmented across disciplines. Existing frameworks rarely capture within a single structure the environmental, social, and economic-institutional feasibility dimensions needed to compare alternative recovery pathways. This study introduces the ESG-FLW Index, a multidimensional composite index designed to support comparative evaluation of FLW valorisation strategies, with particular attention to recovery for human consumption. The index draws on a comparative analysis of eight established frameworks. It integrates Life Cycle Assessment for the environmental pillar; Techno-Economic Assessment together with compliance, data-quality, scalability, and replicability indicators for the governance pillar; and Social Return on Investment for the social pillar. These components are aggregated through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, following methodological guidance for robust composite indicators. The framework aligns explicitly with the Food Waste Hierarchy and SDG Target 12.3. It also includes hurdle criteria to limit the risk that high aggregate scores obscure critical shortcomings. As a proof of concept, the index was applied to the CiboAmico redistribution programme. Redistribution scored substantially higher than composting (85.1 versus 30.7). The ranking remained stable under ±20% weight variations and Monte Carlo simulations (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.