# Between surplus and support: a comparison between Greater Manchester (UK) and Kyoto Prefecture (Japan) charitable food provision fields

## TL;DR

This paper compares charitable food provision systems in the UK and Japan, showing how different approaches handle poverty and food waste.

## Contribution

The study introduces a novel comparative framework using Strategic Action Field theory to analyze charitable food provision.

## Key findings

- The UK system is formalized and network-driven, while Japan's is decentralized and community-oriented.
- Both systems rely on volunteers and corporate partnerships, especially during the pandemic.
- The paper critiques the 'win–win' narrative of CFP by highlighting differing institutional logics.

## Abstract

Over the past decades, charitable food provision (CFP) has become a vital safety net in addressing poverty across the Global North. Organizations distributing food parcels or meals, often sourced from surplus, now play a central role in urban poverty relief. Framed as a “win–win” solution that aligns social and environmental sustainability, CFP is widely perceived as capable of addressing hunger while reducing food waste. This paper offers an innovative, field-level comparison of CFP systems in Greater Manchester (UK) and Kyoto Prefecture (Japan) using Strategic Action Field (SAF) theory—a framework not yet widely applied in this context. We analyze the emergence of these fields, their operational dynamics, interactions with state and corporate actors, and the impact of COVID-19. Drawing on extensive qualitative data, including semi-structured interviews and field observations, we identify contrasting organizational models: the UK’s formalized, network-driven approach versus Japan’s decentralized, community-oriented one. Despite these differences, both fields depend on volunteers, corporate partnerships, and expanded activity during the pandemic. By showing how different institutional logics shape the articulation of social and environmental sustainability, the paper not only critiques the “win–win” narrative but also advances a comparative framework for future research into CFP fields.