Introduction

Food systems are a major driver of climate change, accounting for approximately one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions [1]. These emissions originate mostly from agriculture and land use/land-use change, with the remainder produced through supply chain activities, such as transport, industrial processing, packaging, retail, and waste management. Food loss and waste are estimated to account for one-third of global food production, further straining the world’s resources [2]. The challenge of sustainability lies in providing enough high-quality food to meet the needs of the current population without compromising the resources needed for future generations.

In this context, school meal programs offer a unique opportunity to address both the nutritional needs of children and the environmental challenges posed by current food systems [3]. Worldwide, at least 407.8 million students received food through school meal programs in 2022 [4]. Altogether, these programs—present in almost all countries—comprise the world’s largest social safety net for children. While numerous studies highlight the multi-sectoral benefits of these programs for food security, health, and education, much less is known about how school meals can contribute to climate adaptation and mitigation [5,6]. Nevertheless, schools are key sites of food procurement, preparation, consumption, waste management, and food education, and they have potential to purposefully shift food systems in a more sustainable direction. Moreover, as countries increasingly integrate these programs into national development strategies, school meal programs can become a powerful lever of sustainability at the national scale. ‘Sustainability’ in this case implies the minimization of negative environmental impacts across all stages of meal production and delivery [7].

Whether school meals contribute to sustainability is not straightforward. Their environmental impact depends on various factors, such as the selection of school menus, distance travelled by food from the site of production to the school, modes of transportation, cooking methods employed, packaging materials used, and handling of waste [8].

Choices around food procurement and the geography of food sourcing can influence a school meal program’s sustainability. Notably, public food procurement can shape both food consumption and production patterns, potentially yielding social, economic, environmental, health, and cultural benefits [9]. A particularly promising approach is Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF), in which food is sourced locally from smallholder farmers. These programs are gaining momentum globally, with over 64.5 million children in 46 African countries benefiting from HGSF programs [7]. By linking school meals with local agricultural production, HGSF contributes to rural development and supports local economies, and many HGSF programs also support farmers in becoming more resilient to climate shocks [7,10]. As HGSF is inherently premised on shorter food value chains, it reduces the need for long-distance food transportation, thereby limiting a program’s environmental footprint.

Even beyond the HGSF framework, school meal programs may choose to source local, seasonal, and/or organic foods. Often, these are characterized as farm-to-school programs or ‘school food partnerships’ [11]. Programs may prioritize ‘climate-friendly’ menus that account for the impact of food choice on the environment. In arid environments, drought-tolerant crops such as sorghum, millet, or cassava would be considered climate-friendly [12]. Legumes, which enrich the soil where they are grown, can also be considered climate-friendly [13]. In settings with a high amount of meat consumption, climate-friendly foods might include more plant-based products and less consumption of meat from large animals [14,15]. Note that taste, appearance, and recognizability are decisive factors in children’s acceptance of meals [16], and providing cooks with appropriate training may be essential to make plant-based meals that are appealing.

Sustainable meals may also emphasize “scratch cooking” rather than purchase of prepared foods, reflecting a considerable overlap between health and sustainability criteria for meals [3,11]. Programs can take steps to reduce water use in meal preparation and address food waste, as by adjusting portion sizes strategically. The reduction of inorganic packaging waste is also sometimes a focus, with the use of reusable items or bulk- rather than single-use containers [3]. Finally, some school meal programs incorporate waste-reduction strategies such as recycling, composting [15], and donations of unused food to food banks.

The choice of fuel used in cooking can also shift a school meal program to be more or less sustainable. In many low- and middle-income countries, these programs often rely on traditional biomass fuels such as wood, charcoal, and agricultural residues for cooking. While these fuels are generally accessible and low-cost, their use presents serious environmental and health concerns. They contribute to deforestation and lead to indoor air pollution, which have harmful effects for both human health and the environment [3,15]. Transitioning to cleaner energy alternatives—such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), solar cookers, and electric cooking technologies—can help address these issues [17]. LPG, for instance, burns more cleanly and efficiently than biomass, producing fewer harmful emissions [18]. Renewable energy options like solar and e-cooking technologies offer additional benefits by further reducing the carbon footprint associated with school feeding operations [19].

School meal programs can be used creatively as platforms to teach children about the environment and transmit values of environmental sustainability. Many school meal programs incorporate school gardens which can be used not only to produce fruits and vegetables for the meals, thereby improving their nutritional quality [20], but also to teach children about food production, the nutritional value of locally grown foods, and the benefits of agrobiodiversity. Through school gardens, children can learn firsthand about the risks that climate change poses for food systems [21]. While the gardens can help students understand where food comes from, cooking activities translate this knowledge into practical learning and healthier eating behaviors [8]. Together, they form a holistic approach that connects growing and preparing food, encouraging healthier and more sustainable habits.

Environmental education within school feeding initiatives can play a role in fostering climate awareness. Such education has been found to significantly enhance students’ environmental knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors [22], and by engaging children as active agents of sustainable change, it can also influence the adults who interact with these children—teachers, parents, and community members—amplifying positive environmental practices beyond the classroom. School meal programs can additionally be a platform for learning about the importance of limiting food waste and the imperative to thoughtfully plan one’s consumption with the environment in mind [23].

Finally, school meal programs can be affected by environmental shocks and can also support communities in coping with such shocks [24]. When livelihoods are disrupted by conflict or natural disasters, children are often among the most affected [25]. In such situations, school meals can provide a vital safety net, helping to prevent hunger and ensure children continue to receive nutritious food. Yet school meal programs are not always able to withstand climate shocks and play this protective role: These programs may be immediately affected by extreme weather events that impact food systems, and they can also be affected over a longer time frame by climate change. For example, climate change drives biodiversity loss as ecosystems are altered [26], and these ecological disruptions threaten food systems by diminishing the ability of agriculture to adapt to new conditions and compromising soil health [27]. The extent to which school meal programs are resilient to climate shocks or climate change is relatively understudied.

This paper explores the opportunities associated with embedding climate action into school feeding systems. We leverage the most up-to-date data from the 2024 Global Survey of School Meal Programs, conducted by the Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF). The survey collected detailed information on 210 school meal programs operating in 127 countries during the school year that began in 2022 [4]. With this dataset, we explore three main avenues through which these programs are connected to the environment, including (1) how school meal programs directly seek to reduce their negative impacts on the environment; (2) how these programs indirectly promote sustainability through education/learning; and, in the other direction of impact, (3) how school meal programs are affected by environmental shocks. We also highlight opportunities for greater alignment with climate objectives.

Materials and methods

This study draws on the 2024 Global Survey of School Meal Programs, conducted by the Global Child Nutrition Foundation [28]. The survey, initially launched in 2019 and conducted three times so far, gathered detailed information on school feeding activities worldwide, including the scope of school feeding in each country, budgets, and food provision. The 2024 survey round included a focus on environmental sustainability and climate change, capturing information on local food sourcing, targeting of climate-friendly foods, management of waste, steps taken to reduce use of firewood, and experiences with natural disasters and other sources of environmental stress. The survey included both closed- and open-ended questions.

The data collection for this survey round took place from November 2023 to July 2024. An invitation to participate in the survey was extended to each country government, which appointed a national-level respondent (termed the survey “focal point”) to gather information on each large-scale school meal program in the country. This innovative survey design has produced the world’s most comprehensive and standardized data set on school feeding [4].

This study utilizes country- and program-level information from 144 countries that participated in the 2024 survey. The percentage of participating countries varied by region, with the greatest participation rates seen in Sub-Saharan Africa (at 90%), South Asia/East Asia/Pacific (74%), and Europe/Central Asia/North America (74%), and lower rates seen in Latin America/Caribbean (58%) and the Middle East/North Africa (at 57%). This rate also varied across country income groups, with 88% of low-income countries and 81%, 69%, and 63% of lower middle-income, upper middle-income, and high-income countries, respectively, participating in the survey. In total, 68% of the world’s population resides in the 144 countries that participated in this round of the survey. These countries reported on a total of 210 individual school meal programs operating in 127 of the countries (with the rest reporting that they did not have large-scale school feeding activities). The 2024 survey collected information on the school year that began in the year 2022.

In this paper, quantitative data are analyzed descriptively to characterize school meal programs with respect to their environmental sustainability, giving attention to patterns across regions and income groups. A linear probability model is then employed to discern the impacts of climate shocks on program continuity. Qualitative data in the form of open-ended survey responses are also analyzed to bring together examples of sustainability efforts under various themes. The dataset is available to the public, and further details on the data collection process can be accessed through the Global Child Nutrition Foundation [4].

Results

Environmental sustainability of school meal programs

A summary of key indicators of the environmental sustainability of school meal programs is presented in Table 1. First, recall that school meal programs are both affected by, and a driver of, climate change. Nevertheless, just 38% of programs worldwide targeted foods that were considered by the survey focal points (respondents) to be “climate-friendly”. These are defined in the survey as foods whose production improves or does no harm to the environment, or which substitute for foods that are more harmful to the environment. Climate-friendly foods may be resilient to climate-related challenges such as pests or drought, or they may be selected to avoid deforestation. Given the link between climate and food systems, it is noteworthy that the concept of a “climate-friendly” menu is not more widely adopted.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Indicators of environmental sustainability (% of programs).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000797.t001

Survey focal points in several countries shared examples of integrating climate-conscious food choices into school meal offerings. In France, a vegetarian menu has been introduced as a strategy to reduce the environmental impact of school meals. Similarly, a designated climate-friendly menu was created in Navarra, Spain, featuring fresh, organic, and locally sourced foods which rotated on a monthly basis. In Zimbabwe, the Pfumvudza/Inwasa initiative supported environmental sustainability through conservation farming and the promotion of drought-resilient crop varieties.

Even as relatively few programs described themselves as targeting climate-friendly foods, a large majority (79%) took some steps to reduce the distance traveled by food from the site of production to consumption (i.e., the food miles/kilometers). Across regions, this emphasis on local procurement was most common in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 89% of programs aimed to reduce the distance traveled by food. Practices to reduce this distance are shown in Fig 1. In 87% of cases, programs purposefully aimed to increase local procurement, while efforts were extended to increase local production in 61% of cases. Just under half (43%) of cases involve some menu modification to accommodate the priority of reducing food miles/kilometers.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Practices to reduce food miles (distance traveled by food).

Note: This figure is limited to those programs that took steps to limit food miles/kilometers (n = 157).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000797.g001

Narrative entries in the survey reveal that school meal programs in all regions have adopted context-specific strategies to reduce food miles. In Cabo Verde, efforts were introduced to localize procurement policies, improve storage infrastructure, and build or rehabilitate food preparation facilities near schools. In São Tomé and Príncipe, the school meal program promoted school gardens to reduce dependence on distant suppliers. In Botswana, the school meal program adopted a decentralized procurement system and broadened the base of participating local suppliers and farmers. Brazil’s program mandates food sourcing from within each of the country’s 5,571 municipalities while adapting menus based on seasonal and regional agricultural conditions—a design also observed in Croatia and Ethiopia. In the Czech Republic and Greece, investments have been made in logistics and storage systems to support shorter supply chains, and in Austria, the school meal program incorporated locally sourced milk into school meals with an explicit aim of reducing transport distances.

As noted in the introduction, the choice of fuel used during food preparation is an indicator of environmental sustainability. Survey results show that 58% of school meal programs relied on wood or charcoal stoves for food preparation. Among these, 78.5% took some steps to reduce the use of firewood/charcoal as fuel, and toward this end, the most common step taken was the use of fuel efficient (energy efficient) stoves (Fig 2). It was very uncommon for programs to aim for lower use of wood/charcoal by selecting menus that required less cooking, and it was even less common to use solar energy for cooking. Perhaps the capital-intensive nature of solar cooking, which requires specialized infrastructure beyond the budget of most school meal programs, deters programs from pursuing this option. Biogas was used as fuel in the few instances (6% of programs) where anaerobic biodigesters were employed by schools to manage organic waste (Table 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Practices to reduce the use of firewood or charcoal.

Note: This figure is limited to those programs that took steps to limit the use of firewood or charcoal as fuel (n = 86).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000797.g002

Survey focal points relayed diverse narratives about how school meal programs grapple with fuel choice. For example, in Mongolia, the School Lunch Program has been moving away from charcoal or wood stoves by improving access to electricity and shifting toward the use of electrical appliances in school kitchens. Countries that have introduced energy-efficient stoves in school feeding programs include Bangladesh, Cameroon, Dominica, Laos, and Palau, among others. In addition to adopting energy-efficient stoves, several countries have turned to alternative or renewable energy sources. For instance, programs in Benin, Nepal, and Niger have introduced solar cooking technologies in schools. Other innovative strategies have focused on minimizing cooking energy needs. In the Dominican Republic, for example, school menus have been adapted to include dishes that require less fuel to prepare. In Malawi, although students are still expected to bring firewood or charcoal, the program has taken steps to mitigate the environmental impact of fuel use. These include promoting energy-efficient stoves, exploring alternative fuels, and encouraging afforestation efforts using fast-growing trees and bamboo.

As noted in the introduction, the environmental footprint of school meal programs is evident also in the amount of food that is lost or wasted. According to the Global Survey of School Meal Programs, a large majority (81%) of school meal programs took some steps to limit food waste (Table 1). This was generally more common in lower-income settings, where food tends to be less plentiful. Specifically, 96% of programs in low-income countries, and 69% of programs in high-income countries, took steps to limit food waste. These steps are delineated in Fig 3. Across all programs worldwide, the most common steps to limit food waste were the use of sealed food storage, the routine testing/monitoring of dry food storage, and fumigation/pest control in storage areas. A less common step took the form of marketing campaigns to nudge children as well as food preparers to limit food waste. In addition, 22% of all programs (and 48% of programs in South Asia/East Asia/Pacific) composted their uneaten/unusable foods (Table 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Practices to limit food waste or packaging waste.

Note: This figure is limited to those programs that either took steps to limit food waste (n = 154) or took steps to limit packaging waste (n = 128).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000797.g003

The survey captured a range of strategies used by school meal programs to reduce their food waste. In South Africa, dry foods that were not used for in-school meals during the school term were packaged as take-home rations for needy learners to consume at home outside of the school year. In countries such as The Bahamas, Latvia, and Liberia, the FIFO (First In, First Out) system was used, while programs in Rwanda and Namibia implemented the FEFO (First Expiry, First Out) system. Some programs also addressed waste at the consumption and disposal stages by introducing composting practices, as was the case in Jordan, Mozambique, and Sri Lanka. In some programs, waste reduction strategies were also linked to procurement and menu planning. In Palau, for example, school menus were adapted to remove food items that resulted in high food waste. In Slovenia, schools have successfully reduced food waste by an estimated 42% through the “Food is Not for Waste” initiative, implemented under the Eco-Schools program. In Poland, educators from food banks conducted student awareness sessions on the ecological, social, and economic impacts of food waste. In Sweden, the National Food Agency developed a practical handbook offering guidance on minimizing waste in kitchen operations, meal service, and plate waste in schools and other public institutions. Additionally, municipalities are required to report food waste data from schools to the National Food Agency every two years, enabling ongoing monitoring and improvement. In eSwatini, additional measures included workshops on post-harvest and food waste management, which promoted practices such as weighing food before cooking and factoring in children’s preferences.

A majority (66%) of school meal programs also took some steps to limit package waste. Most commonly, these included the re-use of bags/containers (followed by 56% of programs that took some steps to limit package waste) and the recycling of packaging materials. Not surprisingly, recycling tended to be more common in higher-income settings. Roughly one third of programs reported that they used compostable materials, prohibited some types of packaging materials that were less environmentally friendly, or used bulk-serve containers in place of single-serve containers.

To limit packaging waste, some programs prohibited certain types of packaging, such as plastic or non-recyclable materials. This approach was reported in Finland, Iraq, and Rwanda, among others. In The Bahamas, compostable materials were used for food packaging, and the national government has implemented a ban on Styrofoam products. In Bangladesh, packaging waste was managed by reusing containers and reselling cartons locally after food distribution; however, laminated foil packaging used for biscuits was typically discarded, as it could not be easily recycled. In France, stainless steel containers were used for food delivery, significantly reducing the need for disposable packaging, and in Malta, students were encouraged to use reusable utensils as part of broader efforts to minimize packaging waste. These examples illustrate a growing global effort to reduce packaging waste in school meal programs through a combination of reuse, recycling, material substitution, and regulatory action.

Impacts of environmental stress and climate emergencies

School meal programs were widely affected by emergencies in the 2022 school year, including natural disasters (such as floods or earthquakes) or slow-onset emergencies (such as droughts). Specifically, 20% of programs reported being affected by natural disasters, while 10% were affected by slow-onset emergencies. One quarter of all programs were affected by either of these emergencies, though this value was 37% for programs operating in low-income settings. As shown in Fig 4, the impacts of these emergencies varied widely. For one third (33%) of programs that were affected by either a slow-onset emergency or a natural disaster, the school feeding operations were not interrupted. An additional 42% of programs reported that school feeding ceased temporarily in some schools/regions, while 12% had to temporarily suspend feeding activities in all schools in which the program was active, and another 14% ceased activities up until the time of the survey in some (but not all) schools (i.e., as of late 2023 or early 2024).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 4. Impact of climate emergencies on school feeding operations (% of programs).

Note: This figure is limited to those programs that were affected by either a natural disaster or slow-onset emergency, with some non-responses to this survey question (n = 43).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000797.g004

Some drivers of school meal program susceptibility to disruption (proxied here by an indicator of whether the program experienced any interruption) are explored for low- and lower middle-income countries in a linear probability model in Table 2. A positive coefficient is indicative of a factor that drives disruption, while a negative coefficient is indicative of a driver of resilience. (Full results are also available in S1 Text in the supporting information files.) Results in column 1 show that natural disasters were positively and significantly associated with disruption, while this was not the case for slow-onset emergencies.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Correlates of school meal program disruption in low- and lower middle-income countries (OLS).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000797.t002

Some aspects of program design could potentially mitigate the impact of shocks. In columns 2 and 3, the indicator for experiencing a natural disaster is interacted, in turn, with an indicator for whether the program had an emergency plan in place and an indicator for whether the program targeted climate-friendly foods. An emergency plan could be implemented quickly to react to a negative turn of events, and reliance on climate-friendly foods could render the school food supply less vulnerable to environmental stress. However, results in columns 2 and 3 do not suggest that either of these ex-ante strategies makes a school meal program less vulnerable to natural disasters. While the coefficient on the interaction with emergency plan is negative, it is not statistically significant. For natural disasters, these results do not point us toward any effective ways to limit the likelihood of disruption (a finding that will be discussed further in the discussion).

School meal programs employed a range of ex-post strategies to respond to climate emergencies and minimize their impact, as shown in Fig 5. Nearly half (47%) of programs sought alternative food sources or suppliers, and a considerable share (29%) were able to expand the budget for the program in response to a greater level of need. Similarly, 29% of programs were able to source alternative foods to replace those that were newly scarce.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 5. Strategies employed in response to climate emergencies (% of programs).

Note: This figure is limited those programs that were affected by either a natural disaster or slow-onset emergency (n = 46). Note that these strategies are not necessarily specific responses to the climate emergencies, though they were reported by programs that cited experiencing a climate emergency (perhaps in addition to other types of emergencies).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000797.g005

The survey focal points detailed the strategies used in different contexts to respond to emergencies. For example, programs in Namibia, Nigeria, and Peru responded to times of drought by adopting non-traditional delivery models with a shift to take-home rations; this approach proved effective in supporting household food access and maintaining children’s participation in education. Many countries responded to disruptions in global supply chains with the localization of food systems. Although not driven by environmental concerns, this response to an emergency has environmental implications: School meal programs in Cameroon, Uganda, and eSwatini turned to school gardens, while those in Liberia and Ghana turned to local procurement of staples to bolster food availability and reduce costs. When the Botswana School Feeding Program faced a slow-onset emergency, shortages of grains and pulses resulted in a slight drop in food accessibility; this in turn prompted substitutions, such as the use of canned stewed steak in place of beans, which reduced the nutritional quality of school meals.

Discussion

The preceding analysis, based on the 2024 Global Survey of School Meal Programs, surfaces several themes regarding the place of climate action within school meal programs. These are discussed in turn below, with attention to both the challenges associated with steps toward sustainability, as well as opportunities for greater alignment with stated environmental values.

First, this study documents that school meal programs are increasingly incorporating sustainable practices into their operations. Many programs have reduced food miles/kilometers by sourcing food locally, as in the HGSF approach that is now adopted in over 20 African countries [10]. The farm-to-school model similarly encourages the purchase of local and seasonal foods, along with efforts to lower transportation emissions and reduce food waste [3,9,30–34]. The emphasis on local procurement is particularly strong in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 89% of programs reported efforts to reduce the distance food travels from production to schools. Along similar lines, the region recorded the highest share of programs implementing other sustainable practices such as reducing food and packaging waste and prioritizing climate-friendly foods. This demonstrates a strong commitment to sustainability despite limited resources. As HGSF programs have also been found to bring economic benefits to local rural communities [35], it seems sustainability goals can fit together with other priorities.

Second, this study demonstrates that food waste reduction is widespread and multi-faceted. The most common measures to reduce food waste included the use of sealed food storage, routine testing and monitoring of dry food storage, and fumigation or pest control in storage areas. Quantifying food waste is a first step toward effective reduction, and Sweden has made significant progress in this area through systematic monitoring [36]. Additionally, engaging students through awareness campaigns—such as measuring and publicly displaying plate waste—has been found to lead to waste reduction [23]. In Sweden, we heard that the whole school community—including children, teachers, and staff—partake in school lunches together. These “pedagogic lunches,” where teachers discuss nutrition and mealtime behavior with students, have been found to reinforce sustainable habits [23].

Despite these encouraging practices, several challenges limit the full integration of climate-conscious food waste strategies. Plate waste remains a large contributor to school food waste [37], driven by factors such as mismatches between meals and student preferences or energy needs, and the presence of alternative food sources [38,39]. While the literature identifies effective interventions—such as scheduling recess before lunch (reverse recess), pre-ordering meals, flexible portion sizes, and improving meal quality [40,41]—these were not widely reported in practice in the Global Survey responses. Addressing these gaps will require not only technical solutions but also shifts in institutional behavior, staff training, and stakeholder engagement to support more adaptive and climate-aligned school food systems. Other measures such as information campaigns that educate schoolchildren about the climate impacts of food waste have also proven effective [23,42,43]. This suggests that there is room for additional creativity in how school meal programs around the world pursue their goal of reducing food waste.

Third, this study finds that the integration of climate-friendly foods is limited. Climate adaptation strategies, such as aligning school menus with drought- or flood-tolerant crops that are suited to local environmental conditions, can play a role in enhancing food security, particularly in regions most vulnerable to climate change [44]. As noted earlier, whether a particular food is “climate-friendly” is contextual and can include drought-tolerant crops in areas with a threat of low rainfall, legumes in areas with poor soil quality, or reduced meat in settings where children receive adequate protein through other sources. To pursue climate-friendly goals, it is thought that school menus should feature a diverse range of whole foods that are both climate-resilient and locally relevant, supporting both sustainability and nutritional outcomes [45]. Evidence from Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Norway on organic food integration in school meals reinforces the importance of school food systems in advancing sustainability and healthier diets for youth [46]. Countries such as Italy and Finland demonstrated more successful models of integration of organic foods, while challenges in other contexts—such as underdeveloped supply chains, limited policy backing, and inconsistencies in meal provision—were identified as key barriers to progress. These findings underscore a need for transformative changes in how school meals are planned and delivered.

Fourth, this study underscores that energy-efficient and clean cooking technologies can play an important role in school meal sustainability. Biomass stoves are generally inefficient and are associated with high emission of air pollutants, resulting in significant negative implications for health and the environment [47]. Nevertheless, over half of the school meal programs reported using these conventional fuel sources, such as wood or charcoal for cooking [48]. Among countries that relied on wood or charcoal stoves for food preparation, most reported taking measures to reduce reliance on firewood and charcoal, with the most common intervention being the introduction of energy-efficient stoves. The adoption of energy-efficient cooking presents several advantages over traditional biomass cooking methods. These include reduced cooking time and decreased health risks from air pollution. Additionally, clean cooking can help address environmental concerns such as deforestation, save time by eliminating the need to collect firewood, and reduce gender-based burdens, particularly for women who are often responsible for both fuel collection and cooking [49–51]. However, scaling such clean energy interventions will entail overcoming technical, financial, and social barriers. Challenges include limited stove durability, high upfront costs, lack of maintenance and credit facilities, and low user awareness. Addressing these barriers through improved financing models, context-appropriate stove design, and active stakeholder engagement could enhance uptake [48].

The adoption of energy-efficient technologies, clean energy solutions, and fuel-conscious menu adaptations aligns with broader goals to reduce food miles, minimize environmental impacts, and create more resilient and sustainable school food systems. Recent case studies from Kenya, Lesotho, Nepal, and Guinea illustrate the potential of transitioning to cleaner energy sources in school feeding programs [19]. These schools successfully shifted to eCooking systems, with electricity becoming the primary cooking fuel—even in settings with off-grid or unreliable power. The use of grid-tied and solar photovoltaic systems, along with energy-efficient electric pressure cookers, helped reduce fuel costs, cooking times, and environmental impacts. These findings suggest that, while fuel-efficient stoves are a commonly adopted solution (as seen in Table 1), there is significant opportunity to further reduce reliance on traditional biomass through the use of clean energy technologies. Expanding the use of electricity, biogas, and solar-powered cooking—where feasible—can contribute to more sustainable, cost-effective, and health-conscious school feeding systems.

Fifth, this study details how packaging waste management efforts are growing. While previous studies have noted persistent challenges in reducing school foodservice packaging waste—including infrastructure gaps and a lack of policy support [52,53]—our findings suggest that many school meal programs have implemented meaningful changes, with survey focal points often noting that these changes are recent. Common practices such as reusing containers and bulk serving, and emerging strategies like compostable packaging and banning harmful materials, reflect growing environmental awareness. Along these lines, in the U.S., it was found that centralized production kitchens that allowed for bulk purchasing played a major role in reducing packaging waste [54]. Nevertheless, kitchen managers often felt that packaging decisions were beyond their control, as food manufacturers dictate packaging methods. This underscores the critical role of food manufacturers and distributors in efforts to reduce packaging waste.

Sixth, this study records the vulnerability of programs to climate shocks, with 37% of programs in low-income settings reporting that they were affected by either a natural disaster or a slow-onset emergency. Natural disasters, in particular, are associated with disruptions to school feeding programs. However, although certain program characteristics can plausibly improve resilience to natural disasters, we did not find that the existence of an emergency plan or the targeting of climate-friendly foods were effective at ameliorating the negative impact of natural disasters. The effectiveness of these factors likely depends on contextual factors such as government capacity, safety conditions, and the duration of the crisis. Without functioning institutional structures or adequate logistics, such interventions may have limited impact on reducing overall vulnerability to disasters [25]. As previous evidence indicates, the success of climate-friendly menus depends on diversified, locally relevant food choices, supported by stable supply chains and policy backing [45,46]. Without these enabling conditions, menu choices alone may not translate into measurable reductions in program vulnerability.

The literature indicates that swift government action and budget reallocation can help ensure the continued operation of school meal programs under natural disaster conditions. The experience of Chile provides a compelling example: In response to a 2001 natural disaster, the government launched a local procurement initiative through the National Agricultural Promotion Agency. This not only maintained school meal delivery during the crisis but also built long-term resilience, with local farmers now supplying most of the program’s vegetables in the affected region [24]. In India, as another example, the Supreme Court mandated in 2004 that children in drought-affected areas receive Midday Meals even during school vacations [55]. Evidence from this period showed that school meal programs can act as a safety net, providing significant health gains for children affected by shocks such as drought. Another longitudinal study from Malawi found that school feeding programs increased enrolment among children in households experiencing unusually low rainfall, even when accounting for longer-term historical shocks [56]. These examples show how school meal programs have adapted to crisis conditions. Future rounds of the Global Survey of School Meal Programs may be strengthened by capturing more detailed information on how programs respond to and recover from crises.

Seventh, this study points to important tensions between sustainability objectives and practicality. While policies increasingly promote climate-friendly practices, real-world implementation is shaped by limited infrastructure, funding, and institutional capacity [57], and understanding these tensions is key to designing solutions that are both environmentally sound and practically viable. For example, the adoption of energy-efficient technologies is often limited by practical barriers such as high upfront costs, lack of capital, insufficient information, competing priorities, and behavioral inertia [58]. Most policy simulations to date have focused on subsidies, bans, and information campaigns [58] but may not address the full complexity of adoption barriers—especially in institutional settings like schools. Future research should also examine the economic costs and benefits of sustainable interventions within school feeding systems. Notably, there is a dearth of research on the adoption of energy-efficient cooking technologies in school settings, and the existing household-level literature may not fully capture the distinct institutional, logistical, and social dynamics at play in schools. This highlights a need for research on the drivers, barriers, and enabling conditions for clean fuel adoption in school environments—particularly in low-resource contexts where sustainability and practicality often collide.

Conclusion

As school meal programs procure food on a large scale and have authority to set procurement standards, they hold immense potential to influence the environmental sustainability of food production. These programs can strategically select menus that prioritize environmentally friendly products, emphasize local sourcing to reduce food miles, minimize food loss and waste, and adopt “clean cooking” methods that reduce emissions.

Findings from the Global Survey of School Meal Programs show that sustainability is becoming an integral consideration within many national school feeding systems. Countries are adopting a variety of sustainability measures—from reducing food and packaging waste to transitioning toward energy-efficient cooking solutions. Importantly, local procurement practices are widely implemented, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, indicating strong regional momentum toward reducing food miles and supporting local economies. Nevertheless, sourcing climate-friendly foods remains a notable gap, representing an area for further attention and investment.

School meal programs play a critical role in reducing hunger and supporting vulnerable populations, particularly in low-income countries. Many programs serve as social safety nets, helping households maintain access to food and education during climate-related shocks. At the same time, our findings show that school meal programs are sensitive to such shocks, and it follows that these programs may be less effective at reducing hunger in the face of climate change. This is a topic in need of further attention.

Future research could examine the cost-effectiveness and long-term impacts of climate-smart interventions in school meal programs. This is particularly important in regions like Africa, where governments have made substantial investments in school feeding as a strategy to support education, nutrition, and local agriculture. Many African countries are at the forefront of implementing home-grown school feeding programs, and comparative case studies across contexts could shed light on how governance structures, funding and procurement models, and cultural practices influence the adoption, success, and scalability of sustainable practices.

Future work can also explore the impact of interventions that incentivize the adoption of clean cooking technologies or climate-friendly meal options. For example, providing support or recognition for schools that incorporate a vegetarian or plant-based day in their menus can encourage both children and staff to engage with sustainable dietary practices. Even the distribution of cookbooks that focus on clean cooking technologies may influence more schools to turn to these alternative fuels. Future research can also consider the ripple effects beyond the school environment, noting that schools may inspire broader community-level changes in food consumption and energy use.

Limitations of the present study include the limited data coverage of the 2024 Global Survey of School Meal Programs, which drew responses from 144 countries (among whom 127 had large-scale school feeding activities in the reference school year). It is possible that the 50 countries that did not participate in this survey round would have had systematically different responses than the set of countries that did participate. Readers should refrain from generalizing results beyond the survey findings.

Going forward, integrating sustainability more holistically into school meal programs will require coordinated policy action, long-term financial commitment, and continued innovation. Sustainability targets ought to be specified within national school feeding frameworks, with clear guidelines for climate-friendly procurement, food waste reduction, and energy-efficient infrastructure. Governments, donors, and implementing agencies must work collaboratively to ensure that school feeding systems not only nourish children but also contribute meaningfully to resilient food systems. Doing so will position school meals as effective levers for achieving broader environmental sustainability goals.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The content of this paper is drawn partly from ‘School Meal Programs Around the World: Results from the 2024 Global Survey of School Meal Programs’, authored in 2024 by the Global Child Nutrition Foundation and available at http://gcnf.org/global-reports/. The authors are grateful for the work of our superb survey team who worked tirelessly to facilitate country participation in the Global Survey. The team included Zhanna Abzaltynova, Mary Bachaspatimayum, Rita Bhatia, Liliane Bigayimpunzi, Ludmilla de Gois, Moses Ekwueme, Priscilia Etuge, Nicole Jacquet, Heidi Kessler, Arlene Mitchell, Gilberto Morales, Mariel Mendiola, Melissa Pradhan, Majd Sheikh, and Yale Warner. Finally, the authors are grateful to the many survey “focal points” around the world who were designated by their governments to complete the Global Survey questionnaire.