the business plan is entirely different from the feasibility study

10 Feasibility study and business plan differences you should know

by Naiyer Jawaid | Nov 8, 2021 | Development , Real Estate | 5 comments

Feasibility study and business plan differences are subtle. In this post we will discuss 10 differences will help you to evaluate and differentiate between a feasibility study and a business plan.

Do you know what is a feasibility report? Do you know what is a business plan? Can you easily differentiate between a feasibility report and a business plan?

It’s easy! Just read out through the article and it will all be easy.

Let’s start by learning about a feasibility report:

A feasibility study is a formal document that assist in the identification and investigation of a proposed project. We can identify the project's weaknesses and strengths with the support of a feasibility study report, which saves us time and energy. We can determine whether the suggested idea will be lucrative and practicable in the future.

Before investing in a project, it is critical to determine if the project will be beneficial in the long run. The organization also needs to know how much the project will cost. Overall, a feasibility analysis indicates whether the firm should invest or continue with the project.

You should also like to read When to do feasibility study?

Now let us learn about business plan:

A business plan is a formal document that contains the goals/ objective of the business, the time in which the goal will be completed and the strategies that can be adopted to reach the specific goal.

A business plan is a necessary document for every new firm to have in place before it can begin operations. Writing a credible business plan is typically a requirement for banks and venture capital companies before contemplating granting funding to new enterprises.

It is not a smart idea to operate without a business strategy. In fact, very few businesses can survive for long without one. There are many more advantages to developing and keeping to a strong business plan, such as the ability to think through ideas without investing too much money and, eventually, losing money. Business plans are used by start-ups to get off the ground and attract outside investors.

A feasibility study is used to assess if a business or a concept is viable. After the business opportunity has been identified, the business strategy is produced. “A feasibility study is carried out with the goal of determining the workability and profitability of a company venture. A feasibility study is conducted before any money is committed in a new business endeavour to see whether it is worth the time, effort, and resources.

Similarities between a Feasibility study and a business plan

It's essential to analyse the similarities between a feasibility study and a business plan because they're both implemented altogether in same ways to help you build a lucrative company. The following are some of the similarities between the two documents:

Time: Both the reports are completed before the business begins and can be repeated afterwards to decide the next stages for new concepts.

Input: Both Feasibility report and the Business plan include input from a variety of people or departments with a variety of talents.

Format: Both report formats incorporate other documents that are gathered in order to create the report.

Components: Examining the target market, market circumstances, and financial expenses are some of the topics examined.

Use: Both may be displayed to potential investors and can assist the organization's management in making choices.

Organizations uses a business plan and a feasibility study as analytical and decision-making tools.

Although the three tools can be used in conjunction with one another in decision-making processes, they each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and they appear to target and address separate processes.

You might also like to read How to write a feasibility study report?

Now let us evaluate the difference between feasibility report and a business report-

• A feasibility study is conducted to determine the viability and profitability of a business endeavour. A feasibility study is conducted before any money is committed in a new business endeavour to see whether it is worth the time, effort, and resources.

A business plan, on the other hand, is created only when it has been determined that a business opportunity exists and that the endeavour is about to begin.

• A feasibility report is the first step and after that a business plan is made to be implemented, without feasibility report a business plan cannot be made.
• A feasibility study contains computations, research, and projected financial forecasts for a company possibility. A business plan, on the other hand, is mostly comprised of tactics and strategies to be applied to establish and expand the company.
• A feasibility study is concerned with the viability of a business concept, but a business plan is concerned with the development and sustainability of a company.
• A feasibility report informs the entrepreneur about the profit potential of a company concept or opportunity, whereas a business plan assists the entrepreneur in raising the necessary start-up cash from investors.
• Key components of a feasibility study and a business plan

• A business plan does not include the description of the sales methods used, such as distribution agreements, strategic alliances, and the amount of involvement with partners, as well as the payment terms, warranties, and other customer support.

But a feasibility report includes all the sales methods, strategies, alliances to payment and customer support.

•  Feasibility report contains:
• Assists in cost estimation, describe the production site, required inputs, and sourcing region.
• Physical description of the factory, including machine, capacity, warehouse, and supply chain, is necessary.
• Indicate if the area used for production is rented or owned. This will have an impact on the financial forecast.
• Information regarding the manufacturer's capacity, order details, price, and so on, if manufacturing is outsourced. To aid in cost estimation, describe the production site, needed inputs, and sourcing location.
• A physical description of the factory, including machine, capacity, warehouse, and supply chain, is necessary.

But a business plan does not contain anything related to production and operations, but a business plan contains all the information related to management.

• A poorly written business plan – poor projections, strategies, analysis, business model, and environmental factors, among other things – can be easily adjusted during business operations, but this cannot be said of a feasibility study because an incorrect conclusion in a feasibility study can be costly — it could mean launching a venture with little chance of survival or approving a proposal that wastes the company's human and financial resources.
•  A business plan presume that a company will prosper and lays out the procedures needed to get there. Those in charge of conducting a feasibility study should not have any predetermined notions regarding the likelihood of success. They must maintain as much objectivity as possible. They do research and allow the facts to lead to the study's conclusion. If the study concludes that the idea is viable, some of the findings, such as market size predictions, may be incorporated in the company's business plan.

You should also read What is land development feasibility study?

These 10 differences will help you to evaluate and differentiate between a feasibility study and a business plan.

Feasibility study may appear to be like the business plan in many respects. "A feasibility study may easily be transformed to a business plan” but it is crucial to remember that the feasibility study is completed prior to the endeavor. The business plan should be thought of in terms of growth and sustainability, whereas the feasibility study should be thought of in terms of concept viability.

This is all you need to know and understand about feasibility study and business plan.

Get ready to apply your knowledge in the real words with lots of success.

You might also like to explore below external contents on  feasibility study :

• What Is a Feasibility Study? – Types & Benefits
• Best 8 Property Management Software
• FEASIBILITY STUDIES & BUSINESS PLANS

Hope you enjoyed this post on  feasibility study , let me know what you think in the comment section below.

Are you someone involved with real estate feasibility?

We are excited to launch the next generation of real estate feasibility software to help you manage your development projects with ease.

Register now for a free trail license!

This is a very good piece of writing. When you have a concept for a company but want to be sure it’s a good idea, you do a feasibility study.

It was very helpful. Thank you so much!

Appropriately timed! A company’s future operations are laid out in great detail in the company’s business plan. Once you’ve done your feasibility study, you’ll know whether or not the proposal has merit. The next step is to lay out your goals, whether financial and otherwise, as well as the strategies you want to use to attain them and the organisational structure you envision.

Prior to the company opening, both are undertaken, and may be repeated again in the future to identify the next steps on new ideas that may arise.

Great Content.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Follow Us On

Latest Posts

Looking for Feasibility Study Samples?

60+ real-life feasibility study samples for FREE!

• Business & Commerce

What is the difference between feasibility study and business plan?

• No comments
• 7 minute read

What is the difference between heath and heather?

Share article, table of contents hide, what is a feasibility study, what is a business plan, the key differences between a feasibility study and a business, when to use a feasibility study vs. a business plan, how to create a feasibility study, how to create a business plan, what are the types of feasibility studies, what are the types of business plans.

A feasibility study is an analysis of whether a business idea is practical and viable , while a business plan outlines the strategy and operations of a business in detail. Essentially, a feasibility study is a precursor to a business plan, helping to determine whether the business idea is worth pursuing before investing time and resources into developing a full plan.

(Photo by Firmbee.com on Unsplash )

A feasibility study is an analysis of the viability of an idea, proposal, or concept. It assesses the likelihood that a project will be successful in meeting its objectives and goals, and whether it is worth pursuing.

A feasibility study is not the same as a business plan. A business plan is a document that outlines the financial and operational goals of a business. It includes information on the company’s products or services, marketing strategy, and target market.

A feasibility study looks at all aspects of a proposed project, including technical feasibility, financial feasibility, and operational feasibility. It is used to determine whether a project is worth pursuing and to identify any potential risks or limitations.

Technical feasibility looks at whether a proposed project can be completed with the available resources. This includes evaluating the technical requirements, such as hardware and software requirements, and assessing whether these can be met. Financial feasibility looks at whether a proposed project is financially viable. This includes assessing the costs and benefits of the project, as well as any potential sources of funding. Operational feasibility looks at whether a proposed project can be completed successfully within the given constraints. This includes evaluating the resources required for the project and assessing whether they are available.

The goal of a feasibility study is to identify any potential problems with a proposed project so that they can be addressed before moving forward. By doing this, it increases the chances of success for the project overall.

(Photo by Jason Goodman on Unsplash )

A business plan is a comprehensive document that outlines the strategy, operations, and financial projections for a business. It typically includes information on the company’s products or services, target market, competition, marketing and sales strategies, management team, and financial projections.

A well-written business plan is an important tool for entrepreneurs and business owners, as it provides a roadmap for the future of the business and helps to secure funding from investors or lenders. It allows the business owner to clearly articulate their vision and goals, and to identify potential challenges and opportunities.

The key components of a business plan typically include an executive summary , company description, market analysis, marketing and sales strategy, management and organization, product or service line, financial projections, and funding request.

The executive summary provides an overview of the business plan, highlighting the key points and objectives. The company description provides background information on the business, including its history , mission, and goals. The market analysis outlines the target market, competition, and industry trends. The marketing and sales strategy describes how the business will reach and engage customers. The management and organization section details the management team and organizational structure of the business. The product or service line outlines the products or services the business will offer. The financial projections include income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements. Finally, the funding request outlines the amount of funding needed and how it will be used.

Overall, a business plan is a critical document for any business, providing a roadmap for success and a way to attract funding and support from investors and lenders.

Purpose: A feasibility study is conducted to determine whether a business idea is practical and viable, while a business plan is developed to outline the strategy, operations, and financial projections for a business.

Scope : A feasibility study is a preliminary analysis that focuses on the market, technical, and financial feasibility of a business idea, while a business plan is a comprehensive document that covers all aspects of a business, including its products or services, target market, competition, marketing and sales strategies, management team, and financial projections.

Timing : A feasibility study is typically conducted before developing a business plan to determine whether the business idea is worth pursuing, while a business plan is developed once the decision to proceed with the business has been made.

Audience : A feasibility study is primarily used to inform the entrepreneur or management team about the viability of the business idea, while a business plan is used to secure funding from investors or lenders.

Level of detail : A feasibility study provides a high-level analysis of the business idea, while a business plan provides a detailed roadmap for the future of the business, including its marketing and sales strategies, management team, and financial projections.

A feasibility study is typically used when starting a new business or venture, and its purpose is to determine if the proposed business idea is viable. A feasibility study will assess the market potential, technical feasibility, and financial viability of the proposed business. It is important to note that a feasibility study is not the same as a business plan; rather, it is one tool that can be used in developing a business plan.

In contrast, a business plan is typically used once a business has already been established. Its purpose is to outline the company’s strategy for achieving its goals and objectives. Unlike a feasibility study, which assesses the viability of a proposed idea, a business plan focuses on an existing businesses’ ability to execute its strategy and achieve its goals.

A feasibility study is an analysis of whether a proposed project is likely to be successful. A business plan is a more detailed document that outlines the specifics of the business, such as its products or services, marketing strategy, and financial projections.

Creating a feasibility study typically requires four main steps:

• Define the problem or opportunity. This step includes understanding the needs of the potential customer or client.
• Research and gather data. This step includes secondary research, such as market analysis and industry trends, as well as primary research, such as customer surveys or interviews.
• Analyze the data and make recommendations. This step includes determining whether the problem or opportunity can be solved and whether the proposed project is likely to be successful.
• Prepare a written report . This step includes documenting the findings of the feasibility study in a clear and concise manner.

Creating a business plan can seem like a daunting task, but it doesn’t have to be. You can start by doing some research and then outlining your goals and objectives. Once you have a good understanding of what you want to achieve, you can start putting together a more detailed plan.

There are a few key things that should be included in any business plan:

• An executive summary. This is a brief overview of your business and what you hope to accomplish.
• A description of your product or service. What are you offering and why do your customers need it?
• A marketing plan. How will you reach your target market and what strategies will you use to promote your product or service?
• A financial plan. What are your revenue and expense projections? How much money do you need to get started or to keep your business running?
• An operational plan. What are the day-to-day details of running your business? Who will handle what tasks?
• A risk management plan. What could go wrong and how will you handle it if it does?

Market Feasibility

A market feasibility study assesses the potential for a product or service to be successful in a given market. It takes into account multiple factors such as the size of the target market, growth trends, competitor analysis, and customer needs and buying habits. This type of feasibility study is important for businesses to understand whether there is a demand for their product or service in the marketplace.

Technical Feasibility

A technical feasibility study assesses the ability of a business to successfully develop and implement a proposed solution. This includes assessing the technical risks involved, as well as ensuring that the necessary resources (e.g., personnel, equipment) are available. A technical feasibility study is important to determine whether a proposed solution is achievable and will meet the needs of the business.

Financial Feasibility

A financial feasibility study assesses the potential financial impact of a proposed solution. This includes an assessment of the costs and benefits of implementing the solution, as well as any potential risks and uncertainties associated with it. A financial feasibility study is important to determine whether a proposed solution is financially viable and will have a positive impact on the business’s bottom line.

Managerial Feasibility

A managerial feasibility study assesses the ability of management to successfully develop and implement a proposed solution. This includes an assessment of management’s experience, skills,

There are three types of business plans :

Internal business plan

An internal business plan is a document that outlines the company’s strategy for achieving its objectives. It is typically created by the company’s management team and is not shared with outsiders.

External business plan

An external business plan is a document that is shared with outsiders, such as investors, potential partners, and customers. Its purpose is to persuasively communicate the company’s strategy and how it will achieve its objectives.

Hybrid business plan

A hybrid business plan combines elements of both an internal and an external business plan. It typically includes a high-level overview of the company’s strategy that can be shared with outsiders, as well as more detailed information on operational matters that is meant for internal use only.

Featured Image By – Photo by Daria Nepriakhina 🇺🇦 on Unsplash

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You May Also Like

Distribution vs Dividend Explained Clearly

• Difference Digest
• February 22, 2024

What is the difference between critical path and critical chain?

• August 16, 2023

What is the difference between administration and management?

• July 16, 2023

Sewer vs. Drain: Understanding the Key Differences

• April 29, 2024

Torque Converter vs Fluid Coupling: Key Differences

• March 21, 2024

Conscious vs. Unconscious: Key Distinctions

• March 16, 2024

Debt Consolidation vs. Debt Relief: Key Differences

• What is the difference between a feasibility study and a business plan?

Navigating the dynamic business world requires a high degree of strategic acumen and meticulous preparation, especially for senior management roles. In this article, we'll delve into two paramount tools that can significantly assist in this journey: business plans and feasibility studies.

Both tools are used extensively by seasoned professionals such as senior finance managers, real estate development managers, asset managers, and procurement managers. Yet, the relationship and differentiation between business plans and feasibility studies often confuse. Through this article, we'll demystify these concepts and reveal how business plan and feasibility study consultants can be crucial in bolstering your strategic decision-making.

Unravelling the relationship

Business plans and feasibility studies are interconnected yet serve different purposes. A business plan outlines your organisation's direction, detailing the approach to achieving set goals, while a feasibility study analyses the viability of a specific business venture before it's initiated.

Consider a corporation contemplating a shift to solar power. They begin with a feasibility study, engaging a consultant to evaluate factors like sunlight availability, installation costs, regulatory environment, and potential impact on their market position. If this study finds that the location isn't sunny enough, costs are too high, or infrastructure is unsuitable, the idea is scrapped, saving the corporation from a costly mistake.

However, if the feasibility study deems the transition viable, the corporation proceeds to the business plan stage. They hire a business plan consultant to outline a detailed strategy, covering aspects such as budgeting, sourcing, installation timelines, risk mitigation, and communication plans.

Dissecting the differences

While both a business plan and a feasibility study are crucial, they're not interchangeable. A feasibility study asks, "Should we do this?" while a business plan asks, "How will we do this?"

To explain better, let's consider a scenario involving a restaurant. If a restaurateur is considering opening a new branch in a different city, they would first conduct a feasibility study. They'd assess the local market demand, competition, demographics, potential locations, costs, and projected revenue. If the study finds that the new branch wouldn't be profitable or sustainable, they would shelve the idea. However, if the feasibility study reveals that the new branch is likely to be successful, they'd proceed to create a business plan. This would detail how they intend to launch and run the new branch, such as the restaurant's concept, target customers, marketing strategies, menu, pricing, staffing, and financial projections.

In essence, the feasibility study is about whether they should open the restaurant, and the business plan is about how they will open and operate it, illustrating the key difference between the two tools.

The rationale behind business plans and feasibility studies

Why should your organisation invest time and resources in these tools? Essentially, they provide clarity and confidence in decision-making. A feasibility study examines the practicability of your idea. It determines if the proposed project is worth the risk and investment. It's akin to a 'litmus test', helping you avoid costly missteps.

On the other hand, a business plan provides a detailed roadmap for your business. It lays out your business's objectives and strategies, management and operational structure, and financial projections. It facilitates internal understanding and commitment and helps attract external investors when well-executed.

The role of consultants

Given the complexity and the high stakes involved, many organisations engage business plan consultants and feasibility study consultants. These experts bring an external perspective, help avoid internal biases, and contribute specialist knowledge and methodologies.

Feasibility study consultants conduct comprehensive market research, cost analyses, and risk assessments. They help determine if your proposed project is both profitable and achievable. On the other hand, business plan consultants assist in crafting compelling business plans that communicate your vision effectively. They analyse your business's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) and devise strategies that align with your objectives and capabilities.

Final thoughts

For senior management, these tools offer invaluable assistance. A robust feasibility study allows managers to make informed go/no-go decisions. It facilitates risk management and helps align the team around a shared understanding of the project's potential. Business plans, meanwhile, provide a clear vision and direction for the organisation. They assist managers in tracking progress, managing changes, and communicating with stakeholders. They're essential for steering the corporate ship in an often turbulent business sea.

In conclusion, business plans and feasibility studies, assisted by professional consultants, play an instrumental role in shaping and executing your business strategy. They underpin decision-making, mitigate risks, and maximise potential returns. Whether you're evaluating a new project or charting your organisation's path, consider investing in a well-crafted feasibility study and a comprehensive business plan - the rewards can be immense.

Related Services: Feasibility Study , Business Plan , Strategic Advisory

What is the role of a business valuation in estate planning?

Navigating the dynamic business world requires a high degree of strategic acumen and meticulous preparation, especially for senior management roles. In this article, we'll delve into two paramount tools that...

Recommended for you

Do neo-banks pose a threat to mainstream banking network in gcc, the advantages of working with remote teams.

Approximately 12,600 residential units in Qatar are in the pipeline for Q4 2022

Your folder is empty

Transaction Enquiry

Recover password.

Difference Between Feasibility Study and Business Plan

Many people don’t know that there is a difference between a business plan and a feasibility study.

Frequently, clients reach out seeking a feasibility study, but after an in-depth conversation, it becomes evident that what they truly require is a comprehensive business plan. In this article, I’ll clarify this common misconception and provide a clearer understanding of the distinction.

So let us start with the first one, which will give us a brief overview of what a business plan and a feasibility study is all about

Table of Contents

What is the Difference Between Feasibility Study and Business Plan

Business plans and feasibility studies are vital business tools for analysis and for making business decisions. However, a feasibility study is not the same thing as a business plan because a feasibility study gives a conclusion or recommendation that would be completed prior to developing the business plan.

Feasibility Study

A feasibility study is done to determine whether a proposed business has a high enough probability of success that it should be undertaken. A feasibility study is carried out first in order to know if the business will be viable before venturing into it. Before a company can invest in a business or launch a new product, a feasibility study is done to determine if there will be a return on investment.

According to Rochester.edu, a feasibility study can be defined as “a controlled process for identifying problems and opportunities, determining objectives, describing situations, defining successful outcomes, and assessing the range of costs and benefits associated with several alternatives for solving a problem.”

It can also be used to make decisions about whether to launch a new product for an existing company or enter a new market. Feasibility studies are sometimes termed cost-benefit analyses because the projected costs of the project are compared to the expected benefits to yield a conclusion.

For instance, imagine that you have been an instructor in a company that provides IT training and certifications in the USA and you want to come to Africa to impact the knowledge by starting a new business and even adding training like IT Certification Practice Test Dumps , but you are faced with the big question, “Would my business fly?”. Is there a market for my services?

In this situation, the best decision is to conduct a feasibility study to determine if those IT programmes have an established market. If they are a company that needs interns trained by your company.

Business plans are guidelines for carrying out actions that the company’s management has already determined to be feasible. So a business plan is like a roadmap for your business that outlines goals and details how you plan to achieve those goals.

Business plans map out the direction a company intends to take to reach its revenue and profit objectives in the future. They are a compilation of numerous decisions made by the management team about how the company should be run. A business plan is done after a feasibility study has been carried out. If the recommendation of the feasibility study is negative, then there will be no need to venture into the business. Then, if the feasibility study says the business will be feasible, a business plan is developed, which will then map out plans and strategies to adopt in order to achieve business goals, including revenue generation, market penetration, customer acquisition, marketing, and sales strategies, among others.

A business plan can be done for internal or external use. The internal use of a business plan is for the management and staff of the company, while the external use is for shareholders, investors, bank loans, and customers.

Main Purpose of a Business Plan and a Feasibility Study

In short, a feasibility study gives a conclusion or recommendations, while a business plan gives a roadmap.

The feasibility study helps determine whether an idea or business is a viable option.  Therefore, a feasibility study is done first before investing a dime in the business. Before considering approaching investors, you must have done your research to know that the business is feasible before taking any decision. That is why a feasibility study gives a conclusion or recommendations.

A business plan will map out the roadmap and strategies to achieve your business goal because a business plan assumes a business is viable and presents the steps necessary to achieve success. If you are looking forward to approaching an investor or trying to get a bank loan, what you need is a business plan. Some investors might request for a feasibility study before the business plan

Outline of a Business Plan and a Feasibility Study

Below is the outline of a business plan:

• Executive Summary
• Business/Company Overview
• Products/Services
• Market/Industry Analysis
• Operation Plan
• Management/Personal plan
• Sales Forcast
• Financial Plan
• Appendices and Exhibits

A good outline for a feasibility study includes:

• Introduction
• Product or Service
• Market Environment
• Competition
• Business Model
• Market and Sales Strategy
• Production Operations Requirements
• Management and Personnel Requirements
• Regulations and Environmental Issues
• Critical Risk Factors
• Financial Predictions Including:  Balance Sheet, Income Statement, Cash Flow Statement, Break Even Analysis, and Capital Requirements

Challenges of a Business Plan and a Feasibility Study

Looking at both the business plan and feasibility study, you will discover that both attempt to predict future outcomes using assumptions about what is likely to happen in the business and the business environment, which include government policies, the market, competition, and risk, among others. Any poorly done feasibility study can lead to a costly mistake. If a business is not viable and the recommendation says it will be viable, the end result will not be palatable. This will affect the business plan and the operation of the business adversely.

A poorly done business plan—poor projections, strategies, analysis, business model, and environmental factors, among others—can easily be adjusted in the course of running the business, but the same cannot be said of a feasibility study because, in a feasibility study, an incorrect conclusion can be costly—it could mean launching a venture that has very little chance of surviving or approving a project that wastes the company’s human and financial resources.

If you need a standard business plan,  check out the list of Business Plan we have

Do you want us to develop a unique business plan for you, Check out our  business plan service page

I would love to hear your thoughts. Kindly use the comment box below to leave your comment.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Share this:

Are you interested in receiving the latest grant, funding, and business opportunities? Join our newsletter for free and stay updated! Click here to join our newsletter Join our community: Join our WhatsApp group Join our Telegram group Join our Facebook group

About The Author

5 thoughts on “Difference Between Feasibility Study and Business Plan”

This is beautiful. Thank you for sharing this informative article by shading more light on the two.

I’ve been planning to hire a feasibility analysis service, so I’ll have an idea, whether my candle business is feasible. I agree with you that this must be done first before approaching the investors. It is also true that an incorrect conclusion in the feasibility study could be costly.

It’s inevitable! It helps you to make the right decision.

My business plan is ready but I will like you to review it

Alright, You can reach out to me on 07031542324 or email me at [email protected]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Accountancy
• Business Studies
• Organisational Behaviour
• Human Resource Management
• Entrepreneurship

Difference between Feasibility Study and Business Plan

Feasibility Study and Business Plan are essential tools in the business development process. They serve different purposes and are conducted at different stages. A feasibility study helps determine the viability of a business idea; whereas, a business plan provides a detailed roadmap for executing that idea and achieving business goals.

What is a Feasibility Study?

A feasibility study is a comprehensive assessment conducted at the early stages of a business idea or project to evaluate its potential viability and identify potential risks and challenges. The primary purpose of a feasibility study is to determine whether the proposed business venture is feasible and worth pursuing further.

Features of the Feasibility Study are:

• Market Analysis: Feasibility Study evaluates the target market , including its size, growth potential, demographics, and competition. This involves researching customer needs, preferences, and behavior to assess demand for the proposed product or service .
• Technical Feasibility: A feasibility study assesses the technical requirements and capabilities needed to develop and deliver the product or service. This may involve evaluating technology, equipment, facilities, and expertise required for production or implementation.
• Financial Feasibility: A feasibility study conducts financial analysis to estimate the costs involved in starting and operating the business, as well as potential revenue and profitability. This includes preparing financial projections, such as income statements , cash flow statements , and Return on Investment (ROI) calculations.

What is a Business Plan?

A business plan is a comprehensive document that outlines the goals, strategies, operations, and financial projections of a business. It serves as a roadmap for the organization’s future direction and provides a detailed blueprint for how the business will be structured, managed, and operated.

Features of a Business Plan are:

• Executive Summary: A business plan gives a brief overview of the business concept, objectives, products or services offered, target market, competitive advantage, and financial projections.
• Company Description: It gives detailed information about the business, including its history, mission statement, vision, values, legal structure, location, and ownership.
• Market Analysis: A business plan is formed after analyzing the target market, including its size, growth potential, demographics, buying behavior , market trends, and competition. This section also outlines the business’s market positioning and competitive strategy.

Feasibility Study and Business Plan – FAQs

When should a feasibility study be conducted.

A feasibility study is typically conducted at the early stages of developing a business idea or project, before significant resources are invested. It helps entrepreneurs and stakeholders make informed decisions about whether to proceed with the venture.

Who conducts a feasibility study?

Feasibility Studies are often conducted by entrepreneurs, business owners, project managers, consultants, or other professionals with expertise in the relevant industry or field. They may also involve collaboration with specialists such as market researchers, engineers, financial analysts, and legal advisors.

When should a business plan be developed?

A business plan is typically developed after a feasibility study has been conducted and the decision to move forward with the business venture has been made. It provides a detailed blueprint for executing the business idea and achieving its objectives.

Who uses a business plan?

Business plans are used by entrepreneurs, startups, existing businesses, investors, lenders, partners, employees, and other stakeholders interested in understanding the organization’s goals, strategies, operations, and financial prospects.

What are the benefits of conducting a feasibility study?

Benefits of conducting a feasibility study include minimizing risks, identifying potential challenges and opportunities, validating assumptions, attracting investors or lenders, guiding decision-making , and increasing the likelihood of success for the proposed business venture.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Commerce - Difference Between

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Business Plan Vs. Feasibilty Study

by Brian Hill

Published on 1 Jan 2021

Business plans and feasibility studies are analysis and decision-making tools used by companies. Feasibility studies are used to determine whether a proposed action has a high enough probability of success that it should be undertaken. Business plans are blueprints for implementing actions that have already been deemed feasible by the company's management.

Many Decisions vs. One

Business plans map out the direction a company intends to take to reach its revenue and profit objectives in the future. They are a compilation of numerous decisions made by the management team about how the company should be run. Feasibility studies are designed to provide guidance for one decision. Feasibility studies are often done to decide whether to start the business or not -- whether the likelihood of success is high enough to make the financial risk worthwhile. They can also be used to make decisions about whether to launch a new product in an existing company, or enter a new market -- any activity where there is a question about whether the company should take the action or not. Feasibility studies are sometimes termed cost/benefit analyses because the projected costs of the project are compared to the expected benefits to yield a conclusion.

Although the content and emphasis of business plans vary by company and industry, all plans have many elements in common. They describe the products or services the company intends to sell, why customers need these products or services, the target customers, how the company intends to reach them through its marketing strategy, the background and capabilities of the management team, and risk factors the company may face. They also contain information on projected revenue and profit. Plans contain these specific elements because many times they will be read by investors or other people outside the company, and these individuals want to see very specific information in a plan. Feasibility studies may have some or many of the same elements of a business plan, including a description of the human resources required and financial projections, but all the information leads to a conclusion or recommendation.

Differences

A business plan assumes a business is going to succeed and presents the steps necessary to achieve success. Those in charge of conducting a feasibility study should not have a preconceived view about whether success will be attained. They must be as objective as possible. They conduct research and let the facts lead to the ultimate opinion given in the study. If the study's conclusion is that the project is viable, some of the research done may be included in the company's business plan, such as projections of the size of the market.

Both business plans and feasibility studies attempt to predict future outcomes using assumptions about what is likely to happen in the business environment -- the economy and the company's competition. But this environment is always changing and the assumptions a company uses in its projections of revenue or profit may prove to be incorrect. Companies find that some of the strategies in their plan do not work to the degree the business owner expected, and have to be adjusted. In the case of a feasibility study, an incorrect conclusion can be especially costly -- it could mean launching a venture that has very little chance of surviving or approving a project that wastes the company's human and financial resources.

• Client Success Stories

The difference between a feasibility study & a business plan

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? How much would the wood cost and how dependable is supply? Does the wood have a “best by” date? How long would it take to do the chucking? And what about woodchuck retention, it is a tough market out there.

If there are wood chucking businesses (and we do have a client that clears and hauls felled trees and wood debris), they might want to consider a feasibility study and business plan before diving into an expansion or other major project. Feasibility studies and business plans are commonly needed (or required) for analysis and decision purposes such as the launch of a new business line, product or service line expansions, geographic expansion, or attracting capital. Likewise, target readers range from boards of directors for project approval purposes, management for internal planning, lenders or potential investors, grant or other assistance programs, and a number of others. 

But what are the differences between a feasibility study and a business plan, and how do the two relate? A business feasibility study is a detailed analysis of the viability of an idea or concept for a business venture. Once feasibility has been determined, a business plan documents the operational and financial objectives of the venture and the detailed plans to achieve them. In short, a business feasibility study can be looked at as “Can we?” while the business plan is “How to.” 

It is common for the “can we?” and “how to” assessments of a project to be combined into one document, but many key aspects of feasibility should be determined before diving too deep into the “how to” of a venture.

Some years ago we did a feasibility study for a large California dairy operation seeking to grow returns by introducing value-added products rather than strictly selling bulk fluid milk. The idea? Homogenize and pasteurize their own milk (some in flavors), put it in glass bottles, and deliver it to people’s doorsteps. 

After I got over my shock, we set about exploring key aspects of feasibility: Is there demand for it, and at what price points? What would it take for the company to successfully make and bottle the products? How would it be marketed? Can bottles be returned and sanitized sufficiently for safe re-use?

As you might imagine, there was not much industry data to lean on; Nielsen and IRI have no market data for home delivered milk, there are no trade associations for the home milk delivery business, and not a lot of equipment and bottle suppliers focus on that niche of the otherwise huge dairy industry.

It was a challenge. We designed a market survey and partnered with the marketing program of a local community college to take consumer surveys at farmers’ markets and other events to determine potential market interest and price points. We contacted some of the few similar operations we could find in the United States. We looked into the availability of bottles approved for both milk and multiple re-use. 

Ultimately, we found the project feasible, and with this assurance developed a business plan to lay out the “how to-s.” In the years since, the company has been a great success with stunning growth.

Tempting as it may be to dive straight into the “how to,” unless you have other supportable reasons to believe a project is feasible from such key aspects as demand, production, distribution, marketing, capital, and a thorough risk assessment, it is best to spend some time determining “Can we?”

I tell our business feasibility study clients that one result they should be prepared for is “not feasible.” It happens, but it’s still a lot less trouble and risky than jumping in without due diligence. Morrison has conducted feasibility studies and business plans for nearly 20 years for a wide variety of needs and intended readers. We’re always happy to bounce around ideas and help explore what might – or might not – work for a business’s needs.

Brent Morrison is the Founding Principal at Morrison. To get in touch with Brent, please find contact information for Morrison here .

We’ve worked with a wide variety of clients on a broad range of projects and are happy to discuss solutions that can best fit your needs.

Business Plan Vs. Feasibility Study

• Small Business
• Business Planning & Strategy
• Business Plans
• ')" data-event="social share" data-info="Pinterest" aria-label="Share on Pinterest">
• ')" data-event="social share" data-info="Reddit" aria-label="Share on Reddit">
• ')" data-event="social share" data-info="Flipboard" aria-label="Share on Flipboard">

How to Write a Business Plan for Starting a Medical Spa Practice

What are the key elements of a business plan, what are the components of a global business plan.

• How to Write a Business Plan for a Food Truck Business
• What Is a Dehydrated Business Plan?

If you're considering starting a business, you'll need both a feasibility study and a business plan. Both documents should be written after conducting thorough research and critical thinking, and conveyed in formats that others can understand. That way, you can show both to people whose opinions you value as well as to those you hope will invest in your idea. Before you begin, it's important to define and distinguish between a feasibility study and a business plan.

Defining Both Terms

A feasibility study is done before starting a business, when you have the idea for the business but you want to make sure it's feasible, or advisable. Put another way, is it worth your time, effort and money to create this business? Several different professionals may contribute to the study, such as an accountant, entrepreneurs who have opened successful businesses, and Realtors who advise on the worth of the location and pricing, comparing similar businesses in the area.

A business plan details how the business will operate. It assumes your feasibility study has been completed and it was determined the idea is viable. Now you're going to spell out your financial and other objectives, the methods you plan to use to achieve them, and your proposed organizational structure.

Consider the Similarities

Comparing the similarities between feasibility study and business plan is important because both are used in different ways to help you create a profitable business. Similarities between the two documents include:

• Timing : Both are initially done before the business opens, and can be conducted again later to determine the next steps on future ideas.
• Input : Both include input from several individuals or departments that have different skills. 
• Format : Both include other documents that are pulled together in order to compose the report.
• Components : Some of the issues analyzed are similar, including examining the target market, market conditions and financial costs.
• Usage : Both help the organization's management make decisions, and can also be shown to potential investors.

Understand the Differences

It's equally important to understand the difference between feasibility study and business plan . They are not the same, and one cannot substitute for the other. Differences include:

• Purpose : Feasibility studies determine whether to go ahead with the business or with another idea, whereas business plans are designed after the decision to go ahead has already been made.
• Methodology : Essentially, feasibility studies are research projects, whereas business plans are projections for the future.
• Risks : Feasibility studies determine the risks associated with the idea, whereas business plans explain how management will deal with the risks so that it will make a profit.
• Cost : Feasibility studies can require hiring outside professionals with expertise who will conduct thorough studies, whereas business plans are written by employees of the business, as part of their jobs.

Conducting a Feasibility Study

If you're doing the feasibility study yourself, conduct a complete competitive analysis considering the following:

• Product demand:  Is there a need or want for your product or service? Is the need already being met, or is there room for another product?
• Market conditions :  Who would buy your product and where are they?  Can you serve their location? Is the market saturated, or is there room/need for more products?
• Pricing:  What do current users pay for similar products? What do you need to charge so that you will be profitable, and will consumers pay your price?
• Risks : What are the risks associated with your idea?
• Probability of Success : Can you reasonably overcome the risks to become profitable?

Writing a Business Plan

Writing a business plan may seem daunting, but if you take it step-by-step, it will come to fruition. The Small Business Administration advises that business plans should include the following:

• Executive Summary : Include your mission statement, products and or services, some brief information about your leadership team and key employees, as well as the location of your business. To attract investors, add current financial information and projections for growth.
• Company description : Detail the problems your business solves; its target market; its competitive advantages, compared with the competition, and anything else that makes your company superior to others: i.e.,  product awards or recognition, big increases in sales, and so on.
• Market analysis : Perform competitive research of what other businesses are doing; their strengths and weaknesses, and how and why your business will be competitive and successful in the market.
• Organization or management: State the  legal status of your business, such as a corporation or partnership, and include an organizational chart showing management levels, departments, and so on.
• Service or product line : State what you will sell or provide and describe the benefits of each. Explain any research done, and any patents filed, and so on. 
• Marketing and sales : Explain in detail your marketing strategy and how sales will be made.
• Funding request : If necessary, detail the amount of funding you’ll need for the next five years - specifically,  what you’ll do with the funds, and the terms you’re asking for.
• Financial projections : This is the business’s financial outlook for the next five years. Include current financial statements, if the business is in operation.
• Appendix : This includes supporting documents or requested materials, such as resumes, product photos, letters of reference, patents, licenses and so on.
• MBN: Market Business News: What is a Feasibility Study? Definition and Examples
• Cleverism: How to Conduct a Feasibility Study the Right Way
• Entrepreneur: 7 Steps to a Perfectly Written Business Plan
• SBA: Write Your Business Plan

Barbara Bean-Mellinger is a freelance writer who lives in the Washington, D.C. area. She has written on business topics for bizfluent.com, afkinsider.com, Harbor Style Magazine, the Charlotte Sun and more. Barbara holds a B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh and has won numerous awards in B2B and B2C marketing.

Related Articles

How to write a comprehensive business plan, how to design an effective business plan, what is the role of a business plan in getting venture capital funding, how to outline a feasibility study, what factors make the difference between a good business plan & an excellent one, 6 types of business plans, examples of business feasibility reports, how to create a business plan as an entrepreneur, how to write a business description, most popular.

• 1 How to Write a Comprehensive Business Plan
• 2 How to Design an Effective Business Plan
• 3 What Is the Role of a Business Plan in Getting Venture Capital Funding?
• 4 How to Outline a Feasibility Study

Feasibility study: definition, benefits and differences with a Business Plan

• Last updated on 09 January, 2024

Welcome to our series of articles on feasibility studies.

• What is a Feasibility study?
• What is a bankable feasibility study?
• How to do a feasibility study?
• Feasibility study consultants: expertise needed
• Cost of a feasibility study
• Car Park Feasibility Study: Key considerations
• Hotel Feasibility Study: Methodology
• Feasibility study of solar PV projects: Key components
• Feasibility study of real estate developments
• Feasibility study of marina projects

In this post, we will touch on all the basic concepts behind a feasibility study. definition, benefits of doing it, main parts, differences with a business plan, etc. Aninver Development Partners is a consulting firm specializing in Feasibility studies for projects such as hotels, infrastructure, energy, technology, etc. We assist clients globally. 

Definition of Feasibility study

A feasibility study is a comprehensive and systematic analysis and evaluation of a proposed project, business venture, or initiative to determine its practicality, viability, and potential for success. It involves a thorough examination of various factors, such as financial, technical, operational, legal, environmental, and market-related aspects, to assess whether the project is feasible and worth pursuing. 

The primary goal of a feasibility study is to provide stakeholders with essential information and insights to make informed decisions about whether to proceed with the project, abandon it, or make necessary adjustments to enhance its chances of success.

Differences between a feasibility study and a business plan

Feasibility studies and business plans are both important tools in the development and evaluation of a business or project, but they serve different purposes and are created at different stages of the process. Here are the key differences between a feasibility study and a business plan:

Differences in Purpose

• Feasibility Study : Feasibility studies are conducted in the early stages of project development or business planning. Their primary purpose is to determine whether a proposed project or business idea is viable and should be pursued. Feasibility studies focus on assessing the potential risks, challenges, and opportunities associated with the project.
• Business Plan : Business plans are created after the feasibility study, once it has been established that the project is viable. The purpose of a business plan is to outline in detail how the business will be structured, operated, and grown. It serves as a roadmap for the future of the business and is often used to secure financing.

Differences in Content

• Feasibility Study : A feasibility study includes an analysis of the project's overall concept, market research, technical requirements, financial projections, potential risks, and recommendations. It provides a high-level overview of the project's feasibility.
• Business Plan : A business plan is a detailed document that outlines the company's mission, vision, goals, organizational structure, market strategy, marketing and sales plans, financial forecasts, and operational details. It delves into the specifics of how the business will operate.

Differences in Timing

• Feasibility Study : Feasibility studies are conducted at the outset of a project or business idea to assess its potential feasibility. They help stakeholders decide whether to move forward with the project.
• Business Plan : Business plans are typically created after the feasibility study, once it has been determined that the project is feasible and worth pursuing. They provide a roadmap for the actual operation and growth of the business.

Differences in Audience

• Feasibility Study : The primary audience for a feasibility study includes project stakeholders, investors, and decision-makers who need to determine whether the project should proceed.
• Business Plan : Business plans are used to communicate the business's vision and strategy to a wider audience, including potential investors, lenders, partners, and employees.

In summary, a feasibility study is a preliminary assessment of the potential success of a project, while a business plan is a detailed document that outlines how a business will be run. The feasibility study helps determine whether a business plan should be developed, while the business plan provides a comprehensive strategy for the ongoing operation and growth of the business.

Feasibility study vs Pre-feasibility study

Let's explore now the key differences between a prefeasibility study and a feasibility study:

Purpose and Scope : A prefeasibility study and a feasibility study both play critical roles in project evaluation, but they serve distinct purposes. A prefeasibility study is typically the initial phase in the assessment process. Its primary purpose is to provide a preliminary evaluation of a project's potential viability. It helps stakeholders decide whether it's worth investing further resources into a detailed feasibility study. In contrast, a feasibility study goes into much greater depth and detail, assessing the project's practicality from technical, financial, operational, and market perspectives. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of whether the project is feasible and worth pursuing.

Level of Detail : One of the key distinctions between the two studies is the level of detail they encompass. A prefeasibility study offers a broad overview of the project, examining high-level factors like market demand, technical requirements, and rough cost estimates. It provides enough information to make an initial go/no-go decision. In contrast, a feasibility study drills down into finer details, providing precise financial projections, risk assessments, engineering specifics, and a comprehensive business plan. It seeks to leave no stone unturned in assessing the project's practicality.

Resource and Cost Implications : A prefeasibility study is generally less resource-intensive and cheaper to conduct compared to a full feasibility study. It acts as a cost-effective filter to eliminate unviable projects early in the evaluation process. Once a project passes the prefeasibility stage and proceeds to a feasibility study, it implies a commitment of more resources, time, and finances due to the comprehensive nature of the study. A prefeasibility study helps in efficient resource allocation by focusing only on the most promising projects, while a feasibility study is a more intensive process suitable for projects that have demonstrated a higher likelihood of success during the prefeasibility assessment.

Benefits of doing a Feasibility study

Conducting a feasibility study offers numerous benefits, making it an essential step in the decision-making process for any project, business venture, or initiative. Here are the key advantages of performing a feasibility study:

• Risk Assessment : Feasibility studies help identify potential risks and challenges associated with a project. By thoroughly examining technical, financial, operational, and market-related aspects, stakeholders can pinpoint areas of concern and develop strategies to mitigate or manage these risks effectively.
• Decision-Making : Feasibility studies provide critical information to decision-makers, helping them make informed choices about whether to proceed with a project. These studies offer a basis for go/no-go decisions, preventing resources from being wasted on unviable endeavors.
• Resource Allocation : By assessing the feasibility of a project, stakeholders can allocate resources more efficiently. They can avoid overinvesting in projects with limited potential and allocate resources to those with a higher likelihood of success.
• Financial Planning : Feasibility studies include detailed financial projections and cost estimates. This financial information is invaluable for securing funding from investors, lenders, or other sources. It helps in creating a solid business case.
• Market Insight : Market feasibility studies provide insights into customer demand, market trends, and competitive dynamics. This information is crucial for designing products or services that meet market needs and for formulating effective marketing strategies.
• Optimized Design : Technical feasibility studies ensure that a project's technical requirements and design are viable. They help in avoiding costly design flaws and ensuring that the project can be implemented as planned.
• Legal and Regulatory Compliance : Feasibility studies can identify potential legal and regulatory challenges. This allows for the development of strategies to navigate and comply with relevant laws and regulations, reducing the risk of legal complications later on.
• Enhanced Project Viability : Feasibility studies may lead to adjustments and improvements in the project plan, making it more viable and likely to succeed. This iterative process ensures that potential issues are addressed proactively.
• Investor and Stakeholder Confidence : When potential investors and stakeholders see that a comprehensive feasibility study has been conducted, they are more likely to have confidence in the project. This can make it easier to secure funding and support.
• Long-Term Planning : Feasibility studies not only assess the viability of a project in the short term but also help in long-term planning. They provide insights into the sustainability and growth potential of a business or initiative.

In summary, conducting a feasibility study is a valuable step in the project development process. It provides a structured approach to assess the viability of a project, manage risks, make informed decisions, secure financing, and set the stage for a successful venture. The benefits of a feasibility study extend beyond initial decision-making and contribute to the overall success and sustainability of a project or business.

Components of a Feasibility study

A feasibility study typically consists of several key components that provide a comprehensive evaluation of a project, business venture, or initiative. These components help stakeholders make informed decisions about the feasibility and viability of the proposed endeavor. The main components of a feasibility study include:

Executive Summary

The executive summary provides a concise overview of the entire feasibility study. It includes a brief description of the project, its objectives, and the key findings and recommendations. It serves as a quick reference for decision-makers.

Project Description

This section outlines the project's goals, objectives, and scope. It defines the problem the project aims to solve or the opportunity it seeks to capture. It also specifies the project's location and the stakeholders involved.

Market Analysis

Market analysis assesses the demand for the product or service within the target market. It includes information on target customers, market size, growth potential, competition, and market trends. This component helps determine whether there is a viable market for the project.

Technical Feasibility

Technical feasibility examines the project's technical requirements. It assesses whether the necessary technology, equipment, and resources are available or can be developed. It also identifies any technical challenges that may need to be addressed.

Operational Feasibility

Operational feasibility evaluates how the project will be implemented and operated. It includes details about project timelines, workflow, personnel requirements, and operational processes. This section helps in understanding how the project will function on a day-to-day basis.

Financial Feasibility

Financial feasibility is a critical component that includes detailed financial projections and analysis. It covers aspects such as startup costs, revenue forecasts, expense estimates, cash flow analysis, and return on investment calculations. It assesses the project's financial viability and potential profitability.

Legal and Regulatory Analysis

This section examines the legal and regulatory requirements that may impact the project. It identifies permits, licenses, or compliance issues that need to be addressed. Understanding and addressing legal and regulatory aspects are essential to avoid potential obstacles.

Risk Assessment

The risk assessment component identifies potential risks and challenges associated with the project. It evaluates the probability and impact of these risks and suggests risk mitigation strategies. Risks can be financial, technical, operational, market-related, or related to external factors.

Recommendations and Conclusion

In this section, the feasibility study summarizes the findings and presents clear recommendations based on the assessment. It often includes a conclusion that states whether the project is feasible and worth pursuing or whether it should be abandoned or modified.

The appendices contain additional supporting documentation and data, such as detailed financial spreadsheets, market research reports, technical specifications, and any other relevant information. These provide a more in-depth reference for stakeholders.

The main components of a feasibility study collectively provide a thorough assessment of a project's viability from multiple angles, ensuring that decision-makers have a comprehensive understanding of the project's potential, risks, and benefits.

Examples of Feasibility studies

Let's look now into some examples of feasibility studies for different types of projects and initiatives:

• Real Estate Development

A real estate developer is considering constructing a residential apartment complex in a growing urban area. A feasibility study would assess factors like market demand, location, zoning regulations, construction costs, potential revenue from rentals, and the financial viability of the project.

• Manufacturing Plant Expansion

A manufacturing company is considering expanding its operations by building a new production facility. The feasibility study would evaluate factors such as available land, infrastructure, equipment requirements, workforce, environmental impact, and the financial feasibility of the expansion.

• Small Business Startup

An entrepreneur is exploring the feasibility of starting a small restaurant in a specific location. The feasibility study would examine the local market, including competitors, target customer demographics, startup costs, regulatory requirements, and financial projections for the first few years of operation.

• Renewable Energy Project

A renewable energy company is considering the construction of a solar power plant. The feasibility study would assess the site's solar exposure, grid connection feasibility, equipment costs, revenue from energy sales, environmental impact, and the return on investment over the project's lifespan.

• Healthcare Facility Expansion

A hospital is contemplating an expansion to meet growing patient demands. The feasibility study would include an assessment of the required medical equipment, staffing needs, regulatory compliance, funding sources, and the anticipated patient load.

• Tourism Development

A tourist destination is considering the construction of a new hotel and recreational facilities. The feasibility study would evaluate the area's appeal to tourists, competition with existing businesses, construction costs, expected occupancy rates, and potential revenue from tourism.

• Nonprofit Program Expansion

A nonprofit organization is looking to expand its community outreach programs. The feasibility study would assess the need for the programs, funding sources, volunteer availability, operational costs, and the impact of the expansion on the organization's mission and goals.

• E-commerce Startup

An entrepreneur plans to launch an e-commerce website. The feasibility study would examine market demand, website development costs, marketing strategies, competitive analysis, and projected sales revenue and profitability.

These examples illustrate how feasibility studies are conducted in various fields and industries to evaluate the potential success and viability of a wide range of projects and initiatives. The specific components and focus areas of a feasibility study will vary depending on the nature of the project and the questions it seeks to address.

7 steps to conduct a Feasibility study

Now, let's think we are going to write a feasibility study. Let's check what steps we need to take to develop the final report.

• Conduct a Preliminary Analysis

Begin by conducting an initial evaluation of the project's objectives and scope. This step involves defining the problem the project intends to address or the opportunity it aims to seize. Ensure that the project's goals are clear and well-defined.

• Analyze Technical Specifications

Examine the technical aspects of the project in detail. Evaluate the availability of required technology, equipment, and resources. Verify that the project's technical requirements can be met effectively.

• Conduct a Commercial Analysis

Perform a comprehensive analysis of the project's commercial aspects. This step involves assessing the market's demand for the product or service, analyzing market size, competition, customer needs, and market trends. Determine if there is a feasible market for the project.

• Prepare a Projected Income Statement

Create a detailed projected income statement for the project. This includes estimating startup costs, revenue forecasts, expense projections, and cash flow analysis. Calculate the return on investment (ROI) to determine the project's financial viability, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of the investment and the Net Present Value (NPV) of future cash flows.

• Prepare a Day-Zero Balance Sheet

Develop a balance sheet that represents the project's financial position at the outset (day zero). This financial snapshot should account for all assets, liabilities, and equity to provide a clear overview of the project's financial situation before it begins.

• Analyze Different Alternatives for Feasibility

Explore various alternatives and scenarios for the project's feasibility. Assess different approaches, technologies, or business models to identify the most viable option. Consider the potential impact of these alternatives on the project's success. Make sensibilities to potentila risks.

• Make a Go/No-Go Decision

Based on the findings and analysis conducted throughout the feasibility study, make a well-informed decision on whether to proceed with the project (a "Go" decision) or abandon it (a "No-Go" decision). Ensure that the decision aligns with the project's goals and aligns with the information presented in the study.

These steps provide a structured approach to conducting a feasibility study, ensuring that all relevant aspects of the project are thoroughly assessed and considered before making a decision on its viability.

In conclusion, a feasibility study is an indispensable tool for any project, business venture, or initiative. It serves as the critical bridge between a concept and a well-informed decision. By following a systematic process that includes a preliminary analysis, technical assessment, commercial evaluation, financial projections, and a careful consideration of alternatives, stakeholders can gain a comprehensive understanding of a project's viability.

The feasibility study's ability to assess market demand, technical feasibility, operational requirements, financial viability, and potential risks empowers decision-makers to make informed choices. Whether it's a real estate development, a new product launch, a manufacturing expansion, an IT system upgrade, or any other endeavor, a feasibility study helps in risk management, efficient resource allocation, and, ultimately, the successful realization of the project's goals.

It's important to remember that a well-conducted feasibility study not only serves the purpose of greenlighting a project but also provides a foundation for its long-term success. It gives stakeholders the confidence that the project is based on sound analysis and planning. In a world of complex challenges and opportunities, the feasibility study is a guiding compass for those seeking to turn innovative ideas into reality.

Make sure you hire the right consultants to deliver your feasibility study or business plan. Our firm, Aninver Development Partners, specializes in designing bankable feasibility studies  to make sure projects continue to their following phase. 

Send us a message on our contact page and we can discuss how we can help you. 

Some of our experience conducting feasibility studies can be seen below:

• Feasibility Study for a new marina in the island of San Andrés through PPP
• Pre-feasibility study for construction of silo storages in Northern Ghana through PPP
• Feasibility study of a real estate WAQF project in Cotonou (Benin)
• Feasibility study and analysis of strategic alternatives of a touristic development in Natal
• Feasibility study for creation of an Investment and Export Promotion Agency of Health services in Tunisia
• Feasibility Study for car parks in Bishkek though PPP
• Feasibility study of markets in Benin and Togo under PPP scheme
• Feasibility Study for the establishment of a Large-Scale Cashew Processing Plant in Zambia
• Public Private Partnership (PPPs) study in the Housing Sector
• Review of Business Case for Manila Central Subway
• First Mover PPP Prefeasibility Study
• Review of the feasibility study of the PPP project Complejo El Brillante, in Cordoba (Spain)
• Review of pre-feasibility study of a Health PPP project

Alvaro de la Maza is one the founding partners of Aninver Development Partners. Alvaro is a Civil Engineer, MS on Infrastructure Management and MBA by IESE Business School.Alvaro has extensive experience in Infrastructure and Public Private Partnerships. Alvaro has worked and led multiple consulting projects for clients such as the World Bank, the African Development Bank and other donors.Alvaro enjoys creating digital products and he has led the development of market intelligence platforms in d...

Most popular articles

 Related insights

Join our newsletter.

BizFundingResource.com

Feasibility Studies vs. Business Plans

Often we asked about the differences between a business plan and a feasibility study. As it relates to the business plan, this document is specific for raising capital and showcasing what the business intends to do over a three year to five year timeframe. Additionally, the business plan features information regarding the anticipated financial results within a comprehensive financial model. Almost all business plans feature a profit and loss statement, cash flow analysis, balance sheet, breakeven analysis, and business ratios page. The business plan also features a significant amount of industry and market research specific to the type of business that is being operated. One of the other things that is found within a business plan but not within a feasibility study is a comprehensive marketing plan in regards to how the business intends to acquire customers. The business plan itself should be considered one of the sales document for a potential funding source or a business partner. Additionally, a business plan does not contain any of the legal risks or legal disclosures that would be normally found within a feasibility study or a private placement memorandum.

A feasibility study on the other hand focuses much more on the detailed operations the business on a day-to-day basis. Issues that are covered within the feasibility study consist of legal risks, operational risks, economic risks, and related financial risks. As relates to legal risks, a feasibility study will outline the potential liabilities that the business may have as it progresses through its operations. For instance, a medical practice feasibility study may focus significantly on the risks relating to rendering services as it relates to malpractice claims. Additionally, using the same example of the economic risks associated with this type of business could include changes in regulation and impact Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement. These are all things are much more thoroughly discussed within a feasibility study and a business plan. Often, many entrepreneurs in conducting a substantial amount of due diligence will focus on developing both documents so that the business plan can be used for raising capital while a feasibility study can be used for addressing all the risks and issues at the business may have as it develops its business operations. Most business plan writing firms do not provide feasibility studies as this is something that is usually completed by an economic consulting firm. An economic consulting firm has a much greater understanding of the detailed day-to-day operations of the business rather than just focusing specifically on how the business will be using capital that may be raised and the anticipated financial results.

Much like a business plan, a feasibility study usually has around 4 to 5 chapters that goes in depth for each of the issues that needs to be discussed and examined by the entrepreneur. Foremost, one of the things that these two documents to have in common is at the industry and market research is usually included in both documents. Although some economic consulting firms will omit the industry research section – it is generally considered to very important so that a individual reader understands the direction that the industry is taken for any specific type of company. One of the other things that is much more thoroughly discussed within the feasibility study is the critical risks and problems with the company. This includes a very detailed overview of each potential risk that the business will have and how the entrepreneur will work to remedy that problem. Generally speaking, most feasibility studies run about 30 to 40 pages depending on the complexity of the business. Companies that have very complex operating procedures can even have feasibility studies that run upwards of 100 pages depending on the scope, scale, and size of the organization.

Most entrepreneurs who are starting a small business like a new retail location or a small service company do not really require a full feasibility study. These analysis are typically done for much larger scale organizations where potentially millions of dollars to be put at risk for the development of a new operating segment, development of new business, or expansion of existing operations. Typically, a feasibility study usually takes a month to complete foremost economic consulting firms that engage in this type of business. As relates to cost, a feasibility study can run anywhere from $1,000 following a $50,000 depending on the size of the organization and how in depth the feasibility study needs to be in order to clearly outline risks and strategies.

Difference between Feasibility Study and Business Plan

Entrepreneurs face many challenges when creating a new venture.  Although the business plan is one of the most well-known documents, the feasibility study may be just as important.  Before the entrepreneur can seek funding, he or she must demonstrate that the idea is truly a good one.

Rochester.edu explained that a feasibility study, “can be defined as a controlled process for identifying problems and opportunities, determining objectives, describing situations, defining successful outcomes, and assessing the range of costs and benefits associated with several alternatives for solving a problem.”

In order to create a feasibility study, entrepreneurs need to define dimensions of business viability including:  market viability, technical viability, business model viability, management model viability, economic and financial model viability, and exit strategy viability.

A good outline for a feasibility study includes:

• Introduction
• Product or Service
• Market Environment
• Competition
• Business Model
• Market and Sales Strategy
• Production Operations Requirements
• Management and Personnel Requirements
• Regulations and Environmental Issues
• Critical Risk Factors
• Financial Predictions Including:  Balance Sheet, Income Statement, Cash Flow Statement, Break Even Analysis, and Capital Requirements

A feasibility study is not the same thing as a business plan.  The feasibility study would be completed prior to the business plan.  The feasibility study helps determine whether an idea or business is a viable option.  The business plan is developed after the business opportunity is created.  StrategicBusinessTeam.com explained, “A feasibility study is carried out with the aim of finding out the workability and profitability of a business venture. Before anything is invested in a new business venture, a feasibility study is carried out to know if the business venture is worth the time, effort and resources. A feasibility study is filled with calculations, analysis and estimated projections while a business plan is made up of mostly tactics and strategies to be implemented in other to grow the business.”

While it may seem the feasibility study is similar in many ways to the business plan, it is important to keep in mind that the feasibility study is developed prior to the venture.  StrategicBusinessStream pointed out that “a feasibility study can readily be converted to a business plan.”  It’s important to think of the business plan in terms of growth and sustainability and the feasibility study in terms of idea viability.

Related Articles:

• Top 30 Links for the Successful Entrepreneur
• Top 10 Companies Code of Ethics and Conduct
• Top 10 Company Mission Statements
• How to Conduct a Feasibility Study
• How to Create a Business Plan
• Business Plan Outline
• Feasibility Plan Outline
• Writing a Winning Business Plan

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Start Your Business
• Grow Your Business
• Business Ideas
• Business Plan Writing

The Difference Between A Feasibility Study And A Business Plan

Should you prepare a feasibility study report or a business plan? This is a question that is always asked by thousands of people daily. They want to prepare either of the two but classify both as the same without understanding the clear distinction between a feasibility study report and a business plan.

Feasibility study reports and business plans have different goals, although similar. One is more in-depth than the other, and the reasons for preparing each is partly different from the other.

While a feasibility study report and a business plan are both analysis and decision making tools, it is highly important to know the difference between a feasibility study report and a business plan at all times, as I have detailed below:

See Also:   The Difference Between A Business Plan And A Business Proposal

Reasons For A Feasibility Study Report

A feasibility study report is a document that is prepared after a feasibility study has been carried out. It contains in-depth analysis, projections, cost estimates, production requirements, production processes, and is the ultimate tool to determine whether a business should be started or not.

Since the feasibility study that’s first carried out is a comprehensive market research, its results will show the market size, their demographics, genders, age brackets, number of businesses operating in the industry, and much more.

These results are then put together in the report along with their cost projections, and will ultimately show whether the business is worth following through or not.

Feasibility Study Report Structure

A sample feasibility study report structure could look like the list below:

• Introduction
• Product or Service
• Market Environment
• Competition
• Business Model
• Market and Sales Strategy
• Production Operations Requirements
• Management and Personnel Requirements
• Regulations and Environmental Issues
• Critical Risk Factors
• Financial Projections

See Also:   How To Write A Feasibility Study Report In Nigeria Or Africa: The Complete Guide

Reasons For A Business Plan

A business plan is a strategy and tactical document that is prepared after a successful feasibility study has been carried out. It is written based on the results of a feasibility study, and focuses instead on how the business can achieve a successful market penetration and growth.

A business plan also contains financial projections, cash flow statements, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, break even analysis, and much more. It shows how profitable or not the business will be after acting on the results gotten from the feasibility study, and what it can do to either grow its revenues or change its focus to another industry.

Business Plan Structure

A sample business plan structure could look like the list below:

• Executive Summary
• Business Description
• Service or Product Line
• Market Analysis & Strategies
• Organization & Management
• Funding Request

See Also:   How To Write A Business Plan: The Complete Guide

What Then Do You Need?

If you know nothing about the business you intend to start, the first step is to prepare a feasibility study report after an extensive market research has been carried out. After which, you can go on to prepare a business plan, so you can show the growth, sustainability, and profit potential of the business you’ve set out to run.

See Also:   How to Choose A Business Plan Consultant

What are your thoughts on the difference between a feasibility study report and a business plan? Let me know by leaving a comment below.

Latest articles

How To Increase Your Profits With TradingView

How To Start A Lucrative Export of Limestone From Nigeria and Africa To International Buyers: The Complete Guide

How To Start A Lucrative Export of Calcium Carbonate From Nigeria and Africa To International Buyers: The Complete Guide

How To Start A Lucrative Calcium Carbonate Production and Supply Business In Nigeria and Africa: The Complete Guide

Related articles

How To Start A Lucrative Solar Energy Installation Business In Nigeria and Africa: The Complete Guide

How to start a lucrative ketchup production business in nigeria and africa: the complete guide, how to start a lucrative salt production business in nigeria and africa: the complete guide, 20 comments.

Until now,I always think that business plan and feasibility study report are the same. Thank you a million times for pointing out the difference to me. An eye opener I may say.Thanks once again.

Imeh Enuah.

I’m glad you found the article valuable, Imeh.

Do have a great time!

Thank you brother ❤️👍

Thanks for the effort but still not crystal clear to me…

Thank you for the comment, Victor.

Indeed they’re similar. But the simplest way to understand it is that “a feasibility study is first carried out and documented in a report before a business plan is written to show how you can execute your plans to take the market”.

Stan, even though we don’t go writing you for those your valuable articles, which are changing a lot of lives for good, mullions of people are there silently waiting to read your article everyday. Thanks for impacting knowledge and sharing those priceless write-ups.

Thank you for the kind words and for being a reader, Elvis.

Stan, this has cleared my inquisition on the differentiating factor between the two.

I’m glad you found the article valuable, Daniel.

Thank you for the comment.

Thanks a lot for the article. My position as a Consulting Executive in my previous employment taught me that in industry every feasibility studies is accompanied by a business plan all in one report.

Business plans usually standalone for only existing businesses which usually requires such things as a new marketing or market research, cashflow analysis and asset reappraisal.

Thank you for the contribution, Jeremiah.

Indeed a detailed feasibility report is an in-depth business plan.

What is the difference between a marketing plan and bussines plan

We’d still post an article about that.

Do look out for it on the blog.

Thank you for asking.

Very insightful to say the least. Well done sir!

Thank you for the kind words, Tobechi.

Indeed you are doing a great job.i feel so blessed and fortunate to have such unquontifiable opportunity of learning daily,God bless you, thanks.

Thank you for the kind words, Gideon.

Hello, I wanto prepare a feasibility study report for a potential investor I have a meeting with in another 2 weeks. How do I reach you and where do we start from?

Stan, this is lovely I think I have a better conclusion n knowledge. God bless you.

Thank you for reading, Obi.

Comments are closed.

Popular articles

How To Start A Lucrative Foodstuff Supply Business in Nigeria and Africa: The Complete Guide

50+ Lucrative Rainy Season Business Ideas To Start In Nigeria or Africa

How To Start A Lucrative Mushroom Farming Business In Nigeria And Africa: The Complete Guide

21+ Lucrative Fintech Business Ideas In Nigeria Or Africa

Recent Articles

Subscribe to get the latest news, offers and special announcements.

© Copyright 2023 - Startup Tips Daily Media

• [email protected]
• +234(0) 8105636015
• Business Plan

The Difference Between a Business Plan and a Feasibility Study

• October 24, 2023
• No Comments

Successful businesses don’t happen by chance; they are the result of careful planning and assessment. Whether you’re launching a startup or considering a new project, you need a roadmap that outlines your goals, strategies, and financial projections. This is where a business plan and a feasibility study come into play.

In this article, we will delve deep into the realms of business planning and feasibility analysis, exploring the crucial distinctions between these two fundamental tools.

Understanding Business Plans

Definition and Purpose

A business plan is a comprehensive document that outlines the objectives, strategies, and financial projections for your business. Its primary purpose is to provide a detailed roadmap for your company’s future. It acts as a strategic guide for entrepreneurs, investors, and stakeholders.

Components and Elements

Business plans typically consist of several key components, including:

• Executive Summary : A concise overview of the entire plan.
• Market Analysis : Research on the industry, competition, and target audience.
• Marketing Strategies : Detailed plans for branding, promotion, and sales.
• Financial Projections : Forecasts for income, expenses, and profitability.
• Operational Plan : Information on day-to-day operations and management structure.
• Risk Assessment : Identification and mitigation of potential risks.
• Exit Strategy : Plans for future expansion, sale, or closure.

Role in Business Operations

A business plan serves as a strategic document that guides your business operations. It provides clarity on your business model, goals, and how you intend to achieve them. Moreover, it is often a critical tool for attracting investors and securing financing.

Exploring Feasibility Studies

A feasibility study is a systematic analysis of the practicality and viability of a business idea. Its primary purpose is to determine whether a concept is achievable and sustainable. Feasibility studies are often conducted in the early stages of business development to assess the potential success of a project.

Key Components and Areas of Focus

Feasibility studies typically encompass the following key components:

• Market Research : Detailed analysis of the market, including target demographics, competition, and demand.
• Technical Feasibility : Evaluation of the project’s technical requirements and capabilities.
• Financial Feasibility : Assessment of the project’s financial viability, including cost estimates and revenue projections.
• Operational Feasibility : Examination of the logistical and operational aspects of the project.
• Legal and Regulatory Feasibility : Review of legal and regulatory requirements that may impact the project’s execution.
• Sensitivity Analysis : Testing various scenarios to assess the project’s adaptability to changing circumstances.

Determining Viability

A feasibility study is primarily concerned with determining the viability of a business idea. It helps answer critical questions, such as whether the project is financially feasible, whether the market will support it, and whether potential risks can be mitigated effectively.

Timing and Sequence

Chronological Order

One key difference between a business plan and a feasibility study is the chronological order in which they are typically created. Feasibility studies often precede the development of a business plan.

Why Feasibility Studies Come First

Feasibility studies are conducted early in the business development process to assess the viability of a concept before investing significant time and resources in a comprehensive business plan. If a feasibility study reveals that a project is not feasible, it can save a business from pursuing an unviable idea.

Data Collection and Analysis

Research and Data Collection

Both business plans and feasibility studies involve extensive research and data collection. However, the focus and purpose of this research differ.

Data Analysis in Business Plans

In business plans, data analysis is geared toward understanding the market, competition, and financial projections. It aims to provide a strategic direction for the business.

Data Analysis in Feasibility Studies

Feasibility studies conduct in-depth analysis, focusing on market research, technical feasibility, financial feasibility, and other areas to determine the practicality of a project. The goal is to evaluate whether the project is worth pursuing based on collected data and analysis.

Risk Assessment

Identifying and Mitigating Risks

Both business plans and feasibility studies address the critical aspect of risk assessment, but their approaches differ.

Risk Assessment in Business Plans

Business plans identify and outline potential risks but often focus on strategic plans to minimize and manage these risks.

Risk Assessment in Feasibility Studies

Feasibility studies dig deeper into the assessment of potential risks, challenges, and market uncertainties. They are essential for determining whether the project is too risky or whether risks can be effectively mitigated.

Financial Projections

Detailed Financial Forecasts

Both business plans and feasibility studies involve financial projections, but the depth of these projections varies.

Financial Projections in Business Plans

Business plans include detailed financial forecasts, such as income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow projections. These projections are integral for attracting investors and securing financing.

Financial Analysis in Feasibility Studies

Feasibility studies provide financial analysis that focuses on determining the project’s financial viability. They assess whether the project can be completed within budget and whether it has the potential to generate sufficient revenue to cover costs.

Market Analysis

In-Depth Market Assessment

Market analysis is an important aspect of both business plans and feasibility studies.

Market Analysis in Business Plans

Business plans provide an overview of the market, including target demographics, competition, and market size. Market analysis in business plans is often geared toward supporting sales and marketing strategies.

Market Analysis in Feasibility Studies

Feasibility studies conduct in-depth market research, delving into the specific needs of the target audience, competition, and market demand. The goal is to assess whether the market can support the project and whether it presents a viable opportunity.

Resource Allocation and Budgeting

Allocating Resources

Resource allocation and budgeting are considerations in both business plans and feasibility studies, but the focus varies.

Rea also: The difference between a traditional business plan and a lean startup plan

Resource Allocation in Business Plans

Business plans often include plans for allocating resources, such as staff, equipment, and capital. They outline budgetary requirements for various aspects of the business.

Resource Allocation in Feasibility Studies

Feasibility studies assess the resource requirements of the project and provide an estimate of the budget needed for project development. This information is essential for evaluating whether the project can be executed within the available resources.

Decision-Making Impact

Influencing Decisions

The outcomes of both business plans and feasibility studies have a significant impact on decision-making.

Impact of Feasibility Studies

Feasibility studies influence the decision to proceed with a business idea. If a feasibility study reveals insurmountable challenges, it may deter entrepreneurs from pursuing the project.

Role of Business Plans

Once a project is deemed feasible through the feasibility study, a business plan becomes the tool for executing the strategies and operations outlined in the feasibility study. It guides the day-to-day activities of the business.

Scalability and Adaptability

Adapting to Change

Scalability and adaptability are crucial aspects of both business plans and feasibility studies, but they approach change differently.

Scalability in Business Plans

Business plans may be less adaptable in the face of changing market conditions. They often represent a set path that the business intends to follow.

Adaptability in Feasibility Studies

Feasibility studies emphasize adaptability and flexibility. They recognize that market conditions can change rapidly, and the project may need to adapt to these changes to remain viable.

Integration for Success

The Synergy of Both Tools

While business plans and feasibility studies serve distinct purposes, they can complement each other effectively in the business development process.

How They Work Together

Business plans and feasibility studies work together to create a robust business strategy. The insights gained from the feasibility study can inform the development of a comprehensive business plan. The feasibility study’s findings on market viability, resource requirements, and potential risks can be integrated into the business plan’s strategies and financial projections.

Real-Life Examples

Learning from Successful Businesses

To illustrate the practical application of business plans and feasibility studies, let’s explore a few real-world case studies:

• Case Study 1: Tech Startup : A technology startup conducts a feasibility study to assess the demand for its innovative product. The study reveals strong market interest, leading the startup to create a business plan focused on market expansion and revenue growth.
• Case Study 2: Restaurant Chain : A restaurant chain plans to expand into a new region. A feasibility study helps determine the viability of the expansion, considering factors like competition and consumer preferences. Subsequently, the business plan outlines the specifics of the expansion, including location, marketing strategies, and financial projections.
• Case Study 3: Manufacturing Company : A manufacturing company conducts a feasibility study to explore the possibility of adopting new technology to improve efficiency. The study reveals that the technology is feasible and financially viable. A business plan is then developed to guide the implementation of the new technology, detailing the required resources and the expected impact on production.

“The Difference Between a Business Plan and a Feasibility Study” is not just a matter of paperwork; it’s a fundamental decision that can shape the future of your business. While both tools are critical, it’s essential to recognize their distinct purposes and when to employ them. The key is to leverage the insights from a feasibility study to inform the development of a robust business plan.

In your entrepreneurial journey, you may find that a hybrid approach that combines elements of both business plans and feasibility studies works best for your business. The critical factor is to maintain flexibility and be open to adjusting your planning strategy as your business evolves.

In summary, a feasibility study is the compass that guides you toward viable business concepts, while a business plan is the roadmap that leads you to your destination. Together, they form a powerful combination that can set your business on the path to success.

If you’re unsure about how to approach a feasibility study or develop a business plan for your specific business idea, seek professional guidance. Contact us at Dayo Adetiloye Business Hub via [email protected] or [email protected]. or give us a call at 08105636015, 08076359735 and 08113205312 to access expert assistance and take your business idea to the next level. Making the right decisions today can have a profound impact on the success of your business tomorrow.

Like this article?

Leave a comment

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

DayoHub is an Human Capacity Development firm and a social enterprise that started in 2012 with focus on Vocational Training Services, broad consulting, implementation and design of customized/outreach training courses to governments, small businesses, civil society organizations, aid agencies, and individuals around the world seeking to improve their effectiveness and productivity.

Quick Links

Copyright 2024 dayo adetiloye business hub. all rights reserved.

Terms   |  Privacy

Difference Between Feasibility Study, Business Plan, And Business Proposal

Here is the difference between a feasibility study report and a business plan ? Can a feasibility study report be converted to a business plan? Find out.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS PLAN SAMPLE

In the course of the article, we will be highlighting the major differences between business plan, business proposal and feasibility study .

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS PLAN AND PROPOSAL

Need to write a plan for your venture? Download a FREE Business Plan PDF Sample to develop a template for your own startup.

A business plan, business proposal and a feasibility study are all analysis and tools utilised for decision making by organizations.

In as much as the 3 tools can be utilised alongside one another in decision making processes, they have their differences and they seem to target and tackle different processes.

DEFINITIONS

WHAT IS A BUSINESS PLAN?

A business plan can be considered to be that document that highlights a concise description of how a business is established. The business plan is usually a 5-year plan of a particular business and it shows the company structure, market finding and analysis, products and services, marketing strategy and financial projections.

WHAT IS A BUSINESS PROPOSAL?

A business proposal can be considered to be a sales document that is drafted to highlight how a particular project will be carried out, estimate the value of the project to the client and then seeks the client’s involvement in the business. The business proposal is usually document that an organization submits to another organization to effect a business arrangement.

WHAT IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY

A feasibility study is considered to be that document that is drafted with the purpose of finding out how workable and profitable a business venture will be. Before any action is taken in a business, it is the feasibility study that will determine if the business will be worth the time, resources and efforts.

COMPARING BUSINESS PLAN VS FEASIBILITY STUDY

The differences between a business plan, business proposal and feasibility study can be categorised into 2

• The reason or purpose of the write-up
• The structure or element of the write-up

DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF REASONS OR PURPOSE

REASONS FOR A BUSINESS PLAN

A reason why a business plan is written out in a business is to to document the vision of the business and the steps that will be taken to accomplish the vision. A typical business plan will contain the financial projections of the cost of the business and also give an estimation of the revenues that the business will generated.

The purpose of the business plan is to provide a concise explanation of the business to be utilised by the potential investors, employees, suppliers, attorneys, accountants and any other set of people that will need a quick and comprehensive knowledge of what the organization does and its ability to achieve success

REASON FOR A BUSINESS PROPOSAL

A business proposal, most of the times, is an unsolicited business ideas that is presented to another business entity or they may be a response to requests made by a potential client to your company. The scope of a business proposal is quite limited to a particular project. In fact, we can say the major reason for a business proposal is to request for a business opportunity.

REASON FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY

Feasibility is most of the times carried out with the purpose of finding out the profitability and workability of a business idea. Unlike a business plan, a feasibility study is always filled with calculations and estimated projections for a project.

DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE OF A BUSINESS PLAN

A business plan comprises of 3 major elements:

• A detailed description of the business model
• The marketing model
• And the financial projection

Other information sections of the business plan will include the executive summary, description of the business, competitive analysis, marketing model, operations plan, financial information and projections. These are the structures of a typical business plan

STRUCTURE OF A BUSINESS PROPOSAL

A business proposal that is written as a response to an RFP must follow the format that is requested in the RFP. The structure of the business proposal will involve a description of the services your company renders that are relevant to the goals that are specified in the RFP.

Your business proposal will also comprise of the answers to the specific questions that are asked in the RFP and a quote on the information about the materials, labour, tools, delivery and other costs that will be incurred in the course of the project.

STRUCTURE OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY

The activities for creating the feasibility study for a business venture are general in nature and are quite applicable to all kinds of businesses or projects irrespective of the technicalities involved in the running of the project.

The basic structures of a feasibility study will be:

• The scope of the project, which will be used to describe the problems of the business and the opportunities
• The current analysis is used to understand the current methodologies that will be utilised in the implementation of the project.
• The requirements of the projects. These depend on the object of the project’s attention
• The approach can be considered to be the prescribed solution to satisfy the requirement. On the approach, various alternatives can be considered and detailed explanations on why the solution is preferred to other solutions highlighted.
• Evaluation will examine the cost efficiency of the approach that is selected. This starts with the analysis of the estimated cost of the entire project.
• Review is then done to assemble all the elements into the feasibility study. The review has two different purposes.
• To initiate a project decision, which will be either to approve or reject the project or better still, ask that the project be revised before a final decision is made
• To ensure that the feasibility study is thorough and accurate.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Feasibility Study vs Business Plan Similarities And Differences

Feasibility Study vs Business Plan

Setting up a business enterprise can present a lot of challenges for the entrepreneur. The preliminary stage which involves a lot of brainstorming often gets down to preparing two important documents: the feasibility study and the business plan, both of which are quite indispensable if you’re considering starting a business, and doing it properly.

The possibility of success in a venture predicates upon the proper delivery of these documents, which should be written after conducting careful research and critical analysis, and conveyed in formats that others can understand, because you might want to seek for funds or investors, or even solicit for a loan, and so won’t be the only person reading them.

It, therefore, becomes needful for any entrepreneur to be able to distinguish between a feasibility study and a business plan, to know how to go about creating them.

What is a feasibility study?

As the name implies, a feasibility study is an analysis of the viability of an idea. Feasibility studies help answer the essential question, “Should we proceed with the proposed idea?” The objective study may be completed in conjunction with a SWOT planning process, which looks at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that may be present externally (the environment) or internally (resources).

Feasibility studies help determine: a) does the company possess the required resources or technologies, and b) does the proposal offer a reasonable return vs. risk from the investment.

So a feasibility study lets you know whether the idea you have for a business is worth the time, effort, and money you are willing to invest in it. It’s just like asking yourself, “Is it advisable that I go into this business?”.

While you might be able to conduct this study yourself, it would be more productive and prudent to get the contributions of different professionals such as accountants, entrepreneurs who have opened successful businesses, and realtors who can advise you on the worth of the location and pricing (values you would need in costing and price estimation), comparing similar businesses in the location where you wish to set up your enterprise.

What is a Business Plan?

A business plan “is a written document describing the nature of the business, the sales and marketing strategy, and the financial background, and containing a projected profit and loss statement”.

A business plan is also a road map that provides directions so a business can plan its future and helps it avoid bumps in the road. The time you spend making your business plan thorough and accurate and keeping it up-to-date is an investment that pays big dividends in the long term.

The business plan comes after you have conducted a proper feasibility study and ascertained that your idea is worth going “all out for”. So creating a business plan is like saying, “Yes I’m convinced about the profitability of this idea. This is how I intend to make it profitable”.

Every business is established for the sole purpose of making a profit. If profiting is not the goal, then it is no business, but rather a non-profit organization. Hence details of how a business will operate and make a profit are contained in the business plan.

This is where you’re going to spell out your financial and other objectives, the methods you plan to use to achieve them, and your proposed organizational structure.

Now, let’s look at what makes a feasibility study and a business plan appear similar.

Similarities between feasibility study and business plan

Comparing the similarities between a feasibility study and a business plan is important because both are used in different ways to help you create a profitable business. Similarities between the two documents include:

Timing : Both are done in the beginning before the work opens, and can be done again later to define the next steps for future ideas.

Inputs : They both involve input from multiple individuals or departments with different skills.

Format : Both contain other documents that are grouped to create the report.

Components : Some of the issues analyzed are similar, including examining the target market, market conditions, and financial costs.

Use : Both help the management of the organization in making decisions, and they can also be shown to potential investors.

By now you should have a considerable understanding of how a feasibility study differs from a business plan. But to expound your knowledge it would do to know what the varying components are.

Purpose : While a feasibility study determines the viability of a business idea, a business plan comes after the decision has been made to go ahead with the business.

Methodology : In essence, a feasibility study is based significantly on research, while a business plan makes projections into the future.

Risks : A feasibility study ascertains the risks associated with the idea, whereas a business plan explains how these risks will be dealt with to ensure that the business makes the desired profit.

Cost : A feasibility study can require hiring professionals with expertise who will conduct thorough studies, whereas a business plan may be written by employees of the business, as part of their jobs.

How do you conduct a Feasibility Study?

If you’re doing the feasibility study yourself, conduct a complete competitive analysis considering the following outlines:

Product demand: Is there a need or want for your product or service? Is the need already being met, or is there room for another product?

Market conditions : Who would buy your product and where are they? Can you serve their location? Is the market saturated, or is there room/need for more products?

Pricing : What do current users pay for similar products? What do you need to charge so that you will be profitable, and will consumers pay your price?

Risks : What are the risks associated with your idea?

Probability of Success : Can you reasonably overcome the risks to become profitable?

• Shea Butter Production In Nigeria 2021 Business Plan

Writing a Business Plan?

Writing a business plan may seem daunting, but if you take it step-by-step, it will come to fruition. The Small Business Administration advises that business plans should include the following:

Executive Summary : Include your mission statement, products and or services, some brief information about your leadership team and key employees, as well as the location of your business. To attract investors, add current financial information and projections for growth.

Company description : Detail the problems your business solves; its target market; its competitive advantages, compared with the competition, and anything else that makes your company superior to others: i.e., product awards or recognition, big increases in sales, and so on.

Market analysis : Perform competitive research of what other businesses are doing; their strengths and weaknesses, and how and why your business will be competitive and successful in the market.

Organization or management : State the legal status of your business, such as a corporation or partnership, and include an organizational chart showing management levels, departments, and so on.

Service or product line : State what you will sell or provide and describe the benefits of each. Explain any research done, and any patents filed, and so on.

Marketing and sales : Explain in detail your marketing strategy and how sales will be made.

Funding request : If you are going to be requesting do fund, detail the amount of funding you’ll need for the next five years – specifically, what you’ll do with the funds, and the terms you’re asking for.

Financial projections : This is the business’s financial outlook for the next five years. Include current financial statements, if the business is in operation.

Appendix : This includes supporting documents or requested materials, such as resumes, product photos, letters of reference, patents, licenses, and so on.

In conclusion, it should be obvious by now that a feasibility study and a business plan cannot substitute for each other, and both exist as essential planning documents for successful businesses. If you have the intention of preparing any or both of these documents, it is advisable to seek the aid of a professional writer wherever you might encounter difficulties.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Product overview
• All features
• App integrations

CAPABILITIES

• project icon Project management
• Project views
• Custom fields
• Status updates
• goal icon Goals and reporting
• Reporting dashboards
• workflow icon Workflows and automation
• portfolio icon Resource management
• Time tracking
• my-task icon Admin and security
• Admin console
• asana-intelligence icon Asana AI
• list icon Personal
• premium icon Starter
• briefcase icon Advanced
• Goal management
• Organizational planning
• Campaign management
• Creative production
• Content calendars
• Marketing strategic planning
• Resource planning
• Project intake
• Product launches
• Employee onboarding
• View all uses arrow-right icon
• Project plans
• Team goals & objectives
• Team continuity
• Meeting agenda
• View all templates arrow-right icon
• Work management resources Discover best practices, watch webinars, get insights
• What's new Learn about the latest and greatest from Asana
• Customer stories See how the world's best organizations drive work innovation with Asana
• Help Center Get lots of tips, tricks, and advice to get the most from Asana
• Asana Academy Sign up for interactive courses and webinars to learn Asana
• Developers Learn more about building apps on the Asana platform
• Community programs Connect with and learn from Asana customers around the world
• Events Find out about upcoming events near you
• Partners Learn more about our partner programs
• Support Need help? Contact the Asana support team
• Asana for nonprofits Get more information on our nonprofit discount program, and apply.

Featured Reads

• Project planning |
• How to conduct a feasibility study: Tem ...

How to conduct a feasibility study: Templates and examples

Conducting a feasibility study is an important step in successful project management. By evaluating the viability of a proposed project, a feasibility study helps you identify potential challenges and opportunities, ensuring you make informed decisions. In this guide, we’ll walk you through how to conduct a feasibility study with practical templates and real-world examples, designed for project managers seeking to optimize their project planning process.

It can be exciting to run a large, complex project that has a huge potential impact on your organization. On the one hand, you’re driving real change. On the other hand, failure is intimidating. 

What is a feasibility study? 

A feasibility study—sometimes called a feasibility analysis or feasibility report—is a way to evaluate whether or not a project plan could be successful. A feasibility study evaluates the practicality of your project plan in order to judge whether or not you’re able to move forward with the project. 

It does so by answering two questions: 

Does our team have the required tools or resources to complete this project? 

Will there be a high enough return on investment to make the project worth pursuing? 

Benefits of conducting a feasibility study

There are several key benefits to conducting a feasibility study before launching a new project:

Confirms market opportunities and the target market before investing significant resources

Identifies potential issues and risks early on

Provides in-depth data for better decision making on the proposed project's viability

Creates documentation on expected costs and benefits, including financial analysis

Obtains stakeholder buy-in by demonstrating due diligence

Feasibility studies are important for projects that represent significant investments for your business. Projects that also have a large potential impact on your presence in the market may also require a feasibility assessment. 

As the project manager , you may not be directly responsible for driving the feasibility study, but it’s important to know what these studies are. By understanding the different elements that go into a feasibility study, you can better support the team driving the feasibility study and ensure the best outcome for your project.

When should you conduct a feasibility analysis?

A feasibility study should be conducted after the project has been pitched but before any work has actually started. The study is part of the project planning process. In fact, it’s often done in conjunction with a SWOT analysis or project risk assessment , depending on the specific project. 

Feasibility studies help: 

Confirm market opportunities before committing to a project

Narrow your business alternatives

Create documentation about the benefits and disadvantages of your proposed initiative

Provide more information before making a go-or-no-go decision

You likely don’t need a feasibility study if:

You already know the project is feasible

You’ve run a similar project in the past

Your competitors are succeeding with a similar initiative in market

The project is small, straightforward, and has minimal long-term business impact

Your team ran a similar feasibility analysis within the past three years

One thing to keep in mind is that a feasibility study is not a project pitch. During a project pitch, you’re evaluating whether or not the project is a good idea for your company and whether the goals of the project are in line with your overall strategic plan. Typically, once you’ve established that the project is a good idea, you'll run a feasibility study to confirm that the project is possible with the tools and resources you have at your disposal. 

Types of feasibility studies

There are five main types of feasibility studies: technical feasibility, financial feasibility, market feasibility (or market fit), operational feasibility, and legal feasibility. Most comprehensive feasibility studies will include an assessment of all five of these areas.

Technical feasibility

A technical feasibility study reviews the technical resources available for your project. This study determines if you have the right equipment, enough equipment, and the right technical knowledge to complete your project objectives . For example, if your project plan proposes creating 50,000 products per month, but you can only produce 30,000 products per month in your factories, this project isn’t technically feasible. 

Financial feasibility

Financial feasibility describes whether or not your project is fiscally viable. A financial feasibility report includes a cost-benefit analysis of the project. It also forecasts an expected return on investment (ROI) and outlines any financial risks. The goal at the end of the financial feasibility study is to understand the economic benefits the project will drive. 

Market feasibility

The market feasibility study is an evaluation of how your team expects the project’s deliverables to perform in the market. This part of the report includes a market analysis, a market competition breakdown, and sales projections.

Operational feasibility

An operational feasibility study evaluates whether or not your organization is able to complete this project. This includes staffing requirements, organizational structure, and any applicable legal requirements. At the end of the operational feasibility study, your team will have a sense of whether or not you have the resources, skills, and competencies to complete this work. 

Legal feasibility

A legal feasibility analysis assesses whether the proposed project complies with all relevant legal requirements and regulations. This includes examining legal and regulatory barriers, necessary permits, licenses, or certifications, potential legal liabilities or risks, and intellectual property considerations. The legal feasibility study ensures that the project can be completed without running afoul of any laws or incurring undue legal exposure for the organization.

Feasibility assessment checklist

Most feasibility studies are structured in a similar way. These documents serve as an assessment of the practicality of a proposed business idea. Creating a clear feasibility study helps project stakeholders during the decision making process. 

The essential elements of a feasibility study are: 

An executive summary describing the project’s overall viability

A description of the product or service being developed during this project

Any technical considerations , including technology, equipment, or staffing

The market survey , including a study of the current market and the marketing strategy 

The operational feasibility study evaluates whether or not your team’s current organizational structure can support this initiative

The project timeline

Financial projections based on your financial feasibility report

6 steps to conduct a feasibility study

You likely won’t be conducting the feasibility study yourself, but you will probably be called on to provide insight and information. To conduct a feasibility study, hire a trained consultant or, if you have an in-house project management office (PMO) , ask if they take on this type of work. In general, here are the steps they’ll take to complete this work: 

1. Run a preliminary analysis

Creating a feasibility study is a time-intensive process. Before diving into the feasibility study, it’s important to evaluate the project for any obvious and insurmountable roadblocks. For example, if the project requires significantly more budget than your organization has available, you likely won’t be able to complete it. Similarly, if the project deliverables need to be live and in the market by a certain date but won’t be available for several months after that, the project likely isn’t feasible either. These types of large-scale obstacles make a feasibility study unnecessary because it’s clear the project is not viable.

2. Evaluate financial feasibility

Think of the financial feasibility study as the projected income statement for the project. This part of the feasibility study clarifies the expected project income and outlines what your organization needs to invest—in terms of time and money—in order to hit the project objectives. 

During the financial feasibility study, take into account whether or not the project will impact your business's cash flow. Depending on the complexity of the initiative, your internal PMO or external consultant may want to work with your financial team to run a cost-benefit analysis of the project. 

3. Run a market assessment

The market assessment, or market feasibility study, is a chance to identify the demand in the market. This study offers a sense of expected revenue for the project and any potential market risks you could run into. 

The market assessment, more than any other part of the feasibility study, is a chance to evaluate whether or not there’s an opportunity in the market. During this study, it’s critical to evaluate your competitor’s positions and analyze demographics to get a sense of how the project will go. 

4. Consider technical and operational feasibility

Even if the financials are looking good and the market is ready, this initiative may not be something your organization can support. To evaluate operational feasibility, consider any staffing or equipment requirements this project needs. What organizational resources—including time, money, and skills—are necessary in order for this project to succeed? 

Depending on the project, it may also be necessary to consider the legal impact of the initiative. For example, if the project involves developing a new patent for your product, you will need to involve your legal team and incorporate that requirement into the project plan.

5. Review project points of vulnerability

At this stage, your internal PMO team or external consultant have looked at all four elements of your feasibility study—financials, market analysis, technical feasibility, and operational feasibility. Before running their recommendations by you and your stakeholders, they will review and analyze the data for any inconsistencies. This includes ensuring the income statement is in line with your market analysis. Similarly, now that they’ve run a technical feasibility study, are any liabilities too big of a red flag? (If so, create a contingency plan !) 

Depending on the complexity of your project, there won’t always be a clear answer. A feasibility analysis doesn’t provide a black-and-white decision for a complex problem. Rather, it helps you come to the table with the right questions—and answers—so you can make the best decision for your project and for your team.

6. Propose a decision

The final step of the feasibility study is an executive summary touching on the main points and proposing a solution. 

Depending on the complexity and scope of the project, your internal PMO or external consultant may share the feasibility study with stakeholders or present it to the group in order to field any questions live. Either way, with the study in hand, your team now has the information you need to make an informed decision.

Feasibility study examples

To better understand the concepts behind feasibility assessments, here are two hypothetical examples demonstrating how these studies can be applied in real-world scenarios.

Example 1: New product development

A consumer goods company is considering launching a new product line. Before investing in new product development, they conduct a feasibility study to assess the proposed project.

The feasibility study includes:

Market research to gauge consumer interest, assess competitor offerings, and estimate potential market share for the target market.

Technological considerations, including R&D requirements, production processes, and any necessary patents or certifications.

In-depth financial analysis projects sales volumes, revenue, costs, and profitability over a multi-year period.

Evaluation of organizational readiness, including the skills of the current management team and staff to bring the new product to market.

Assessment of legal feasibility to ensure compliance with regulations and identify any potential liability issues.

The comprehensive feasibility study identifies a promising market opportunity for the new business venture. The company decides to proceed with the new project, using the feasibility report as a template for their business development process. The study helps secure funding from key decision-makers, setting this start-up product initiative up for success.

Example 2: Real estate development deal

A property developer is evaluating the feasibility of purchasing land for a new residential community. They commission a feasibility study to determine the viability of this real estate development project.

The feasibility assessment covers:

Detailed analysis of the local housing market, including demand drivers, comparable properties, pricing, and absorption rates.

Site planning to assess the property's capacity, constraints, and technological considerations.

In-depth review of legal feasibility, including zoning, permitting, environmental regulations, and other potential legal hurdles.

Financial analysis modeling various development scenarios and estimating returns on investment.

Creation of an opening day balance sheet projecting the assets, liabilities, and equity for the proposed project.

Sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of changes in key assumptions on the project's scope and profitability.

The feasibility study concludes that while the real estate start-up is viable, it carries significant risk. Based on these findings, the developer makes an informed decision to move forward, but with a revised project's scope and a phased approach to mitigate risk. The comprehensive feasibility analysis proves critical in guiding this major investment decision.

Which phase of the project management process involves feasibility studies?

Feasibility studies are a key part of the project initiation and planning phases. They are typically conducted after a project has been conceptualized but before significant resources are invested in detailed planning and execution.

The purpose of a feasibility assessment is to objectively evaluate the viability of a proposed project, considering factors such as technical feasibility, market demand, financial costs and benefits, legal requirements, and organizational readiness. By thoroughly assessing these aspects, a feasibility study helps project stakeholders make an informed go-or-no-go decision.

While feasibility studies are a critical tool in the early stages of project management, they differ from other planning documents like project charters, business cases, and business plans. Here's a closer look at these key differences:

Feasibility study vs. project charter

A project charter is a relatively informal document to pitch your project to stakeholders. Think of the charter as an elevator pitch for your project objectives, scope, and responsibilities. Typically, your project sponsor or executive stakeholders review the charter before ratifying the project. 

A feasibility study should be implemented after the project charter has been ratified. This isn’t a document to pitch whether or not the project is in line with your team’s goals—rather, it’s a way to ensure the project is something you and your team can accomplish.

Feasibility study vs. business case

A business case is a more formalized version of the project charter. While you’d typically create a project charter for small or straightforward initiatives, you should create a business case if you are pitching a large, complex initiative that will make a major impact on the business. This longer, more formal document will also include financial information and typically involve more senior stakeholders. 

After your business case is approved by relevant stakeholders, you'll run a feasibility study to make sure the work is doable. If you find it isn’t, you might return to your executive stakeholders and request more resources, tools, or time in order to ensure your business case is feasible.

Feasibility study vs. business plan

A business plan is a formal document outlining your organization’s goals. You typically write a business plan when founding your company or when your business is going through a significant shift. Your business plan informs a lot of other business decisions, including your three- to five-year strategic plan . 

As you implement your business and strategic plan, you’ll invest in individual projects. A feasibility study is a way to evaluate the practicality of any given individual project or initiative.

Achieve project success with Asana

Are you done with your feasibility study? You’re ready to run a project! Set your project up for success by tracking your progress with a work management tool like Asana. From the small stuff to the big picture, Asana organizes work so teams know what to do, why it matters, and how to get it done.

Related resources

Data-driven decision making: A step-by-step guide

How Asana uses work management for employee onboarding

4 ways to establish roles and responsibilities for team success

Cost control: How to monitor project spending to increase profitability

Difference Between a Feasibility Study Report and a Business Plan

By: Author Tony Martins Ajaero

Home » Starting a Business » Conduct Feasibility Study

Is a feasibility report the same as a business plan? What’s the difference between a feasibility study report and a business plan? Can a feasibility report be converted to a small business plan?

One of the ways to ensure that you start your business on a promising note is to make sure you have a workable business plan and you also have a comprehensive feasibility study report. With that in place, you will be able to predict how the business will perform in one, two, three years, and beyond.

In this article, we will look at the difference between a feasibility study report and a business plan. We will also look at how you can use these business documents to your advantage if you plan to start a business or if you want to scale up your business.

What is a Feasibility Study Report?

A feasibility report is a report that assesses a group of potential project pathways or solutions to see if they are viable. The person who writes a feasibility report assesses the feasibility of several ideas and then makes a suggestion for the best alternative.

Companies frequently face difficulties that can be solved using a variety of approaches, and it is critical that they select the optimal one. A feasibility report can assist you in evaluating the viability of several options in order to select the best one. If your organization wants to determine the best path for a project or solution to an issue, knowing how to write a feasibility report can help.

What is a Business Plan?

A business plan is an outline of the strategy of a business that outlines its goals and plans for accomplishing them. It includes a go-to-market strategy, financial estimates, market research, a corporate purpose, and a mission statement. Schedule and key personnel accountable for completing the goals may also be mentioned in the business plan.

A business plan serves three functions: It summarizes the organization’s strategy in order to execute it over time, attracts funding from investors, and assists in forecasting future business demands.

Please keep in mind that there is no one-size-fits-all business plan because there are so many different enterprises on the market today. Every organization, from startups with just one founder to historic household names, requires a business plan.

What are the Differences Between a Feasibility Study Report and a Business Plan?

1.  A feasibility study is carried out with the aim of finding out the workability and profitability of a business venture. Before anything is invested in a new business venture, a feasibility study is carried out to know if the business venture is worth the time, effort and resources.

On the other hand, a business plan is developed only after it has been established that a business opportunity exist and the venture is about to commence. This simply means that a business plan is prepared after a feasibility study has been conducted.

2.  A feasibility report is filled with calculations, analysis and estimated projections of a business opportunity. While a business plan is made up of mostly tactics and strategies to be implemented in other to start and grow the business.

3.  A feasibility study is all about business idea viability while a business plan deals with business growth plan and sustainability.

4.  A feasibility study report reveals the profit potential of a business idea or opportunity to the entrepreneur, while a business plan helps the entrepreneur raise the needed startup  capital from investors.

5. A feasibility study report is used to determine the sustainability of a company idea or project before launching it, whereas a business plan is used to explain the strategy and operations of an existing or new business.

6. A feasibility study report focuses on one aspect of a business idea or project, such as market analysis, technical feasibility, financial feasibility, or organizational feasibility, whereas a business plan covers a broader range of topics, such as market research, marketing strategy, operations plan, financial projections, and management structure.

7. A feasibility study report is normally written for internal use by the business owner, stakeholders, or investors to assess the possible risks and rewards of a business idea or project, whereas a business plan is typically prepared for external use in order to attract finance, partners, or customers.

8. A feasibility study report may be more informal and structured as a report or presentation, whereas a business plan is often more formal and structured as a written document with a defined format.

9. A feasibility study report is normally produced before a business plan and may take less time to complete, but a business plan is an ongoing document that is updated on a regular basis to reflect changes in the business environment.

It’s also worthwhile to know that a feasibility report can readily be converted to a business plan. To achieve this, all you need to do is incorporate your business strategies and tactics into the feasibility report; and you are good to go.

In conclusion,

Paying attention to these two key business documents (Feasibility Study Report and Business Plan) is what is expected of every entrepreneur or investor who truly wants to become successful with their business.

As a matter of fact, we usually advise entrepreneurs to hire business consultants who are specialized in writing Feasibility Studies and Business Plans to help them prepare a workable document (Feasibility Study Report and Business Plan). With that, you can be assured that your business will be starting on the right footing.

Related Posts:

• How to Do Feasibility Study for a Business and Write a Report
• 10 Factors to Consider When Choosing a Business Location
• 5 Conditions That Makes a Business Opportunity Feasible
• A Sample Template for Conducting Business Risk Assessment
• 10 Ways Socio–Cultural Factors Affect Business

Snapsolve any problem by taking a picture. Try it in the Numerade app?

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The planet on our plates: approaches to incorporate environmental sustainability within food-based dietary guidelines.

• 1 WWF-NL, Zeist, Netherlands
• 2 Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands
• 3 WWF Global Science, Washington, DC, United States
• 4 Centre for Food Policy, City University of London, London, United Kingdom
• 5 Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
• 6 WWF-UK, Woking, United Kingdom
• 7 Flanders Institute for Healthy Living (Gezond Leven vzw), Brussels, Belgium
• 8 Department of Environment and Spatial Development (Flemish Government), Brussels, Belgium
• 9 The Netherlands Nutrition Centre(Voedingscentrum), The Hague, Netherlands
• 10 National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

For many decades, food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) were only health-oriented. This changed post-2009 when gradually, an increasing number of countries began to include environmental sustainability considerations in their guidelines. International organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that governments should include environmental sustainability in future FBDGs. However, methodologies on how this should be done are lacking. Therefore, through workshops and discussions with experts, we analysed a selection of methodologies and classified them into six groups: (1) health first; (2) additional advice; (3) demonstrating synergies; (4) modelling impact; (5) combining strategies; (6) systems first. We then assessed how innovative each approach was and their potential for transformative impact. Of the 6 approaches investigated, only approaches 5 and 6 could be considered as disruptive innovations and leading to major changes. Adding environmental sustainability into FBDGs is a policy innovation and has become a debate between old and new multi-criteria guidelines for eating. With the addition of environmental sustainability in FBDGS, a new or emerging set of multi-criteria guidelines for judging food are being proposed that challenges past norms and governance. Today, there is growing scientific consensus that diets that are good for human health are also good for the environment. There is also a growing recognition that food system change is inevitable and desirable. We see this as a positive opportunity to collaborate on FBDGs that are more appropriate for the 21st century and ambitious enough to meet the environmental challenges at hand.

1 Introduction

In 1986, Joan Dye Gussow and Katherine Clancy published the first call for dietary guidelines for sustainability ( 1 ), and, in so doing, introduced the concept of sustainable diets. Prior to 2010, neither national nor international official guidelines addressed the growing societal concerns around environmental sustainability. In 2010, the FAO and Biodiversity International held an international scientific meeting to address the issue ( 2 ). Sweden and Germany were early leaders in developing the concept of healthy and sustainable diets with the Swedish publication of “Environmentally Effective Food Choices” ( 3 ) and the German “Sustainable Shopping Basket” ( 4 ). Since then, growing evidence about the climate and nature crises have led to a change in policy concern about the relationship between food consumption and the environment, suggesting that food system policies should not only consider the nutritional requirements of present and future generations, but also how food is produced, processed and consumed. This is especially urgent given that food systems are the leading cause of environmental harm and degradation of natural ecosystems in ways that threaten economic, social, and environmental viability ( 5 ).

Since 2010, the FAO has recommended the development of FBDGs that promote healthy diets but also take into consideration their impact on global and local agri-food systems while being culturally and socio-economically appropriate ( 2 ). In 2019, the FAO and WHO organised an expert meeting to describe sustainable healthy diets. The conclusion was that:

Sustainable healthy diets are dietary patterns that promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and wellbeing; have low environmental pressure and impact; are accessible, affordable, safe, and equitable; and are culturally acceptable. The aims of sustainable healthy diets are to achieve optimal growth and development of all individuals and support functioning and physical, mental, and social wellbeing at all life stages for present and future generations; contribute to preventing all forms of malnutrition; reduce the risk of diet-related NCDs; and support the preservation of biodiversity and planetary health. Sustainable healthy diets must combine all the dimensions of sustainability to avoid unintended consequences ( 6 ).

At the same time, the FAO and WHO formulated Sustainable Healthy Diets Guiding Principles. These put forward eight principles regarding health, five regarding environmental sustainability, and three regarding sociocultural aspects. The principles of environmental sustainability are to:

• Maintain greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water and land use, nitrogen and phosphorus application and chemical pollution within set targets

• Preserve biodiversity, including crops, livestock, forest-derived foods, and aquatic genetic resources, and avoid overfishing and overhunting

• Minimise the use of antibiotics and hormones in food production

• Minimise the use of plastics and derivatives in food packaging

• Reduce food loss and waste ( 6 ).

In addition, a task force of the Federation of European Nutrition Societies (FENS) took the position that future dietary guidelines should include environmental sustainability and that countries require guidance on how to best integrate the different dimensions of environmental sustainability in ways that reflect both their national priorities and global commitments. This FENS task force concluded that further work was needed to explore current practices, existing methodologies, and future prospects for incorporating other relevant dimensions within a future conceptual framework for sustainable food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) in Europe ( 7 ). The present study contributes towards the creation of such a framework.

Independently of these efforts, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems ( 8 ) developed two sets of scientific targets, one for healthy diets and another for sustainable food production within planetary boundaries (PBs). The EAT-Lancet Commission then modelled whether it was possible to achieve healthy diets from sustainable food systems for a global population of 10 billion people by 2050 and determined that it was possible but only with radical changes to how we produce our food, what we eat, and how much food is lost or wasted. The commission put forth five strategies of achieving healthy diets from sustainable food systems, the first of which was to seek international and national commitments to shift toward healthy diets ( 8 , 9 ).

Numerous studies have concluded that existing FBDGs not only improve health but are generally more environmentally sustainable than the typical Western diet ( 10 – 13 ), i.e., there is a substantial overlap between public health and environmental sustainability goals. The correlation between healthier foods and lower environmental impact is in line with the findings of the EAT-Lancet Commission, which showed strong synergies between an optimal healthy diet and lower environmental impact. Clark et al. ( 14 ) also found that foods associated with the largest negative environmental impact – that is, unprocessed and processed red meat – are consistently associated with the largest increases in disease risk. Thus, dietary transitions towards greater consumption of healthier foods would improve environmental sustainability, although processed foods that are high in sugar harm health but can have a low environmental impact ( 14 ).

Nevertheless, while some of the current FBDGs, if implemented, are associated with moderate improvements in health and reductions in environmental impacts at the national level, most FBDGs are incompatible with achieving health and environmental targets. Springmann et al. ( 15 ) concluded that most FBDGs they examined were not compatible with a set of global environmental targets including the 2015 Paris agreement to limit global warming to below 2°C, the Aichi biodiversity target of limiting the rate of land use change, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and planetary boundaries related to freshwater use, and nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Loken et al. ( 16 ) came to a similar conclusion and found that current FBDGs of the G20 countries will not ensure that global warming remains below 1.5°C and should be further improved to ensure they are more ambitious and in line with global health and environmental targets.

Although previous studies focused on the content of FBDGs in relation to environmental sustainability – the “what” ( 17 , 18 ) – this paper is the first to focus on the approaches used by countries to incorporate environmental sustainability in FBDGs – the “how.” This is important because to date, there is no coherent, integrated, unified approach to developing FBDGs that are in line with the latest science on healthy diets from sustainable food systems ( 19 ).

This study is based on a literature review of publications and reports about FBDGs in relation to environmental sustainability that were published between 2009 and 2022, along with input, analysis and conclusions derived from workshops and discussions with experts. As of 2022, FAO has identified 95 countries with FBDGs ( 20 ). A recent review of FBDGs around the world assessed 83 countries and found that 37 referred to environmental sustainability ( 18 ). Out of the 37 countries that referred to environmental sustainability in their FBDGs, this study selected examples whose methods and approaches were published in English and who were transparent about both the methodology and approach used and how the guidelines were developed.

The FBDGs of these countries were assessed with respect to how they analysed, described and addressed the priorities of human health and environmental sustainability ( 20 – 22 ). The authors assessed these approaches during a series of workshops that were organised to help develop new FBDGs. These included an FAO organised workshop at Wageningen University and Research ( 23 ), a follow-up workshop in Rome with the Technical and Advisory Group for Updating the Global Guidance for the Development/Revision of FBDGs (2019) and a WHO hosted meeting where experts presented the latest evidence on new approaches on FBDGs ( 24 ). In addition, authors presented and participated in workshops of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung in Bonn ( 25 ), the European Public Health Nutrition Alliance (online meeting EPHNA, 2020), the Flanders Institute for Healthy Living in Brussels (2021), the Health Council of the Netherlands in The Hague (2023) and the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations in Oslo and online [webinar; ( 26 )].

Our paper provides an overview of the approaches used to date to address health and environmental sustainability in dietary advice at the national level and the impact each strategy could have in achieving health and environmental goals. The six approaches outlined here are:

1. Health first

2. Additional advice

3. Demonstrating synergies

4. Modelling impact

5. Combining strategies

6. Systems first.

Table 1 outlines these six approaches and illustrative examples from countries around the world are used to demonstrate how they have been used to develop FBDGs.

Table 1 . The six approaches used by countries to develop FBDGs and the level of impact that each approach may have in achieving health and environmental sustainability goals.

The development of FBDGs that incorporate environmental sustainability can be seen as a policy innovation. Innovations can be categorised depending on changes they provide. Innovations may be disruptive when they destabilise existing norms, institutions and markets ( 27 ). They may shake up existing systems through diversifying impacts, which open new niches and markets, or they can create path-breaking impacts, driving the emergence of entirely new practices that previously would have seemed unfeasible ( 28 ). Innovations can also be sustaining when they support existing norms, institutions and markets. Four categories or types of impact are indicated as possible: architectural, path-breaking, incremental and diversifying ( Figure 1 ). For this paper, we used an innovation lens to assess the various approaches used to develop FBDGs and then used this lens to assess the potential level of impact each approach may have toward shifting diets to help achieve health and environmental goals. However, the actual impact depends on the additional initiatives and policies put in place to enable implementation, i.e., FBDGs alone are not enough to transform consumption patterns. To make real systemic transformation happen, the establishment of not just an enabling but a normative environment, guiding the innovation process is needed ( 29 ).

Figure 1 . Food based dietary guidelines can be seen as a policy innovation, either sustaining or disrupting existing ways of doing things and creating space for something new to emerge. The impacts on the food system of these policy innovations can be smaller and introduce new ideas or approaches to existing practices, or they can be major, representing investments in the architecture and infrastructure of existing systems or completely reorienting people’s practices, habits, and goals [adapted from ( 28 ) with permission].

It’s important to note that the desired level of impact depends on the starting place of the system itself and where science indicates where the system should be. If, for example, the starting point of a country’s FBDGs are guidelines that focus only on health, then the desired state would be toward the development of more disruptive FBDGs that consider health and environmental sustainability equally, as supported by science. However, if the starting point are FBDGs that already consider health and environmental sustainability equally, then future FBDGs would require a sustaining policy innovation (i.e., incremental or architectural impact). In addition, whether a country requires or can tolerate smaller or major changes needs to be carefully considered by policy makers. Sometimes, smaller changes (i.e., diversifying impact) may receive broader acceptance from the public than major changes (i.e., path-breaking impact).

Six approaches used by countries to incorporate environmental sustainability into FBDGs were assessed ( Table 1 ). Each approach can be distinguished from others, based on whether the FBDGs can be seen as either a sustaining or disruptive policy innovation and also the level of impact (i.e., smaller or larger) each approach may have toward shifting diets to help achieve health and environmental goals.

3.1 Approach 1: health first

The Health First approach distinguishes itself by focusing mainly on health in FBDGs. Most of the 95 countries that have FBDGs apply this traditional, health focussed approach ( 20 ). The methodology used to provide health advice in FBDGs, based on the latest science, has developed significantly over the last couple of decades with the goal of being transparent and reducing bias ( 30 ). According to the definition from the FAO, Health First dietary guidelines are intended to establish a basis for public food and nutrition, health and agricultural policies and nutrition education programmes to foster healthy eating habits and lifestyles. They provide advice on food, food groups and dietary patterns with the explicit purpose of informing the public about the foods and nutrients that are required to promote overall health and prevent chronic diseases ( 20 ). The advantages and disadvantages of this and the other approaches are summarised in Table 2 .

Table 2 . The advantages and disadvantages of the six approaches discussed.

3.1.1 United States (2015, 2020)

In 2015, the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) tried to incorporate environmental sustainability when developing their guidelines. The DGAC concluded: “Consistent evidence indicates that, in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods, is more health promoting and is associated with lower environmental impact (e.g., GHG emissions, land and water use, biodiversity loss) than the current average US diet.” This can be achieved without excluding any food groups ( 31 ). The DGAC ( 31 ) also concluded that sustainable solutions can be achieved through diverse types of diets, such as vegetarian, Mediterranean or DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets. The DGAC proposals received a hostile reception from the US meat industry. Despite public support, the DGAC’s recommendations to combine nutritional and sustainability advice was not approved in the Senate, and the environmental dimension was dropped entirely ( 32 ). The updated 2020–2025 US Dietary Guidelines provides four overarching guidelines that encourage healthy eating patterns at each stage of life and recognise that individuals will need to make shifts in their food and beverage choices to achieve a healthy pattern. However, these updated guidelines still do not take into account environmental sustainability and the only reference to environmental issues is regarding seafood consumption and limiting methylmercury exposure for women who might become pregnant or lactating ( 33 ).

3.1.2 Brazil (2014)

The 2014 Brazilian guidelines were produced after public consultation ( 34 ). They are distinguished by the fact that they emphasised the social and economic aspects of sustainability, advising people to be wary of, amongst other things, advertisements, and to avoid ultra-processed foods that are not only bad for one’s health but also undermine traditional food cultures. This focus contrasts with the largely environmental definition of sustainability used in other guidelines ( 17 ). Nevertheless, like other countries, Brazil advised consumers to base their diets on many varieties of natural or minimally processed foods, mainly of plant origin. Vegetables and fruits that are local or in season are presented as the best choices, as are fruits produced agro-ecologically. Consumers are advised to limit the use of processed foods, consuming them only in small amounts as ingredients in culinary preparation or as part of meals based on natural or minimally processed foods. By advising more traditional recipes, the reduction of animal-based products is indirectly advised: ‘In most traditional cuisines, meat, fish, eggs and other animal foods are consumed sparingly, as part of dishes and meals that are based on plant foods,’ and ‘Small changes in the diets of the Brazilians who eat most natural or minimally processed foods – such as eating more vegetables and less red meat – would render the nutritional profile of their overall diet practically ideal.’ They call it the Golden Rule: “Always prefer natural or minimally processed foods and freshly made dishes and meals to ultra-processed foods,” without referring to the environment directly ( 34 ).

3.1.3 Low- and middle-income countries

Until now, the majority of lower-middle-income countries with FBDGs use a health first approach for their FBDGs. To date, only a handful of countries have references to environmental sustainability (e.g., Ethiopia, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador), compared to 34 upper-middle/high-income countries ( 18 ). The FAO is assisting member countries in developing, revising, and implementing their FBDGs and food guides, in line with current scientific evidence. To assist this process, the WHO is developing a user-friendly open access data platform which enables Member States to model diets using their own national datasets. These models can then be used to adopt local diets in order to meet health and sustainability goals ( 24 ).

3.1.4 Level of impact

The Health First approach can be considered as having an incremental impact (sustaining innovation and smaller changes - Figure 1 ) since they sustain the status quo of focusing mainly on health, thus leading to smaller changes in current dietary patterns and people’s practices, habits, and goals. Although this approach may improve existing FBDGs, countries that use this approach are still failing to incorporate the advice of intergovernmental bodies such as the FAO and WHO on the need to incorporate environmental sustainability. In addition, this approach fails to take into account the overwhelming scientific evidence on the relationship between health and the environment, therefore sustaining the status quo when it comes to dietary shifts and not creating systemic changes to support healthy and sustainable diets. However, the level of impact of a policy can change over time. Brazil’s FBDGs could be considered as a disruptive policy innovation when they were developed, but they have now been largely surpassed by many other countries and the scientific evidence on health and the environment has evolved. The 2020 US FBDGs are also incremental in that they again focused only on health and ignored environmental sustainability. Lastly, although some LMICs have started to address environmental sustainability, more support will be needed in order to have more path-breaking impact.

3.2 Approach 2: additional advice

This approach begins with traditional advice on a healthy diet and then supports this with additional advice on environmental sustainability. This approach is generally based on a literature review of the environmental impacts of different foods and diets. It aims to limit the environmental impact of diets in line with existing health based FBDGs through advice on maximum or minimum consumption quantities, choice editing, and food group specifications. Countries that have applied this approach are, for example, Finland (2014), Sweden (2015), Estonia (2015), United Kingdom (2016), and Spain (2018). Frequently used messages are to eat less animal-based and more plant-based foods, choose certified seafood, drink tap water, eat local and seasonal fruits and vegetables, and waste less food ( 17 , 18 , 35 ). This advice is mostly qualitative and has the potential to support achieving some of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ( 36 , 37 ) and is in line with the five guiding principles of FAO/WHO, mentioned in the introduction ( 6 ). The Additional Advice approach is the simplest and easiest approach to integrate environmental sustainability because it adds new guidance to already existing FBDGs, but could also limit consumers choice, by adding more complexity and requiring additional food literacy. The advantages and disadvantages of this and the other approaches are summarised in Table 2 .

3.2.1 Nordics (2012, 2023)

The application of additional advice on environmental sustainability began in the Nordics with the 2012 Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR2012) ( 38 ) which was mainly based on initiatives in Sweden ( 3 , 39 ) and in Finland ( 40 ). In general, the NNR advised that a more sustainable diet consisted of more plant-based foods and less animal-based food (e.g., meat, dairy, and eggs). With a goal of reducing GHG emissions, the report put forward five guiding principles for consumers:

1. Choose primarily meat and fish with low environmental impact

2. Eat more dried beans, peas, lentils, and cereals

3. Mainly choose field vegetables, root vegetables, potatoes, fruits, and berries that store well

4. Choose perishable products when they are in season; and.

5. Minimise waste ( 38 ).

The purpose of the NNRs is to provide the five Nordic countries (and three Baltic countries added in 2023) with updated scientific advice as a basis for later country specific FBDGs. The Nordics have developed common evidence-based recommendations on nutrient intake since 1980. This is a unique international collaboration that underscores the importance of cooperation between countries, combining their efforts and sharing costs. Their methodological approach has been described in detail in Christensen et al. ( 41 ).

Sweden was the first Nordic country to integrate these guiding principles into their FBDGs. Sweden’s official 2015 guidelines were presented as ‘find your way to eat greener, not too much, and be active’ and provided guidance on how to eat healthily and in an environmentally friendly manner ( 39 ). The main aim was to encourage consumers to eat less meat and meat products and more plant-foods, including whole grains, vegetables and fruit, as well as healthy oils and some fish to decrease the risk of common chronic diseases in Sweden. In Finland, although additional advice on environmental sustainability was not fully included in the Finnish 2014 FBDGs ( 40 ), they did advise ‘Weight control for reasons of sustainability’. Recent advice from the Finnish Food Authority does provide additional advice on environmental sustainability, including that food should be considered in the broader context of the environment and sustainable development ( 40 ).

In 2023, the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR2023) were updated and included environmental sustainability based on the latest scientific evidence ( 30 ). The parameters related to environmental sustainability were GHG emissions, land and water use, biodiversity loss, phosphorus flows and industrial chemicals. The NNR2023 provides a framework for the national authorities to develop FBDGs in the Nordic and Baltic countries. NNR2023 recommends a predominantly plant-based diet high in vegetables, fruits, berries, pulses, potatoes and whole grains. It also recommends an ample intake of nuts and fish from sustainably managed stocks, moderate intake of low-fat dairy products, and limited intake of red meat and poultry. The scientific advice on food intake for each food group was established in a transparent way and first considered the evidence on human health. If the scientific evidence was strong, quantitative health-based advice was given, otherwise qualitative advice was given. Environmental impact was considered next and only if advice on reducing the environmental impact could narrow the health defined intake ranges without compromising health. If this was possible, only then the environmental impact influenced the science advice given ( 30 ). The NNR2012 guidelines are considered as Approach 2, while the more comprehensive guidelines in NNR2023 are considered as a combination of Approaches 2 and 3. The Nordic and Baltic countries are in the process of implementing the NNR2023. For example, Norway has revised their FBDGs, which were sent out for public consultation in April 2024 ( 42 ).

3.2.2 United Kingdom (2016)

The British Eatwell Guide ( 43 ) took an initial step towards environmental sustainability by recommending: ‘Eat more beans and pulses and consume two portions of sustainably sourced fish a week, one of which is oily. Eat less red and processed meat.’ The names of the food group segments have been revised to emphasise certain foods within the food group that are deemed to be more environmentally friendly, such as, for example, the protein segment being called ‘Beans, pulses, fish, eggs, meat, and other proteins.’ This serves to demonstrate that the nutritional value of proteins from plant sources is an important part of one’s total protein intake. The daily recommendation of protein was also reduced from 15% of total energy to 8%. When consumers follow these guidelines, it is estimated to have a significant reduction in GHG emissions. This reduction is due to several changes in food choices, such as increased consumption of potatoes, fish, wholemeal bread, vegetables and fruit, while simultaneously reducing the amounts of dairy, meat, rice, pasta, pizza and sweet foods ( 44 ). Drinks were not included in the study. The British Eatwell Guide (2016) also used linear programming (LP - see Approach 4) to optimise nutrition and affordability but did not include the environment ( 45 , 46 ).

3.2.3 Level of impact

The Additional Advice approach can be considered as having an incremental impact (sustaining innovation and smaller changes - Figure 1 ) since they mainly sustain the status quo of focusing predominantly on health, thus leading to potentially smaller changes in current dietary patterns and people’s practices, habits, and goals. Although adding some advice on environmental sustainability is a positive step, this approach still fails to go far enough and fully integrate environmental sustainability as recommended by FAO, WHO and the latest scientific evidence of what is needed to achieve both health and environmental goals, thus mainly sustaining the status quo when it comes to dietary shifts and not creating systemic changes to support healthy and sustainable diets. The Nordic countries in particular, with the exception of Denmark, have so far made only incremental steps since being a front-runner in aiming to integrate environmental sustainability in FBDGs. Although this approach does support achieving some of the SDGs, it is not expected to result in major changes or quantified, path-breaking impacts on achieving environmental sustainability goals.

3.3 Approach 3: demonstrating synergies

The Demonstrating Synergies approach explores the synergies between health and environmental sustainability on integrated messages related to health and the environment. This approach also considers current and historical dietary perspectives, supports traditional diets and is adaptive to native cultures. Health is still first with this approach, but environmental sustainability is also largely considered as long as it supports health goals. This approach highlights, for example, that the reduction of the consumption of red and processed meat is both good for your health and the environment. Examples of applying this approach are Canada (2019) and Flanders, Belgium (2017; 2021).

Research supports the use of this approach for achieving both health and environmental goals. For example, the traditional Mediterranean diet ( 10 , 47 ), the New Nordic Diet ( 48 ) and the traditional diet of the Netherlands and Belgium ( 49 ) all have the potential for achieving health goals while reducing environmental impacts. This synergy can be explained by a common feature of these diets: they have high nutrient density and low energy density [i.e., high in proteins, vitamins and minerals and low in calories per gram ( 50 )]. Quantifying the degree of synergy found through a simple and consistent method can help consumers make informed choices ( 51 ). Such a method can indicate which foods consumers should eat more or less of if they want to live a healthier and more sustainable life. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach are summarised in Table 2 .

3.3.1 Canada (2019)

While health is the primary focus of Canada’s FBDGs ( 52 ), the potential environmental benefits associated with shifting diets is also outlined. For example, the guidelines highlight that there is scientific evidence to support that eating more plant-based foods and less animal-based foods has a smaller environmental impact. In addition, the guidelines outline that reducing food waste by households, food manufacturers and processors, farmers and food retailers can significantly reduce the environmental impact of food systems. Attention is also paid to eating with others and the social, cultural and historical context of Indigenous peoples: ‘Indigenous knowledge is key for sustainable harvesting and cultivation, as well as for the preparation, storage, consumption, and sharing of traditional food’ ( 52 ).

Canada’s FBDGs recommends general protein-rich foods, with a preference for plant-based foods (in the following order): ‘Protein foods: include legumes, nuts, seeds, tofu, fortified soy beverages, fish, shellfish, eggs, poultry, lean red meats including wild game, lower fat milk, lower fat yoghurts, lower fat kefir, and cheeses lower in fat and sodium.’ The guidelines also emphasise water as the preferred drink. Canada’s FBDGs ( 52 ) made headlines due to the belief that dairy would no longer be recommended, but in fact dairy remains a part of the recommended protein-rich food group. In addition, the guidelines advise limiting highly processed foods ( 52 ).

3.3.2 Belgium (2017; 2021)

In 2017, the Flemish food triangle was thoroughly revised, based on the latest scientific evidence within the fields of nutrition, health, and behavioural sciences ( 53 ) and updated with new evidence in 2021 ( 54 ). The Flemish Institute of Healthy Living (“Vlaams Instituut Gezond Leven”) provided food guidelines that should be achievable in the long term for the general population, and which should be easily accessible and convenient to understand in what is called ‘the Food Triangle’. This triangle classifies food products according to their health and environmental impact, using colour coding for clarity, similar to the Barilla double pyramid ( 10 ) and Sustainable Nutrient Rich Foods-index ( 55 ). The result is a set of seven practical recommendations which integrate health and environmental sustainability and are based on three main principles:

1. Eating more vegetable than animal foods

2. Avoiding ultra-processed foods (empty calories) as much as possible by focusing more on fruit, vegetables, whole grains, legumes and nuts; and

3. Not wasting foods and moderating overall consumption ( 53 ).

The environmental impact of food was considered for the first time in the 2017 revision of the Food Triangle, however their inclusion did not follow the same rigorous scientific process as for health. Consequently, these guidelines lacked a robust foundation ( 54 ) and the environmental claims of these guidelines were called into question by the agriculture and food sectors. To address these concerns, the Flemish Institute for Healthy Living, the Agency for Health and Care, and the Department of Environment and Spatial Development collaborated in 2021 to better substantiate and fully integrate environmental sustainability in their guidelines. They did this by publishing a new background document which followed the same rigorous scientific process which was used for health in 2017 ( 54 ). The conclusion was that, in most cases, environmental sustainability and good health go hand in hand when it comes to food recommendations.

3.3.3 Level of impact

The Demonstrating Synergies approach can be considered as having an architectural impact (sustaining innovation and larger changes - Figure 1 ) since they still mainly focus on health. However, since synergies with environmental sustainability are also considered, this could potentially lead to major changes in current dietary patterns and people’s practices, habits, and goals. Although this approach does make improvements on previous versions of FBDGs and has the potential for major changes in consumption patterns, this approach may still sustain many existing food system practices that could hinder their adoption. This approach has a lot of potential to reduce environmental impacts, but in itself the guidelines do not promote changes in the food system and may not necessarily lead to a more systemic change. However, adoption of the dietary shifts put forth by this approach may be more likely than approach 2, because it integrates messages for both human health and environmental sustainability, is more culturally acceptable by building on traditional diets and indigenous food cultures, and helps consumers make more informed choices.

3.4 Approach 4: modelling impact

The Modelling Impact approach is dietary modelling with the intent of reducing environmental impacts. Health and sustainability are taken equally into account by using constraints on each. Linear programming (LP) is often applied to find an optimal diet while also satisfying several constraints (i.e., health, affordability and environmental sustainability) at the same time ( 56 , 57 ). In (2011), the World Wide Fund for Nature UK used LP to propose the Livewell Plate, which was a variation of the official UK Eatwell Plate ( 58 , 59 ). WWF updated this in 2023, again using optimisation modelling, and demonstrated enormous potential for reducing GHG emissions while providing healthy and affordable diets for UK citizens ( 60 ). Only the Netherlands (2016), France (2016), and Germany (2024) have applied LP in their official FBDGs using environmental constraints. LP exhibits potential as an instrument for finding solutions to a variety of complex dietary problems. Future possibilities include finding solutions for an optimal diet by combining nutrition, cost, environmental and acceptability constraints ( 57 ). The advantages and disadvantages of this approach are summarised in Table 2 .

3.4.1 France (2016)

The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) developed a digital tool to optimise food consumption for the French FBDGs in 2016. This tool calculates combinations of food groups that meet the stated goals in the FBDGs. This includes meeting the nutritional needs of its citizens, preventing chronic non-communicable diseases, and minimising exposure to environmental-related food contaminants (pesticide residues and heavy metals), all while keeping food intake close to current levels of consumption. The French included contaminants in their FBDGs to limit the risk associated with foodborne contaminants, such as pesticide residues, however, other environmental variables were not modelled. In the end, it was difficult to reach all three goals without changes to current consumption patterns that included either lowering the nutritional recommendations for vitamin D intake or increasing the maximum exposure limit to contaminants ( 61 ).

3.4.2 Germany (2024)

For the development of the updated German FBDGs, European scientists were invited by DGE ( Deutsche Geselschaft für Ernährung ) and Federation of European Nutrition Societies (FENS) in 2019 to discuss using mathematical optimisation to integrate both health and environmental sustainability into their new FBDGs. The scientists concluded that mathematical optimisation is a suitable tool for finding trade-offs between conflicting goals and considering multiple dimensions in FBDGs and can actually increase consumer acceptance for dietary shifts ( 25 ). In cooperation with the French MS Nutrition, the DGE developed the German Nutrition Optimisation Model (GNOM) for its revised FBDGs ( 62 ). The LP model considered three variables to find an optimal diet that would minimise environmental impact (GHG emissions and land use), diet-related health burden (disability adjusted life years) and the relative deviation from current dietary intakes (cultural acceptability). Moreover, deviations away from the nutritional needs of 39 nutrients were also minimised, which, in turn, resulted in a recommended increase in consumption of fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and a reduction in red meat. Germany also took into account co-products in the food system, by using a ratio for, e.g., milk (products) vs. butter and beef from dairy cows and a ratio for red meat (unprocessed vs. processed) ( 62 , 63 ). The new FBDGs were published in 2024, together with a new food circle with the main conclusion being that “a healthy and environmentally friendly diet is more than 3/4 plant-based and almost 1/4 animal-based” [i.e., in grams of products ( 64 )].

3.4.3 Level of impact

The Modelling Impact approach can be considered as having a diversifying impact (disruptive innovation and smaller changes - Figure 1 ) since they disrupt the status quo by focusing both on health and environmental sustainability and use a new method (i.e., modelling) that opens up new possibilities for exploration of FBDGs. However, by itself this approach may lead to mainly smaller changes in the food system, especially by keeping proposed dietary changes as close as possible to current consumption patterns. However, in some cases smaller changes (i.e., no need to set the system on an entirely new pathway) may be all that are needed and one advantage of the modelling impact approach is that contrary to proposing dietary patterns as a scenario (i.e., vegetarian, vegan, Mediterranean diets), modelling can calculate solutions that are as close to current consumption patterns as possible. Although this may lead to mainly smaller changes in the system, this may lead to higher levels of consumer acceptance by offering concrete, quantified dietary advice on how to achieve both human health and environmental sustainability outcomes while staying as close to current consumption patterns as possible.

3.5 Approach 5: combining strategies

The Combining Strategies approach could be thought of as either a separate approach or as different steps within a policy process with the ultimate goal of fully integrating environmental sustainability and public health advice on nutrition and potentially setting the food system on an entirely new path that differs from past norms. Examples are the Netherlands (2016; combining 2, 3 and 4) and Denmark (2021; combining 3 and 4). The advantages and disadvantages of this approach are summarised in Table 2 .

3.5.1 The Netherlands (2016)

In 2011, the Health Council of the Netherlands gave additional advice on environmental sustainability (Approach 2) when they concluded that a shift from the current Dutch diet towards the healthy diet described in the dietary guidelines was good not only for health but also for the environment ( 11 ). The Health Council of the Netherlands published new dietary guidelines in 2015 with the main recommendation being to eat less animal-based foods and more plant-based foods, specifically to limit the consumption of red and processed meat [Approach 3 - ( 65 )]. These guidelines underpinned the most recent Wheel of Five, which is the educational model used by the Netherlands Nutrition Centre to help consumers make their diets healthier and more environmentally sustainable ( 66 ). In the 2016 update of the Wheel of Five, for the first time, a clear quantitative recommendation was provided regarding the maximum amount of meat to be consumed (500 g of total meat and a maximum of 300 g of red meat per week). The advice was to ‘vary your diet with fish, legumes, nuts, eggs and vegetarian products’ - with a lower environmental impact than meat - and to eat a weekly portion of legumes (135 g) and a handful of nuts per day (25 g). In addition, seven practical ways (Approach 2) to achieve a more sustainable diet ( 66 , 67 ) were given and subsequently updated in 2020.

Modelling impact (Approach 4) was also used in 2016 in the development of the Wheel of Five. In this process, the Dutch dietary guidelines, Dietary Reference Values (DRV), and current Dutch consumption patterns were considered in an optimisation model and combined with expert judgement. Several maximum restrictions were set for food groups due to environmental sustainability and feasibility while staying as close as possible to people’s current consumption patterns, but no restrictions were set on environmental indicators ( 66 ). Subsequently, the environmental impact of the Dutch FBDGs was calculated together with the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. The conclusion was that a diet based on the Wheel of Five, rather than the current diet, resulted in a slightly reduced environmental impact for men (−13% in GHG emissions). However, higher reductions could be achieved by making more sustainable food choices, for example, when meat was replaced by pulses, nuts and eggs ( 68 ). This additional advice (Approach 2) was meant to help consumers to further reduce the environmental impact of their diets.

3.5.2 Denmark (2021)

Denmark’s FBDGs (2021) not only advises Danes on how to eat more healthily but also how their diet can be more climate friendly ( 69 ). Specifically, the FBDGs advises Danes to eat plant-rich, varied foods, and not to eat too much. The Danish approach clearly sets out to find synergies with health and environmental sustainability (Approach 3) but by using practical advice for consumers. This practical dietary advice appears to be inspired by the much-cited work of the journalist Michael Pollan, who famously wrote: ‘Eat food, not too much, mostly plants’ ( 70 ). Also more concrete advice is given such as eat more vegetables and fruits (600 g/day), eat less meat, choose pulses and fish (350 g of meat (including poultry) per week is sufficient; 350 g of fish per week, 200 g being fatty fish; 100 g pulses per day should be consumed; and 30 g of nuts per day and 1–2 spoons of seeds are appropriate). Also, more food groups are recommended such as eating foods with whole grains, choosing vegetable oils and low-fat milk and dairy, and eating less sugar, fat, and salt containing foods. Finally, the guidelines draw attention to reducing food waste ( 69 ).

These quantities are largely in line with the dietary recommendations of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food systems ( 8 ). The Danish plant-rich diet was modelled (Approach 4) in accordance with the EAT-Lancet Commission’s global reference diet but also takes national food availability and culture into account ( 71 ). This was done by using Danish food consumption data as a starting point for the modelling, also including processed foods, discretionary foods and beverages. In addition, the modelled intake was adjusted so that it was in line with the latest scientific evidence on the relationship between food intake and disease risk, while also ensuring that it was in accordance with nutrient recommendations [NNR2012; ( 72 )]. Further, the climate impact of the Danish plant-rich diet was estimated ( 73 ).

3.5.3 Level of impact

The Combining Strategies approach can be considered as having an impact between diversifying and path-breaking (disruptive innovation, smaller to major changes - Figure 1 ). These FBDGs as a policy innovation can be considered disruptive, given that health and environmental sustainability are taken equally into account, however the level of impact could be anywhere from smaller to major depending on the level of dietary shifts recommended or systemic changes required. The Netherlands FBDGs modelled dietary shifts which would be as close as possible to people’s current consumption patterns (i.e., smaller changes), whereas Denmark recommended larger dietary shifts (i.e., larger changes) in line with the EAT-Lancet Commission. However, setting stricter environmental constraints may also shape optimised diets that deviate more from the current consumption and would have more of a path-breaking impact. In addition, the combined strategy has the potential to be path-breaking in that if followed, this approach has the potential to set the system on an entirely new path that differs from past norms.

3.6 Approach 6: systems first

The System First approach uses systems thinking to develop FBDGs and shifts the focus from ‘food-based’ to ‘food system-based’ guidelines. The FAO has recently proposed food system-based dietary guidelines (FSBDGs) ( 74 ). The insertion of ‘systems’ is significant because it recognises the need for using a ‘multi-criteria’ approach to food ( 75 ) and the need for using systems thinking then developing FSBDGs. FSBDGs should contribute towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and provide guidance on how to embed sustainability (including environmental sustainability) throughout the process of developing guidelines (personal communication A.I. Ramos, FAO, February 2022). Specifically, FSBDGs are described by FAO as:

… context-specific multilevel recommendations that enable governments to outline what constitutes a healthy diet from sustainable food systems, align food-related policies and programmes and support the population to adopt healthier and more sustainable dietary patterns and practices that favour, among other outcomes, environmental sustainability and socio-economic equity. Their effectiveness resides in that they are developed through an evidence-informed, multidisciplinary and multisectoral engagement process and with a food system approach. They result in a package of outputs and resources that can be adopted and used for guiding food system transformation towards better diet-related practices and, subsequently, better health, better nutrition, and more sustainable and equitable food systems… ( 74 ).

Currently, no country has adopted FSBDGs, mostly due to their infancy and that the methodology is yet to be released. FAO plans to release a detailed methodology in 2024, followed by a series of webinars to facilitate their uptake. However, the process for adopting FSBDGs will follow six, iterative stages:

1. Design and plan the national process

2. Analyse the situation and review the evidence

3. Develop recommended dietary patterns and formulate the technical recommendations

4. Develop the national implementation strategy

5. Design communication and capacity development actions; and

6. Implement, monitor and evaluate ( 74 ).

There is currently no detailed, stepwise framework that systematically incorporates environmental sustainability as a primary consideration. Wood et al. ( 19 ) piloted such a framework for Sweden with food-system elements by performing a stepwise simulation to iteratively adjust a healthy diet in order to improve environmental outcomes. However, this framework is yet to be implemented.

One strength of the FSBDGs put forth by the FAO is the focus on implementation, following a theory of change including intermediate and long-term outcomes ( 74 ). The theory of change draws from the conceptual framework of sustainable food systems for better nutrition, which was established by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition ( 76 ). It includes how FBDGs as an intervention can lead to the fulfilment of the desired goals (SDGs and/or PBs).

3.6.1 Level of impact

The Systems First approach can be considered as path-breaking in that it has the potential to be a disruptive innovation by considering health and the environment equally and creating major changes by setting the food system on an entirely new pathway that differs from past norms. This approach can help prioritise competing demands and if well applied, could also support the 12 dimensions of the social foundation in the Doughnut-model of Raworth ( 77 ). These 12 dimensions are derived from internationally agreed minimum social standards, as identified by the world’s governments in the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 ( 37 ). To make a real systemic transformation happen, the establishment of not just an enabling but a normative environment, guiding the technological innovation process is needed ( 29 ).

4 Discussion and policy implications

The paper has outlined six different approaches for incorporating environmental sustainability into FBDGs and discussed the need to raise the ambition of current guidelines so that future FBDGs are more disruptive. In a world in which climate change, biodiversity loss, food security and diet-related illnesses are all of major concern, dietary shifts towards ‘planet-based diets’ ( 78 ) have been shown to be one of the most effective actions for addressing the multiple converging environmental and health crises we are experiencing today. To help achieve these dietary shifts, developing ambitious national FBDGs may provide the single greatest opportunity for policymakers to develop coherent food and agricultural priorities across all parts of the food system to alleviate all forms of malnutrition while reducing the environmental impact of food systems ( Figure 2 ). Despite this, most FBDGs are not ambitious enough to achieve both health and environmental goals ( 15 ). In addition, when revisions to FBDGs do happen, countries tend to adopt incremental approaches when either diversifying or path-breaking approaches are needed to solve the urgent problems at hand.

Figure 2 . Food systems account for roughly a third of global GHG emissions and if ignored (i.e., Business-As-Usual) will use the remaining carbon budget to stay within 2°C of warming. However, if a food system approach is used, addressing production, consumption and reductions in food loss and waste, food based GHG emissions can be reduced to be in line limiting warming to 1.5°C. Of all actions, dietary shifts have the single largest impact for emissions reductions (WWF; ( 40 )).

However, there are a few countries that have taken significant steps in fully integrating environmental sustainability into their FBDGs and important lessons can be learned from those countries (e.g., Netherlands, Denmark). But not all countries have either the expertise, capacity or financial resources or commitment of, for example, the Nordics, Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands to carry out such a detailed and resource-intense process as described especially in Approaches 3, 4 and 5. Therefore, the choice of approach chosen by a country may depend not only on their level of ambition but also on the experience, budget, data, and time available as well as opportunities and avenues for policy influence. For those countries with limited capacity and or resources, support from FAO is necessary, as is the exchange of experience between countries. The WHO has also developed several work streams to support countries in their requests for greater clarity over how to change dietary patterns ( 24 ).

4.1 Why is adoption and implementation of path-breaking FBDGs so difficult?

Our paper proposes that there have been several different approaches to how countries have integrated environmental sustainability into FBDGs, in other words, how to tackle the concept of sustainable diets in order to recommend healthy and sustainable diets in FBDGs. This diversity of approaches and lack of a unified coherent position on sustainable diets, despite the recommendation from the FAO, WHO, and scientific community, indicates that policy-makers may still feel sustainable diets are a ‘tricky’ concept to take on politically or it may also be due to a lack of good data and experience on how to develop guidelines that fully integrate environmental sustainability.

Why is this the case? To date, few governments have wanted to engage with the multi-criteria messages ( 75 ) about the science-based synergies between health and sustainability. Their policy concerns have been mostly about cost – keeping rising populations fed with enough, safe and healthy foods. In addition, food politics has also been changed by consumerist culture which centres on individual consumer choice. Civil society organisations (with some exceptions) have been indifferent. Taken together, this has created a policy situation that can be summarised as ‘leave it to consumers’ plus ‘leave it to market dynamics.’

The food industry (i.e., Big Food) has also met the sustainable diet challenge with a mixture of commercial reluctance (‘it’s too hard’) and hostility (‘it will undermine processed food markets’). Béné argued that concentration of market power in the hands of the Big Food transnational corporations, together with ideology, policy incoherence, national interests and culturally-embedded aspirations create irreconcilable trade-offs and tensions and prevent the system from aligning toward a more sustainable trajectory ( 29 ).

However, the problem for integrating environmental sustainability into FBDGs is a strategy more than just policy (focusing on how to get change, not exclusively on the end goal) ( 74 ). In this paper, the strong evidence that food consumption has an impact on both health and the environment has been our starting point. Responses to that evidence, however, have been (a) slow to emerge, (b) seemingly unable to prevent impacts, (c) received much opposition from lobbies, and (d) limited to national scale. The examples given in Approaches 1, 2, and 3 highlight that barriers exist to fully integrate the concept of environmental sustainability into FBDGs.

The challenge of integration of environmental sustainability into FBDGs, which would mean acceptance of healthy and sustainable diets as a concept, is not just a challenge to society (e.g., tackling climate change) or the food system (e.g., building resilience into the food system), it is also a challenge to governance: companies can be threatened, special interests can be threatened, the economic doctrine that consumer choice drives the food economy can be threatened.

Our paper provides an overview of the approaches that have been used to integrate environmental sustainability (i.e., sustainable diets) into FBDGs. Approaches 1 is the safest approach and does very little to disrupt the status quo or challenge governance at large. Approaches 2, 3 and 4 take important steps in the direction of integrating environmental sustainability into FBDGS but still lead to mainly smaller changes or sustaining the status quo. However, only approaches 5 and 6 can be considered path-breaking in that they are meant to set the system on an entirely new pathway that diverges from past norms.

It is no wonder why so few countries have used these approaches to date, and the countries that have used them (e.g., Netherlands, Denmark) still face challenges with universal adoption by the general public. Yet, only these approaches can help meet global health and environmental sustainability goals, as long as the environmental constraints used in the modelling are ambitious enough to achieve the SDGs, Paris Agreement, and the Global Biodiversity Framework. Anything short of ambitious path-breaking approaches will preclude our chances of tackling the multiple converging crises we are facing in climate change, biodiversity loss and the triple burden of disease ( 79 ).

There are several reasons why implementing path-breaking FBDGs is so difficult. FBDGs should be seen as complementary to strategic, comprehensive, and culturally appropriate dietary and health promoting interventions, and not only as a tool for providing information on nutrition and the environment. Other barriers to implementation include lack of funding for FBDGs compared to commercial advertising, lack of political support for developing coherent policy around FBDGs or because commerce finds health demands difficult enough, without addressing environmental demands as well.

Another major challenge with integrating environmental sustainability into FBDGs is that instead of culture and economy defining a good diet as ‘what we like’ and ‘what is available and affordable’, a healthy and sustainable diet is judged by multiple criteria and policymakers can find multi-criteria thinking difficult ( 75 ). Without knowing, proponents of healthy and sustainable diets have championed multi-criteria analysis and are asking governments, the public and industry to reshape how they judge food – and to do this very fast as the climate and nature crises require.

But adopting multi-criteria thinking is essential when prioritising competing demands in a complex world. In truth, we have always applied multiple criteria to judge food. Table 3 sets out some broad distinctions between types of multi-criteria guidelines for judging food. One can identify ‘Old multi-criteria guidelines’ that judged good food by, for example: size, shape, colour, smell, taste, cost, availability, familiarity, experience, culture, and religious rules. With the nutrition transition, as economies became more affluent, the ‘New multi-criteria guidelines’ emerged: massive choice, newness, excitement, modernity, packaging, marketing, branding, speed, and time.

Table 3 . Types of multi-criteria guidelines for judging food.

Adding environmental sustainability into FBDGs is thus a battleground about old and new guidelines onto which we want to add a new layer: ‘New 3.0 or emerging multi-criteria guidelines’ which include: climate change, biosphere integrity, freshwater consumption, novel entities, impacts on natural resources, fairness, animal welfare, and circularity. These criteria are increasingly used to define what is meant by a good diet or food or food system. In addition, Fanzo et al. ( 80 ) proposed an audit of food systems change based on criteria including resilience and sustainability, livelihoods, poverty, and equity. What is needed is not just more data or more evidence, but different types of data and evidence, in particular at the interface between science, society and policy in relation to food systems ( 29 ).

Opponents of healthy and sustainable diets may claim that the ‘New 3.0 multi-criteria guidelines’ take the fun (freedom of choice) out of consumer choice. We disagree. There will continue to be ample choice but some constraints on food choices are needed to ensure a long-term thriving future for humanity. We therefore consider some possible recommendations for policymakers faced with negotiating this new complexity.

4.2 Recommendations for policy makers

The analysis presented here implies some change in direction for many food-related policy actors. Today, the ambition to feed all people healthily is not enough. We also must also consider how to produce this food sustainably. Understandably, this new but urgent path for the 21st century can create divisions among policy makers who may find addressing sustainable diets too difficult. This new path can also surface social and economic divisions. Low and middle income countries (LMIC) may accuse High Income Countries (HICs) of advising them (again) to do what they have not done themselves while all countries suffer the health and environmental consequences of the rapid spread of unhealthy and unsustainable foods. In addition, LMICs must also urgently address the burden of hunger and undernutrition, while many HICs must address issues of overconsumption. Given the very different social and economic conditions faced by countries, our recommendations below are carefully phrased to allow for those very different circumstances.

Above all, the healthy and sustainable diet challenge requires collaborative action. No-one can claim their national situation is impregnably sound or immune to the risks ahead. Nor is there a single policy lever that can even dent the problem now facing humanity. Table 4 presents six key points of entry into this global policy challenge.

Table 4 . Six recommendations for policymakers faced with negotiating this new complexity of ‘New 3.0 multi-criteria guidelines’.

Firstly, societies must see the case for change. This requires a wide range of policy actors in government (at all levels), civil society, food business and science to try to speak with more unified voices on that case for change. No-one will be unaffected. Societies must either begin to address the challenge or else change is likely to be forced on them later by events in worsening crises.

Secondly, public health and diet-related professions must accept, however reluctantly, that the old era of FBDGs is coming to a close. We can no longer argue that food must only be viewed through the lens of nutrients. Food’s embedded environmental impact might matter as much, and sometimes more.

Thirdly, coalitions of interest should be created to agree on their Combined Strategies – how they are going to aid and improve the process of change to healthy and sustainable diets. This will manifest differently in LMICs than in HICs.

Fourthly, even countries that produce almost all of their food now live in a world where actions in one can affect others. Food illustrates how the world is connected, if not in actual transfer of food, then of tastes, styles, aspirations and knowledge. Professional bodies with solid international links can help that global learning.

Fifthly, the FAO and WHO remain the ‘peak’ relevant bodies through which exchange can happen. UN bodies are sometimes criticised for being an arena where vested national interests emerge, however food is and must be a focus for cooperation.

Sixthly, with the emergence of multi-criteria approaches to food systems and diets, the need for solid science and evidence becomes even more important than usual. Policy analysts like to aim for ‘evidence-based policy’ when, as in this case, what is needed is more evidence that illuminates policy options, or ‘policy-based evidence’.

4.3 Future research directions

This paper outlines six approaches that have been used in the development of FBDGs. Past research has focused on the healthiness and sustainability of FBDGs ( 15 , 16 ) and also on the methodologies used in FBDGs. Robust methodologies, including the recently developed FSBDGs ( 74 ) now exist that can guide countries in the process of developing ambitious FBDGs that incorporate both health and environmental sustainability. However, very little research has been devoted to the implementation of FBDGs and the barriers that may enhance or hinder their adoption.

Although a common methodology can be helpful to guide the development of FBDGS, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that can drive the successful implementation of FBDGs in all countries around the world. Different regions and nations face a range of diverse opportunities and challenges shaped by local ecology, culture, histories and levels of development. Given this, implementation of FBDGs needs to be place-based and future research should focus on understanding the enabling conditions in each country that would support successful implementation.

Understanding these details is very important. But it is equally as important to not become mired in or overwhelmed by the endless complexity that exists from country to country and miss opportunities to learn from or replicate effective solutions. Typologies can be helpful for reducing complexity to a level where we can work with it and learn from it, rather than being overwhelmed by it. For example, WWF developed a global food systems typology that integrates both health and environmental variables and identified key transformation levers for each food system type ( 81 ). In addition, the World Economic Forum adopted a typology from Marshall et al. ( 82 ) to help inform country level roadmaps for food, nature, and health transitions. And finally, FAO plans to release a detailed methodology for FSBDGs in 2024 ( 74 ). Future research can build on this promising line of inquiry to help reduce the complexity of successful implementation of FBDGs by identifying repeatable country models that are based on local conditions.

5 Conclusion

The paper has outlined six different approaches for incorporating environmental sustainability into FBDGs and the need to raise the ambition of current guidelines. As Mason and Lang comment, ‘SDGs cannot be met unless the food system changes. The food system cannot change unless consumers change, and the consumer change needs to be shaped by clear evidence-informed guidelines, hence the case for Sustainable Dietary Guidelines’ (i.e., FSBDGs) ( 35 ). The government’s role within this web of actors is to lead, facilitate updates and publish science-based FBDGs that incorporate environmental and social sustainability.

There is a growing consensus for the need of a food systems approach to address the complexity of food system transformation. There has been a disconnect in the past amongst researchers, policymakers, politicians, and practitioners, and some reluctance of governments to apply multi-criteria thinking has followed ( 75 ). Today, there is growing scientific consensus that foods that are good for human health are also good for the environment. There is also a growing recognition that food system change is inevitable and desirable, shared by nutritionists, environmentalists, other scientists concerned about food’s impacts and even sections of food industries resistant in the past. We see this as a positive opportunity to collaborate on FBDGs more appropriate for the 21st century. Discussions over guidelines and food systems already acknowledge the sociocultural dimensions of the sustainability agenda, where food constitutes a major cultural transmission link. We see the sustainable diet challenge as contributing to this new consensus. It is important not only to develop healthy and sustainable FBDGs, but also to implement them, and to help consumers adopt the diets being recommended. Coherence and consensus about new healthy and sustainable FBDGs could help engage with civil society and the media and reinforce the importance of sustainable food systems in the political agenda. Teamwork between scientists, policymakers, politicians, and practitioners is essential ( 83 ), especially further research into better understanding the barriers to adopting FBDGs and how these barriers can be lowered. Importantly, given the very different social and economic conditions faced by countries, the development and implementation of FBDGs must be place based and consider local realities. Given sustainability and systemic pressures on food supply and consumption, we expect that further improvement of 21st century FBDGs, refinement of methodologies and lowering of barriers for implementation will be critical, not least if crises accelerate. The case for healthy and sustainable diets is unlikely to disappear.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

CD developed the approaches and design of the study with input from all authors and performed the literature research and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SH, HM, LN, MS-S, and ET wrote sections of the manuscript related to their country. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Francesco Branca, WHO Geneva, and Afton Halloran, and Kremlin Wickramasinghe from WHO Regional Office for Europe, for providing input about WHO activities. We also greatly appreciate the comments of Ana Islas Ramos and Fatima Hachem from FAO, Carolin Schäfer from DGE, and Lisette Brink from the Netherlands Nutrition Centre.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Gussow, JD, and Clancy, K. Dietary guidelines for sustainability. J Nutr Educ . (1986) 18:1–5. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3182(86)80255-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. FAO. Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger . FAO Headquarters, Rome: Presented at the International Scientific Symposium (2010).

Google Scholar

3. Livsmedelsverket, Environmental Protection Agency. The National Food Administration’s environmentally effective food choices . Stockholm, Sweden: Livsmedelverket, National Food Administration Sweden (2009).

4. Gerlach, A, Hohfeld, L, Schamhorst, S, and Schudak, A. The Sustainable Shopping Basket . Berlin: German Council for Sustainable Development (2009).

5. Auestad, N, and Fulgoni, VL. What current literature tells us about sustainable diets: emerging research linking dietary patterns, environmental sustainability, and economics. Adv Nutr Int Rev J . (2015) 6:19–36. doi: 10.3945/an.114.005694

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. FAO, WHO. Sustainable Healthy Diets – Guiding Principles . Rome: FAO and WHO (2019).

7. Tetens, I, Birt, C, Boeing, H, Bodenbach, S, Bugel, S, Henauw, S, et al. Food-based dietary guidelines -development of a conceptual framework for future food based dietary guidelines in Europe. Report of a FENS task-force workshop in Copenhagen, accepted manuscript running title: conceptual framework for future food-based dietary guidelines. Br J Nutr . (2020) 124:1338–44. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520002469

8. Willett, W, Rockström, J, Loken, B, Springmann, M, Lang, T, Vermeulen, S, et al. Food in the anthropocene: the EAT-lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet . (2019) 393:447–92. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31788-4

9. Loken, B. Diets for a Better Future: Rebooting and Reimagining Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems in the G20 . Stockholm: EAT Forum (2020).

10. Buchner, B, Fischler, C, Fitoussi, J-P, Monti, M, Riccardi, G, Ricordi, C, et al. Double Pyramid: Healthy Food for People, Sustainable Food for the Planet . Milan, Italy: Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition (2010).

11. HealthCouncil. Guidelines for a Healthy Diet: The Ecological Perspective . The Hague, Netherlands: Gezondheidsraad (2011).

12. Reddy, S, Lang, T, and Dibb, S. Setting the Table, Advice to Government on Priority Elements of Sustainable Diets . London: Sustainable Development Commission (2009).

13. Reynolds, CJ, Buckley, JD, Weinstein, P, and Boland, J. Are the dietary guidelines for meat, fat, fruit, and vegetable consumption appropriate for environmental sustainability? A review of the literature. Nutrients . (2014) 6:2251–65. doi: 10.3390/nu6062251

14. Clark, MA, Springmann, M, Hill, J, and Tilman, D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc Natl Acad Sci . (2019) 116:23357–62. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1906908116

15. Springmann, M, Spajic, L, Clark, MA, Poore, J, Herforth, A, Webb, P, et al. The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. BMJ . (2020) 370:m2322. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2322

16. Loken, B, Opperman, J, Orr, S, Fleckenstein, M, Helevy, S, McFeely, P, et al. Bending the Curve: The Restorative Power of Planet-Based Diets . Gland, Switzerland: WWF International (2020).

17. Fischer, CG, and Garnett, T. Plates, Pyramids, Planet; Developments in National Healthy and Sustainable Dietary Guidelines: A State of Play Assessment . Rome: FAO (2016).

18. James-Martin, G, Baird, DL, Hendrie, GA, Bogard, J, Anastasiou, K, Brooker, PG, et al. Environmental sustainability in national food-based dietary guidelines: a global review. Lancet Planetary Health . (2022) 6:e977–86. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00246-7

19. Wood, A, Moberg, E, Curi-Quinto, K, Van Rysselberge, P, and Röös, E. From “good for people” to “good for people and planet” – placing health and environment on equal footing when developing food-based dietary guidelines. Food Policy . (2023) 117:102444. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102444

20. FAO (2022). Food-Based Dietary Guidelines. Available at: https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/en/ (Accessed July 29, 2022).

21. EC (2022). Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Knowledge Gateway: Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in Europe. European Commission. Available at: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/topic/food-based-dietary-guidelines-europe_en#nav_Tocch2 (Accessed December 20, 2022).

22. Wollgast, J., Storcksdieck Bonsmann, S., and Tan, M., Meusel, V., Grammatikaki, E., and Bakogianni, I. (2018): Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in Europe. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) [Dataset] PID. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/89h/fbe7d116-46bf-41e9-a1c7-402052038ea0 (Accessed November 10, 2021).

23. FAO. White Paper on Improving Methodology to Develop Food Based Dietary Guidelines and Incorporating Sustainability Considerations (Concept) . Rome/Wageningen: FAO (2019).

24. WHO. Plant-Based Diets and Their Impact on Health, Sustainability, and the Environment: A Review of the Evidence: WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases . Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (2021).

25. Schäfer, AC, Schmidt, A, Bechthold, A, Boeing, H, Watzl, B, Darmon, N, et al. Integration of various dimensions in food-based dietary guidelines via mathematical approaches: report of a DGE/FENS workshop in Bonn, Germany, 23–24 September 2019. Br J Nutr . (2020) 126:942–9. doi: 10.1017/S0007114520004857

26. Van Dooren, C. Sustainability in FBDGs: The Dutch Approach. Presented at the Diet and Sustainability NNR2020 . Oslo Webinar: Helsedirektoratet Norge (2020).

27. Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E., and McDonald, R. (2015), “What Is Disruptive Innovation?” Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation . (Accessed December 01, 2015).

28. WWF In: P Loring, B Loken, M Meyer, S Polack, A Paolini, and R Nyiawung, et al., editors. Solving the Great Food Puzzle: Right Innovation, Right Impact, Right Place . Gland, Switzerland: WWF (2023)

29. Béné, C. Why the great food transformation may not happen – a deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence. World Dev . (2022) 154:105881. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105881

30. Blomhoff, R, Andersen, R, Arnesen, EK, Christensen, JJ, Eneroth, H, Erkkola, M, et al. Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023 . Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers (2023).

31. DGAC. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (Advisory Report) . Washington, USA: USDA, Department of Agriculture (2015).

32. Nelson, ME, Hamm, MW, Hu, FB, Abrams, SA, and Griffin, TS. Alignment of healthy dietary patterns and environmental sustainability: a systematic review. Adv Nutr Int Rev J . (2016) 7:1005–25. doi: 10.3945/an.116.012567

33. USDA and USDHHS. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025 . 9th ed U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2020).

34. MinHealthBrazil. Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population . Brasilia: Ministry of Health of Brazil (2014).

35. Mason, P, and Lang, T. Sustainable Diets: How Ecological Nutrition can Transform Consumption and the Food System . Abingdon, UK: Routledge (2017).

36. ScalingUp Nutrition. The Nutrition in the SDGs Toolkit . Geneva, Switzerland: ScalingUp Nutrition (2022).

37. UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . New York: United Nations (2015).

38. Norden. Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2012 . Copenhagen: Integrating Nutrition and Physical Activity, Nordic Council of Ministers (2014).

39. Livsmedelsverket. Find Your Way, Eat Greener, Not Too Much and be Active . Uppsala, Sweden: Livsmedelsverket (2015).

40. Ruokavirasto (2023). Sustainable Food Choices on the Plate. Available at: https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/foodstuffs/healthy-diet/sustainable-food-choices-on-the-plate/ (Accessed February 17, 2023)

41. Christensen, J, Arnesen, EK, Andersen, R, Eneroth, H, Erkkola, M, Høyer, A, et al. The Nordic nutrition recommendations 2022 – principles and methodologies. Food Nutr Res . (2020) 64:4402. doi: 10.29219/fnr.v64.4402

42. Helsedirektoratet (2024). Kostråd (Høringsutkast) (In Norwegian; Food Advice Public Hearing). Available at: https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/faglige-rad/kostrad-horingsutkast (Accessed May 13, 2024)

43. PHE. The Eatwell Guide. How Does It Differ to the Eatwell Plate and Why? London: Public Health England (2016).

44. CarbonTrust. The Eatwell Guide: A More Sustainable Diet . Carbon Trust, London: Methodology and Results Summary (2016).

45. Cobiac, LJ, Scarborough, P, Kaur, A, and Rayner, M. The Eatwell guide: modelling the health implications of incorporating new sugar and fibre guidelines. PLoS One . (2016) 11:e0167859. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167859

46. Scarborough, P, Kaur, A, Cobiac, L, Owens, P, Parlesak, A, Sweeney, K, et al. Eatwell guide: modelling the dietary and cost implications of incorporating new sugar and fibre guidelines. BMJ Open . (2016) 6:e013182. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013182

47. Renzella, J, Townsend, N, Jewell, J, Breda, J, and Roberts, N. What National and Subnational Interventions and Policies Based on Mediterranean and Nordic Diets are Recommended or Implemented in the WHO European Region, and Is There Evidence of Effectiveness in Reducing Noncommunicable Diseases? Copenhagen: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe (2018).

48. Bere, E, and Brug, J. Towards health-promoting and environmentally friendly regional diets? A Nordic example. Public Health Nutr . (2009) 12:91–6. doi: 10.1017/S1368980008001985

49. Van Dooren, C, and Aiking, H. Defining a nutritionally healthy, environmentally friendly, and culturally acceptable low lands diet. Int J Life Cycle Assess . (2016) 21:688–700. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-1007-3

50. WHO. Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, Netherlands . Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO (2013).

51. Kennedy, E, Racsa, P, Dallal, G, Lichtenstein, AH, Goldberg, J, Jacques, P, et al. Alternative approaches to the calculation of nutrient density. Nutr Rev . (2008) 66:703–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00124.x

52. Health Canada. Canada’s Dietary Guidelines for Health Professionals and Policy Makers . Ottawa: Health Canada (2019).

53. Vlaams Instituut Gezond Leven. Substantiation of the Vision on Nutrition and Sustainability; Background Document for Updated Guidelines and Visual Representation of the Food Triangle (in Flemish) . Laken, Brussels: Vlaams Instituut Gezond Leven (2017).

54. Rubens, K, Neven, L, and Jonckheere, J. Food and Environmentally Responsible Consumption: Towards Healthy Food Patterns for a Healthy Planet – Background Document for the Food Triangle Recommendations . Belgium: Flemish Institute for Healthy Living (Vlaams Instituut Gezond Leven i.s.m. departement Omgeving en Agentschap Zorg en Gezondheid), Laken (Brussels) (2021).

55. Van Dooren, C, Douma, A, Aiking, H, and Vellinga, P. Proposing a novel index reflecting both climate impact and nutritional impact of food products. Ecol Econ . (2017) 131:389–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.029

56. Dantzig, G, and Thapa, M. Linear Programming: Introduction . New York, USA: Springer-Verlag (1997).

57. Van Dooren, C. A review of the use of linear programming to optimize diets, nutritiously. Econ Environm Front Nutr . (2018) 5:48. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00048

58. Macdiarmid, JI, Kyle, J, Horgan, GW, Loe, J, Fyfe, C, Johnstone, A, et al. Sustainable diets for the future: can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet? Am J Clin Nutr . (2012) 96:632–9. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.038729

59. WWF. Livewell: A Balance of Healthy and Sustainable Food Choices . Aberdeen, UK: WWF & Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health (2011).

60. Halevy, S, and Trewern, J. Eating for Net Zero. How Diet Shift Can Enable a Nature Positive Net-Zero Transition in the UK . UK: WWF-UK, Woking, Surrey (2023).

61. ANSES. Updating of the PNNS Guidelines: Revision of the Food-Based Dietary Guidelines, ANSES Opinion, Collective Expert Report . Maisons-Alfort, France: ANSES (2016).

62. Schäfer, AC, Gazan, R, Boeing, H, Breidenassel, C, Haurogne, T, Nöthlings, U, et al. Deriving sustainable food-based dietary guidelines for Germany via multidimensional optimization: insights to operationalise the diet-health dimension. Current developments. Nutrition . (2021) 5:881. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzab048_016

63. Schäfer, AC, Boeing, H, Conrad, J, and Watzl, B. Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen der lebensmittelbezogenen Ernährungsempfehlungen für Deutschland. Methodik und Ableitungskonzepte. Ernährungs. Umschau . (2024) 71:M158–M166.e5–7.

64. DGE (2024). DGE-Ernährungskreis. Available at: https://www.dge.de/gesunde-ernaehrung/gut-essen-und-trinken/dge-ernaehrungskreis/ (Accessed April 02, 2024)

65. HealthCouncil. Dutch Dietary Guidelines 2015 . The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands (2015).

66. Brink, E, van Rossum, C, Postma-Smeets, A, Stafleu, A, Wolvers, D, van Dooren, C, et al. Development of healthy and sustainable food-based dietary guidelines for the Netherlands. Public Health Nutr . (2019) 22:2419–35. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019001435

67. Brink, E, Postma-Smeets, A, Stafleu, A, and Wolvers, D. Guidelines wheel of five (in Dutch: Richtlijnen Schijf van Vijf), Voedingscentrum. Hague . (2016) 94:162–3. doi: 10.1007/s12508-016-0059-5

68. Van de Kamp, ME, Seves, SM, and Temme, EHM. Reducing GHG emissions while improving diet quality: exploring the potential of reduced meat, cheese and alcoholic and soft drinks consumption at specific moments during the day. BMC Public Health . (2018) 18:264. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5132-3

69. MFAF. The Official Dietary Guidelines – Good for Health and Climate . Copenhagen: Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries; The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (2021).

70. Pollan, M. Food Rules, An Eater’s Manual Penquin Books (2009).

71. Lassen, AD, Christensen, LM, Fagt, S, and Trolle, E. Guidance for Sustainable Healthy Diets - Scientific Background for Revising the Danish FBDGs [Råd om bæredygtig sund kost - Fagligt grundlag for et supplement til De officielle Kostråd 2020] . Copenhagen: DTU Fødevareinstituttet (2020).

72. Lassen, AD, Christensen, LM, and Trolle, E. Development of a Danish adapted healthy plant-based diet based on the EAT-lancet reference diet. Nutrients . (2020) 12:738. doi: 10.3390/nu12030738

73. Trolle, E, Nordman, M, Lassen, AD, Colley, TA, and Mogensen, L. Carbon footprint reduction by transitioning to a diet consistent with the Danish climate-friendly dietary guidelines: a comparison of different carbon footprint databases. Foods . (2022) 11. doi: 10.3390/foods11081119

74. FAO. Food Systems-Based Dietary Guidelines, An Overview . Rome: FAO (2024).

75. Lang, T. UK food policy: implications for nutritionists. Proc Nutr Soc . (2022) 81:176–89. doi: 10.1017/S0029665122000817

76. HLPE. Nutrition and Food Systems. A Report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security . Rome: HLPE (2017).

77. Raworth, K. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity. Can We Live Within the Doughnut? Oxfam: Oxfam Discussion Paper (2012).

78. WWF. Bending the Curve: The Restorative Power of Planet-Based Diets . Gland, Switzerland: WWF (2020).

79. Karn, M, and Sharma, M. Climate change, natural calamities and the triple burden of disease. Nat Clim Chang . (2021) 11:796–7. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01164-w

80. Fanzo, J, Haddad, L, Schneider, K, Béné, C, Covic, N, Guarin, A, et al. Viewpoint: rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals. Food Policy . (2021) 104:102163. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102163

81. WWF. Solving the Great Food Puzzle: 20 Levers to Scale National Action . Gland, Switzerland: WWF (2024).

82. Marshall, Q, Fanzo, J, Barrett, CB, Jones, AD, Herforth, A, and McLaren, R. Building a global food systems typology: a new tool for reducing complexity in food systems analysis. Front Sustain Food Syst . (2021) 5:6512. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.746512

83. Egal, F, and Berry, E. Moving towards sustainability—bringing the threads together. Front Sustain Food Syst . (2020) 4:9. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00009

Keywords: environmental sustainability, food-based dietary guidelines, food systems, food system transformation, sustainable diets

Citation: Dooren Cv, Loken B, Lang T, Meltzer HM, Halevy S, Neven L, Rubens K, Seves-Santman M and Trolle E (2024) The planet on our plates: approaches to incorporate environmental sustainability within food-based dietary guidelines. Front. Nutr . 11:1223814. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1223814

Received: 16 May 2023; Accepted: 24 June 2024; Published: 05 July 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Dooren, Loken, Lang, Meltzer, Halevy, Neven, Rubens, Seves-Santman and Trolle. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Corné van Dooren, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.