Content uploaded by Paola Garrone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paola Garrone on Jan 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Opening the black box of food waste reduction
Garrone, P., Melacini, M., & Perego, A. (2014). Opening the black box of food
waste reduction. Food policy, 46, 129-139.
Abstract
Surplus food management plays a key role in food waste reduction. This paper
addresses the multifaceted concept of food supply chain sustainability by presenting
a model of surplus food generation and management (called ASRW, Availability-
Surplus-Recoverability-Waste), which encompasses the integrated food supply chain
(i.e. business, environmental and social players). The model was developed using a
bottom-up approach, by conducting 30 exploratory case studies and iterating theory
development and data analysis. Three confirmatory case studies, from different food
supply chain stages, are also presented to demonstrate how the model can be used to
identify food waste reduction strategies.
Keywords: surplus food, food waste, sustainable development, food supply chain
1 Introduction
This paper presents the development of a bottom-up model of surplus food
generation and management by combining conceptual arguments with an empirical
analysis of the food supply chain. The objective was to devise a methodology that
can be used to understand and quantify surplus food, “recoverable” surplus food
and food waste, at company, sector and country levels.
2
There are several issues related to food waste, food security and the management of
surplus food that have created a need for research in this area. Food waste is
acknowledged to be a huge problem worldwide, even though the definition of
various terms and information collection processes are not yet well harmonized.
Gustavsson et al. (2011) estimated that food wastage is particularly severe in
developed countries, with estimates as high as 280-300 kilograms per capita per year
in Europe and North America. In the United States, food waste and losses at the
retail and consumer levels were found to amount to 188 kilograms per capita per
year, or an overall value of 165.6 billion dollars (Buzby and Hyman, 2012).
Countries in the European Union (EU) are reported to generate 179 kilograms per
capita of food waste every year, exclusive of agricultural waste (O’Connor, 2013).
The picture, though patchy, is at variance with the available data on food security,
even in developed regions (see Section 2). In 2011, 5.7% of American households
experienced a disruption to their normal eating patterns due to limited resources
(Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012), and 8.8% of EU inhabitants suffered severe material
deprivations, which in many cases entailed insufficient protein in the diet (Eurostat,
2013). The incongruity between food waste and food security data is a strong
indicator that an integrated approach to these two issues could be of significant
value.
Surplus food management is increasingly acknowledged to be a lever for the
mitigation of food insecurity, especially in developed countries. Both surplus food
reduction at the source and its recovery for human consumption are critical elements
in the global food security effort, along with the growth of agricultural productivity,
the evolution of dietary habits (especially in developed countries) and the
enhancement of food-chain infrastructure (especially in developing countries).
Surplus food can be recovered and donated to help those in need (Kantor et al.,
1997; Tarasuk and Eakin, 2003; Partfitt et al., 2010; Gentilini, 2013; Garnett, 2013),
or can be reduced at the source for a more efficient use of input resources (Cuellar
and Webber 2010; Buzby et al., 2011; Buzby and Hyman, 2012). At the same time,
reducing food waste is, per se, an important part of the effort to attain environmental
3
goals. In fact, both source reduction and recovery are high-priority strategies in the
food waste hierarchy (EPA 2006).
Finally, the research presented in this paper was motivated by the belief that a
bottom-up approach is needed to understand and model surplus food generation and
management throughout the food supply chain, and to obtain sound empirical
information. Until several years ago, there were relatively few analytical and
empirical studies on sustainable food management, and some methodological
concerns were raised in relation to these studies (see Section 2). More recently, there
have been quite a few in-depth studies that have addressed this issue in developed
countries (e.g. Griffin et al., 2009; Mena et al., 2011; Sonnino and McWilliam,
2011; Buzby and Hyman, 2012; Beretta et al., 2013). The literature in this emerging
field of research has provided two much needed additions to the pre-existing
research: the scope of the analysis has now been explicitly defined (e.g. food waste
is distinguished from food scraps), and it has been made evident that generalizations
cannot be made. There is, in fact, considerable variability between available
estimates of food waste and losses due to differences in geographic setting, sample
size, and supply chain stage considered.
Suggestions from recent studies have been incorporated in the work presented in this
paper. Accordingly, a micro-level perspective has been assumed, i.e. individual
players (e.g. farmers, manufacturers, retailers) have been analysed, and an
empirically-based methodology for analysing the food supply chain has been
proposed. Current ideas presented in the literature are encompassed in the
conceptualization of surplus food management and recovery proposed here. The
focus is on two key concepts: “Surplus Food”, i.e. the edible food that is produced,
manufactured, retailed or served but for various reasons is not sold to or consumed
by the intended customer; and “Food Waste”, i.e. the surplus food that is not
recovered to feed people, to feed animals, to produce new products (e.g. jams or
juices), new materials (e.g. fertilizers) or energy.
This paper also makes two original contributions to this developing field of research:
it presents a unified conceptual model that can support the analysis of both the
supply chain as a whole and its individual stages, and, coherently with the bottom-
4
up vision, the conceptual model has been customised within the different stages of
the food supply chain, i.e. agriculture and fishing, manufacturing, retail trade, food
service and household consumption.
There are a number of reasons why the proposed methodology can be a useful tool.
The unified model provides policy-makers and managers with a common language,
i.e. clear-cut concepts and keywords that can be used at a company, sector or
country levels. Customization of the model to describe the different supply chain
segments provides a means of differentiating surplus food and food waste generated
by different companies and sectors based on the “degree of recoverability”. This
information, in turn, is essential if policy-makers are to determine targets that are
challenging yet attainable, and to prioritize recovery efforts. Finally, this
methodology can be used to monitor and quantify surplus food and food waste. This
is necessary if managers are to be able to implement strategies that are coherent with
the food waste hierarchy, and for policymakers to design bottom-up quantitative
assessment plans.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. The main contributions to the
literature on surplus food management are discussed in Section 2. The research
framework in terms of objectives and methodology is presented in Section 3. In
Section 4 a conceptual model for assessing surplus food and food waste is proposed.
In Section 5 the model is customised across supply chain stages. Finally, in Section
6 the model is applied to three case studies. Conclusions and suggestions for further
research are proposed in the final section.
2 Literature review
This section presents a review of the extant research on the generation and
management of surplus food and food waste. The literature was reviewed according
to five perspectives: relevance of the issue; scope of existing analyses;
methodologies used to assess the phenomenon; quantitative estimates of surplus
food; strategies and policies for managing surplus food.
5
2.1 Food security and the relevance of surplus food management
The FAO (United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization) stated in 1996 that
“food security” exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary
needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (Pinstrup-Andersen,
2009)
1
. This definition highlights the two main aspects of food insecurity and
poverty: (i) food availability and access (Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009), and (ii) food
safety, i.e. safe and healthy food, in contrast to eating issues such as obesity and
malnutrition (Aiking and De Boer, 2004). Over 820 million undernourished people
live in developing countries, but food security is also an issue in developed regions,
where 15.7 million people are undernourished (FAO, 2013).
A multifaceted and coherent global strategy is needed to address the food security
challenge (Godfray and Charles, 2010), especially as the world population is
projected to reach 9.6 billion in 2050. As in the past, an environmentally sustainable
increase in agricultural productivity is crucial to solving the problem of feeding the
world over the long term (Beddington, 2010; OECD, 2013). Another element is
related to dietary changes, particularly to a reduction of meat fractions in both
emerging and rich countries (Godfray and Charles, 2010). Finally, food security is
also dependent on the management of food waste (Kantor et al., 1997).
Gustavsson et al. (2011) estimated that global food losses and waste throughout the
food supply chain have reached 1.3 billion tonnes per year, i.e. one-third of global
food production. However, different strategies are needed to tackle the food waste
issue in developing and developed countries. In the developing world, food losses
are mainly attributable to the absence of food-chain infrastructure and a lack of
knowledge or investment in technologies (Godfray and Charles, 2010). The issues
are different in developed countries, where surplus food generation plays a
1
Food poverty entails an only slightly different definition, i.e. the situation whereby a person
does not have reasonable access to food that would provide a healthy diet, because of
insufficient income, or unreasonable difficulties of distance, transport or similar, or
inadequate information (Alexander and Smaje, 2008).
6
prominent role (e.g. overstocking or preparing too much food due to difficulties in
predicting the number of customers) (Buzby and Hyman, 2012).
Therefore, when focusing on developed countries, surplus food management is a key
element of the food security issue. The recovery of surplus food is a way of
providing food to those who need it (Parfitt et al., 2010). Its reduction at the source
can free up valuable resources that can be better used to respond to the food security
challenge. Indeed, as highlighted by Buzby et al. (2011) and Buzby and Hyman
(2012), food waste represents a significant amount of economic resources consumed
throughout the food lifecycle (production, warehousing, transportation). Engstrom
and Carlsson (2004) estimated food losses to be 287 million portions each year at
food service institutions in Sweden, corresponding to a monetary value of just under
1 billion euros. Cuéllar and Webber (2010) estimated that the energy embedded in
wasted food represents approximately 2% of annual energy consumption in the
United States. Moreover, food production causes negative impacts on the
environment, mainly in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (Levis et al., 2010),
water consumption (Darlington and Rahimifard, 2006), pollution (Garnett, 2013)
and decreased biodiversity (Engstrom and Carlsson, 2004).
As discussed in the introduction, the responsible management of surplus food can
represent part of the solution to food security and environmental challenges, namely
the need to feed more people while making the food value chain more
environmentally sustainable and resilient (Garnett, 2013).
2.2 Scope of analysis
A key aspect of the literature review is the scope of analysis, which varies
significantly between studies. Definitions of terms related to surplus food
management (e.g. food losses and food waste) are not yet shared universally (Buzby
and Hyman, 2012), making it difficult to compare the findings of studies on the
management of surplus food between different countries. In some cases the scope is
"food losses" (Beretta et al., 2013; Buzby and Hyman, 2012; Kantor et al., 1997;
Mena et al., 2011), in others, "food waste" (Griffin et al., 2009; Kummu et al., 2012;
Partfitt et al., 2010; Sonnino and McWilliam, 2011). “Food losses” usually refers to
7
edible food, lost at any stage of the supply chain, such as meats, bread, discarded or
unserved restaurant-prepared food, or products that are unmarketable for aesthetic
reasons, but otherwise edible and safe (Kantor et al., 1997), and excludes only the
inedible part that cannot be used for human consumption (Tarasuk and Eakin, 2005).
“Food waste” is often defined as food lost at any stage of the supply chain, including
crops damaged during harvesting, food damaged during transport or food discarded
and mixed with other wastes (Griffin et al., 2009), i.e. edible food losses mixed with
garbage or leftovers that are not necessarily edible. In addition, a distinction should
be made between the different types of waste generated in a production process. For
example, Darlington and Rahimifard (2006) distinguish between the wastage of
finished products and the waste from production, including process waste,
overproduction waste and bulk organic waste.
For these reasons, there are two main shortcomings in the literature. First, the
comparison of the results between different studies is difficult. Second, since there is
no distinction between edible and non-edible food losses in many studies, the results
cannot be directly used in the pursuit of both social and environmental goals.
2.3 Methodologies
The methodologies used to analyse and quantify the phenomenon (surplus food and
food waste) also differ significantly.
With the exception of the agriculture stage, in which detailed food balance sheets are
used (e.g. Gustavsson et al., 2011), the quantification of food losses is very difficult
(Partfitt et al., 2010) and has led to the development of different approaches (Hall et
al., 2009). These differ in the way in which food losses are estimated at different
stages and for different countries.
With reference to food losses and food waste estimates, the majority of academic
papers use third-party sources (Buzby and Hyman, 2012; Griffin et al., 2009; Kantor
et al., 1997; Kummu et al., 2012). In other cases, a sample of companies (Mena et
al., 2011) is considered. Finally a mix of third-party sources and data from a sample
of companies has also been used (Beretta et al., 2013). In order to avoid incurring
aggregation biases in the estimates, the different stages are always analysed
8
separately (i.e. manufacturing, retail trade, food service, household consumption)
and are often differentiated by product categories (e.g. ambient-temperature and
chilled and frozen products, as in Mena et al. 2011). The sample size is not usually
high (e.g. 43 case studies in Mena et al., 2011, 4 cases for the retailer stage in
WRAP, 2010, 31 firms in Beretta et al. 2013), because detailed data are difficult to
find (Griffin et al., 2009).
Two approaches have been used to estimate the overall extent of food losses and
food waste: (i) an analysis of municipal solid waste (e.g. Hall et al., 2009;
Ondersteijn et al., 2006); and (ii) inferential methods, applying waste factors
measured in sample populations to the whole food system (e.g. Kantor et al., 1997;
Griffin et al., 2009). The first approach may lead to an over-assessment of food
losses because it considers all the different categories of food waste (i.e. edible and
non-edible). As to the second approach, the inference is carried out using official
statistical data and then used in projections. For example, estimates by Kantor et al.
(1997) and Buzby and Hyman (2012) are based on the amount of available food
published annually by the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), adjusted for
a percentage of non-edible food parts. Griffin et al. (2009) considered the number of
companies located in one U.S. county as the inferential basis. In some studies, the
sector turnover is considered as the inferential basis (e.g. WRAP, 2010 for the retail
stage). In Gustavsson et al. (2011) the amount of food losses is obtained using a
"mass flow model". The starting point, for all commodities, is agricultural
production volume. Then, by applying appropriate coefficients (mostly obtained
from the literature), the edible mass and the food losses for each stage of the supply
chain are computed.
2.4 Surplus food and food waste quantification
Due to differences in conceptual models and methodologies, quantitative results are
hard to compare. Country-specific analyses of industrialized countries are relatively
more homogenous and their results can be summarized as follows. Kantor et al.
(1997) analysed the U.S. food supply chain and found that the food losses, i.e.
9
wasted edible products, represent 1% of the production volume at the retail trade
stage and 26% at the household consumption stage. If this amount is divided by the
number of U.S. inhabitants, it is found that food losses of 9.41 kg/year per capita are
generated at the retail stage, while 157 kg/year per capita are generated at the
household consumption stage. Likewise food losses from the whole Swiss supply
chain amount to 299 kg/year per capita, including 12 and 135 kg/year per capita
respectively at retail and household stages (Beretta et al., 2013). Finally, similar
results at the U.S. household consumption stage were obtained by Buzby and
Hyman (2012), with an amount of food losses equal to 123.9 kg/year per capita.
Again with respect to the U.S., and considering food waste, Griffin et al. (2009)
quantified a surprisingly smaller food waste value, i.e. wasted edible and non-edible
products: 21 kg/year per capita at the agriculture stage, 1 kg/year per capita at the
manufacturing stage, 20 kg/year per capita at the retail level and 63 kg/year per
capita at the household consumption stage. In the British food supply chain,
according to WRAP (2010), 42 kg/year per capita of food waste is generated at the
manufacturing stage, 6 kg/year per capita at the retail trade stage, 134 kg/year per
capita at the household consumption stage.
2.5 Managing surplus food
The amount of food waste also depends on surplus food management policies.
Firstly, surplus food can be used in food recovery, meaning the collection of
wholesome food from farmers’ fields, retail stores or food service establishments for
distribution to the poor and hungry; secondly, surplus food can be re-used as
livestock feed, compost, biodiesel or other fuels (Kantor et al., 1997). Finally, there
is the possibility of waste disposal.
The comparison between alternatives is very often considered in environmental
terms (e.g. Lundie and Peters, 2005). Johnston and Green (2004) emphasise the need
to create a food recovery hierarchy that prioritises food donation to the hungry. In
this regard, it should be considered that not all surplus food is economically
recoverable. Kantor et al. (1997) show that food recovery efforts are often limited by
10
financial and logistical constraints that make it difficult to supply recovered food to
potential recipients. These constraints are underscored by the need to maintain food
safety. Despite the numerous studies in which the various surplus food management
policies are illustrated, few provide a quantitative representation of them. Notable
exceptions are Kantor et al. (1997) and Griffin et al. (2009), according to whom in
the U.S. a percentage of between 3% and 5% of surplus food is donated to charity
organisations (e.g. food banks).
3 Research framework
3.1 Objectives
As shown in the previous section, studies on food management to-date are
characterised by a certain degree of ambiguity on the subject definition and methods
of analysis. Secondly, many studies concentrate on a portion of the supply chain.
Finally, most of the literature does not identify the characteristics of the stages of the
supply chain in which edible surplus food is generated, thus neglecting the various
hurdles in managing surplus food and the different degrees of food recoverability.
For example, managing surplus packaged food at distribution centres is very
different from recovering unsold food (e.g. pizzas, sandwiches) at a snack bar.
The objective of this paper is threefold:
To present a conceptual model of surplus food generation and management
(called ASRW, i.e. Availability-Surplus-Recoverability-Waste) along the
integrated food supply chain, thereby clearly defining the scope of the
analysis and the constructs to be analysed (surplus food and food waste in
particular);
To customise the model by considering various stages in the food supply
chain - i.e. agriculture and fishing, manufacturing, retail trade, food service,
household consumption - and to determine the most relevant sources of
surplus food, the degree of recoverability of surplus food, the most
appropriate ways to recover it at each stage;
11
To provide preliminary results from the application of the conceptual
model to three Italian cases, i.e. one international manufacturer, one
domestic retailer and one international food service company, in order to
illustrate how the model can be applied at a corporate level to assess food
waste and to identify strategies to reduce food waste.
The model emphasises the social perspective (i.e. war on food poverty), while
retaining an economic perspective (i.e. the impact of surplus food management at
each company).
3.2 Methodology
To be consistent with the aforementioned objectives, the research was divided into
three steps:
step 1: conceptualisation of the ASRW model;
step 2: refinement and customisation of the model;
step 3: application of the model.
The three steps combine different approaches. Following an extensive literature
review, a set of key problems, theoretical constructs, and relations was identified
and a preliminary conceptual framework, i.e. an early version of the ASRW
conceptual model (step 1), was created. A bottom-up approach was then taken,
which involved conducting 30 exploratory case studies (business case studies and
interviews with experts), in order to refine the conceptual model, to adapt it to
different supply chain stages and to prepare the protocols for empirical analysis (step
2). The process, which iterated information collection and theory development,
resulted in the development of an empirically-grounded ASRW model (see sections
4 and 5). Finally, 3 confirmatory case studies were conducted, in order to test the
potential of the model as an investigative tool, and to obtain initial empirical
findings on the sources, significance, and management of surplus food (step 3) (see
Section 6).
12
The case study methodology was adopted because it is particularly appropriate at the
early stages of the investigation of a phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994),
and when the goal is the development of a new theory (Van De Ven, 1989; Voss et
al., 2002). The following subsections provide a more detailed description of how the
case study approach was used in steps 2 and 3 of the methodology.
3.2.1 Exploratory case studies
The exploratory case studies had multiple objectives. First, they helped to refine the
ASRW model, i.e. to identify the main sources of surplus food and to understand the
modes through which surplus food is managed throughout the different supply chain
stages. They were then used in the preparation of a protocol for the subsequent
confirmatory case studies. Finally, they were used to produce an initial set of
quantitative findings on surplus food and food waste.
The exploratory case studies included 10 interviews with industry experts and 20
case studies at firms involved in the food supply chain (see Table 1). The industry
expert panel included scholars (3), managers of trade associations (4), and managers
of non-governmental food recovery organizations (3). For the company case studies,
20 firms operating in various stages of the food supply chain were examined. The
interviewees were managers with significant sector and supply chain structure
expertise. For reasons of confidentiality, the names of companies and interviewees
are not provided.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Table 1 approximately here
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Regarding the selection of the case studies, as Pettigrew (1988) noted, it is advisable
to choose such cases as “extreme situations and polar types in which the process of
interest is transparently observable”, due to the limited number of companies which
can usually be studied. According to Eisenhardt (1989), the iteration between theory
13
development and data analysis can be stopped when incremental learning is
minimal.
Finally, protocols for a large-scale empirical survey were developed. For instance,
for the manufacturing, retail trade and food service stages the protocol consists of
three sections (Yin, 1994). In Section A, following an overview of the research
project, the interviewer requests general information about the company: annual
turnover, annual sales volume (expressed in tonnes), structure of the production and
logistics network, and sales & operational planning process descriptions. In Section
B, the interviewer delves further into the topic of surplus food and requests an initial
estimate of surplus food. It is important at this stage to share sources of data and
information on actions taken by the firm to reduce surplus food. In Section C, the
interviewer requests even more detailed information on sources and management
modalities for surplus food, obtaining numerical data to use in the analysis.
3.2.2 Confirmatory case studies
Protocols for the empirical analysis were used to conduct three confirmatory case
studies. The purpose of this step was to illustrate how the ASRW model can be used
to assess surplus food and food waste, and to identify strategies to reduce food waste
at companies.
The confirmatory case studies involved multiple in-depth face-to-face interviews (3-
4 hour conversations) with managers representing various departments in the
company (e.g. operations, administration, social responsibility). The companies
involved in these case studies were different from those involved in the exploratory
case studies. Companies already involved in surplus food donation were considered
- making it possible to study the various unique aspects of the ASRW model – that
represent different supply chain stages: a multinational manufacturer selling chilled
products (case A), a large-scale retailer (case B) and a multinational company
operating in the food service stage (case C).
14
4 ASRW model: conceptualization
For the purpose of this paper “food availability” is defined as all food produced
throughout the food supply chain. It includes foods in different stages (agriculture
and fishing, manufacturing, retail trade, food service, household consumption) and
of different types (raw materials, semi-processed food, and finished products). As
illustrated in Fig. 1, food availability includes three food categories: “consumed
food”, “surplus food” and “food scrap”.
Consumed food is the edible food that is delivered through the traditional
market and is consumed by humans (e.g. staples acquired by customers at a
supermarket and then consumed).
Surplus food is the edible food that is produced, manufactured, retailed or
served but for various reasons is not sold to or consumed by the intended
customer.
Food scrap consists of non-edible food, i.e. food no longer suitable for
human consumption. It includes production line leftovers at the
manufacturing stage (e.g. chocolate leftovers generated during the cutting
process), damaged / broken products that fail to meet quality standards (e.g.
melted ice-cream) and the non-edible parts of otherwise edible food (e.g.
vegetable peels or apple cores).
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Fig. 1. approximately here
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Surplus food can be recovered and used in a variety of ways. Four main "surplus
food management policies" were considered:
Feeding humans. Surplus food is used to feed people. Examples are
donations to food banks and charitable institutions, or sales through
secondary markets (e.g. bakery thrift stores).
15
Feeding animals. Surplus food is used to feed animals, directly (e.g.
providing surplus food to zoos or livestock farms) or indirectly (i.e.
converting surplus food into animal feed through industrial processes).
Waste recovery. Surplus food is provided to companies that produce other
goods (e.g. fertilizers or cosmetics) or energy.
Waste disposal. Surplus food is disposed of by environmentally-unfriendly
methods (e.g. burying the surplus food in landfills).
On a second level, in relation to the management policies previously defined, the
conceptual model introduces the concept of “food waste” according to three different
perspectives (i.e. social, zootechnical and environmental). Food waste from a social
perspective is defined as surplus food that is not used for feeding people. On the
other hand, food waste from a zootechnical perspective is defined as surplus food
that is not used for feeding humans or animals. Finally, food waste from an
environmental perspective is defined as surplus food that is not re-used or recovered
in any form and is disposed of.
The transition from surplus food to food waste is also a function of the "degree of
recoverability" (DoR). Surplus food recoverability for human consumption is
inherently different at different stages in the food supply chain and for different
kinds of products. For instance, edible and healthy grains not collected from the
fields are only somewhat recoverable because they must undergo a physical
transformation in order to be consumed by people; conversely, an edible, healthy
packaged product not sold in a store due to dented packaging has a higher intrinsic
recoverability, as it is ready to eat.
DoR in turn depends on the intrinsic recoverability (IR) of surplus food, and on the
required management intensity (MI).
IR is the degree to which a potential beneficiary could use surplus food for human
consumption in the absence of additional management efforts by
farmers/manufacturers/retailers and intermediaries (e.g. food banks and charitable
institutions). It depends on:
the type of product (e.g. shelf life, need for refrigeration);
16
the activities typically performed at a certain stage (e.g. certification, scrap
elimination).
DoR increases with increasing IR: the larger the IR, the larger the DoR.
MI is the commitment required by farmers/manufacturers/retailers and
intermediaries to make surplus food usable to the greatest degree by the final
beneficiary. Two distinct components are needed to bring surplus food to the final
recipient:
maintenance: additional activities necessary to preserve possible use of the
surplus food (e.g. transportation, warehousing);
enhancement: additional activities that increase the possibility of using
surplus food (e.g. hygienic certification).
DoR decreases with increasing MI: the smaller the MI needed, the larger the DoR.
Since both IR and MI depend on the type of product and the stage of the supply
chain, it was concluded that DoR should also be specified for each type of product
and stage of the supply chain.
5 ASRW model: refinement and customisation
Following the conceptualisation of the ASRW model (Section 4), information
collection - via exploratory case studies - and theory development were iterated to
refine the conceptual model and to adapt it to different food supply chain stages.
Specifically, the supply chain stages and their products were classified, and then the
main sources of surplus food and the modes through which surplus food is managed
were analysed within the different supply chain stages.
5.1 Segmentation of the Food Supply Chain
The food supply chain extends from farming to the delivery of food products to
consumers. To refine and operationalise the ASRW model the supply chain was
divided into five main stages: agriculture and fishing (i.e. crop farming, livestock
farming and fishing), manufacturing (i.e. firms that use agricultural products to
produce food products), retail trade, food service (e.g. collective catering and
17
restaurants) and household consumption. The suppliers of farming materials (e.g.
fertilizers, seeds, animal feeds) were not considered because their surplus is not
edible food.
The exploratory case studies demonstrated that significant differences exist even
within a stage, in the production structure, in the logistics network, in product
characteristics (e.g. perishability, storage temperature, usability by the final
consumer) and in surplus food sources. These differences imply that specific
strategies and surplus food management practices are needed. Therefore, 12
different sub-stages were identified, hereafter referred to as “supply chain segments”
(see Table 2; see also subsections 5.2.1 through 5.2.5). Clearly, further segmentation
could be made, but a trade-off exists between the level of disaggregation and the
effectiveness of information gathering.
The degree of recoverability, which depends on technological and organisational
factors that vary according to the supply chain segment, was identified for each of
the 12 segments (Table 3, see subsections 5.2.1 through 5.2.5 for a detailed
discussion). In particular, for each segment, intrinsic recoverability and required
management intensity were assessed on a 3-level scale (low, medium and high)
based on the discussions with case study interviewees and experts. Of course the
DoR is also related to the extent to which the country possesses the appropriate
transportation and technological infrastructure. Recoverability levels reported in
Table 3 are appropriate for advanced economies, but could be unrealistic for middle
or low income countries. However, approaching the issue from the sectoral
perspective (i.e. 5 stages and 12 segments) rather than from a macro-economic
perspective will provide an understanding of the surplus food phenomenon in its
complexity, and enable the proposal of strategies and policies for reducing food
waste.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Table 2 approximately here
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
18
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Table 3 approximately here
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5.2 Customisation of the model
5.2.1 Agriculture and fishing
The agriculture and fishing stage was divided into 4 segments: fruits and vegetables,
cereals, livestock farming and fishing.
According to the exploratory cases, the main sources of surplus food are over-
production, non-compliance with market standards (e.g. in terms of size and shape
of fruits), over-stocks or discards in wholesale produce markets.
The degree of recoverability for the fruits and vegetables segment was assigned a
“medium” level. This reflects a high intrinsic recoverability - i.e. most products can
potentially be consumed by people without prior transformation - and a medium
management intensity since the delivery of surplus food to the poor, who live
primarily in big cities, requires companies, food banks, and charitable organizations
to carry out activities such as collection, packaging, storage and transport in a
controlled temperature environment. Instead, the cereals segment (e.g. maize) has a
low degree of recoverability. Although the cereals segment includes products that
are less perishable than fruit and vegetables, products need to undergo a more
intense transformation process to be consumable (e.g. the process to transform rough
rice into white rice, removing the chaff). The livestock farming segment includes
meat obtained from slaughter activities. This segment suffers from a low degree of
recoverability, since products cannot be consumed immediately (i.e. low value of
intrinsic recoverability), and at the same time they are perishable and have to be
stored and transported using refrigeration (i.e. the management intensity is high).
The fishing segment displays similar characteristics to livestock farming, but has a
higher intrinsic recoverability since most fish can be consumed without specialized
transformation.
19
In the cereals, livestock farming and fishing segments surplus food is managed
mainly as recovered waste (e.g. bioenergy and fertilizers), while in the fruits and
vegetables segment reuse as animal feed, or even recovery for human consumption,
is more frequent.
5.2.2 Manufacturing
The exploratory cases confirmed that manufacturing could be divided into three
segments: ambient, chilled and frozen.
The main source of surplus food is products that have reached their internal sell-by
date, i.e. the date when products will no longer be accepted by customers. In fact,
retailers usually require two thirds of the overall product shelf life upon product
delivery; therefore, the manufacturer’s “internal sell-by date” is one third of the
overall product shelf life. Another typical source of surplus food is products and
packaging that do not comply with market requirements (e.g. labels displaying old
promotions).
The ambient segment exhibits a high degree of recoverability. In fact, surplus food
consists of packaged products (e.g. pasta, beverages), which are ready to be
consumed and have a remaining shelf life of at least one week. Once identified,
surplus food has just to be stored until food banks or charitable institutions pick it up
and deliver it to the needy (i.e. enhancement and maintenance activities are
relatively few). The chilled segment presents a medium degree of recoverability
because products are ready for consumption (e.g. milk, dairy products, processed
meat), but the shelf life is quite short, and manufacturers, food banks and/or
charitable organizations must comply with cold chain standards during storage and
transport. In the frozen segment, intrinsic recoverability is high (i.e. products are
ready for consumption and are characterised by a long shelf-life), however specific
and expensive equipment is required for both storage and transport in order to
comply with cold chain requirements.
Since the cost of waste disposal services is high and the degree of recoverability is
medium or high, manufacturers tend to adopt other strategies for managing surplus
food. The higher the DoR, the higher the incidence of donations to food banks and
20
charitable institutions. Animal feed is often a suitable alternative strategy; not only
does it avoid disposal costs, but it also yields revenues, although revenue is lower
than if the surplus food were sold for human consumption.
5.2.3 Retail trade
Retail trade was divided into 2 segments: distribution centres (DCs) and stores.
These two segments are characterized by different logistics capacities and
constraints, though they share product categories (i.e. they are vertically-related
segments). DCs are mainly logistics facilities capable of handling complex
processes, including those related to the management of surplus food, whereas stores
are centred on the relationship with customers and have a limited logistics capacity.
The exploratory cases suggested that the main sources of surplus food at DCs are
that the internal sell-by date has been reached, non-compliance of packages with
market requirements, and product returns from stores. At stores, the main sources of
surplus food are reaching the sell-by date and damaged packaging.
In terms of recoverability, the DC segment has a high DoR. Intrinsic recoverability
is good because most surplus food consists of packaged products that are ready for
consumption and have a remaining shelf life of at least one week. The management
intensity has been assigned a low value because surplus food, once identified, needs
only to be stored, and can be picked up by food banks and charitable organizations
in large quantities. On the other hand, the stores segment has a medium-low DoR. In
fact, there is a mix of high and low DoR products, and even packaged goods have
few days of remaining shelf life. Second, management of these products is not trivial
since the space for storing surplus food at stores is very small, and food banks and
charitable organisations must make frequent pick-ups of surplus food due to the
short shelf life of products.
In the DC segment the re-use of surplus food for human consumption, or as animal
feed, is frequent, while stores manage surplus food mainly through waste disposal,
with minimal donations to charities, due to the low DoR and the absence of
economic incentives (i.e. waste disposal tariffs are mainly fixed fees).
21
5.2.4 Food service
In the food service stage two segments were considered: collective catering (e.g.
canteens at schools, companies or hospitals) and commercial catering (e.g. cafés,
restaurants). These two segments differ in terms of cooking activities, service, and
customer experience.
The main source of surplus food is overproduction due to errors in demand
forecasting.
Surplus food in collective catering mainly includes cooked products not yet served
to customers, which has a medium DoR. Intrinsic recoverability is medium since
surplus food is ready for consumption, but has a very short shelf life (i.e. 24 hours
on average). Management intensity is medium because the catering contractors have
to package the surplus food, rapidly lower its temperature using dedicated
equipment, and store it in refrigerators. Maintenance activities by food banks and
charitable organizations are also intense because they have to pick up small
quantities of surplus food from each canteen daily and deliver it to the needy the
same day. For the commercial catering segment, the DoR of surplus food is even
lower. In fact, more effort is needed in commercial catering because the quantities of
surplus food that can be collected from each restaurant are comparatively low and
pick-ups must be frequent due to a lack of storage space in restaurants. As a result,
logistics costs are extremely high for both parties, i.e. donors and receivers.
Surplus food in the food service industry is managed mainly through waste disposal,
similarly to what occurs at stores, and for similar reasons. However, where the
degree of recoverability is higher - usually in collective catering - donation to food
banks and charitable institutions is more frequent.
5.2.5 Household consumption
The degree of recoverability at the household consumption stage is low as a result of
a low value of intrinsic recoverability and high management intensity. Surplus food
at home includes both products that are bought but not consumed before the end of
their shelf life, and products that are cooked but not consumed. As a consequence of
22
the null or low residual shelf life, the intrinsic recoverability is very low. The
enhancement and maintenance activities would also be very significant, due to
disconnection across a large number of individual households, and the absence of
special equipment to rapidly cool the food at home. As a consequence, surplus food
is mainly managed through waste disposal.
6 ASRW model implementation
The ASRW model was applied to three cases: one manufacturer, one large-scale
retailer, and one food service company. The main findings of these three
confirmatory case studies are presented in order to illustrate the application of the
model at a corporate level, e.g. to exemplify possible sources of surplus food and
strategies to reduce food waste. All data refer to the Italian market, where the three
companies operate.
CASE A
Case A is a manufacturer of chilled products (e.g. yogurt, custards and snacks) with
an annual turnover of 100 million Euros and annual sales volumes of around 58,000
tonnes. Products are characterised by a short shelf life (approximately 30 days) and
by seasonal demand. Customers are mainly large retailers, served by two national
warehouses. Due to sales contracts, the company must ensure 20 days of residual
shelf life when products are delivered to the customer. Therefore, the company’s
internal sell-by date is 10 days after production.
For the manufacturer in Case A, surplus food is the edible food that is manufactured
but not sold to customers, excluding food scraps and non-edible products. For
example, the food produced during the setup of production lines has mixed flavours
and is considered non-edible. The value of surplus food is approximately 300 tonnes
per year, equal to 0.5 per cent of annual sales volumes.
The company keeps track of the sources of surplus food. The main source is the
exceeding of the internal sell-by date within national warehouses (80% of SF). This
is a possible and not-uncommon occurrence due to the very short interval before the
internal sell-by date is reached. Damage caused to packages during warehousing and
23
transportation is the second source of SF (18%), as the product packaging is
somewhat fragile.
Surplus food is managed in two ways: donation to food banks (50%) and sale to
firms that produce animal feed (50%). The company prioritises donation to food
banks, but when food banks are unable to collect and redistribute the surplus food
(e.g. an exceedingly high amount of surplus food) the company follows the second-
in-rank strategy. This behaviour is consistent with the degree of recoverability that
characterises the chilled food segment (see subsection 5.2.2.), which is, on average,
medium. The result, according to the ASRW model, is that food waste at a social
level amounts to 150 tonnes per year, corresponding to 0.25% of the sales volume
and 50% of the surplus food.
CASE B
Case B is a large retailer with more than 1,000 stores in Italy (hypermarkets,
supermarkets, local stores, discount stores), about 13 billion Euros in turnover, and
over 12,000 products on the shelves. Stores are supplied by a network of
Distribution Centres (DCs). One DC and 5 hypermarkets, located in Northern Italy,
were analysed.
At this particular DC, surplus food is the food that is bought from suppliers but not
delivered to stores. Surplus food does not include products returned to suppliers or
products that are repackaged after being damaged and then re-inserted in the
distribution system. According to the supply chain manager, surplus food generated
at the DC from chilled and frozen products is negligible, as chilled products are
mainly managed using cross-docking and frozen products have a long shelf life.
Therefore, the surplus food consists mainly of ambient products and amounts to 900
tonnes per year, or 0.3% of the DC’s overall product flow (300,000 tonnes per year).
The main reason surplus food is generated (60%) is that it reaches the internal sell-
by date. The internal “life” of a product at the DC is a small fraction of the overall
“shelf life” because the majority of the products’ shelf life must be available to
stores. The DC has developed a hierarchy of destinations for surplus food: donation
24
to 20 food banks and charitable organizations (55%), sale to firms that produce
animal feed (10%), and conferral to waste management companies (35%). The last
of these is used only in when the other two options are not possible. This behaviour
is consistent with the high degree of recoverability that characterises ambient
products at DCs. According to the ASRW model, food waste at a social level
amounts to 405 tonnes per year, corresponding to 0.13% of the annual DC outbound
flow and 45% of the overall surplus food.
At hypermarkets, surplus food is the food that is delivered from DCs but is not sold
to customers. There is less accurate data available on surplus food at hypermarkets
than at DCs. Store managers suggested that an upper bound on the quantity of
surplus food generated at the store level is represented by “inventory shrinkage”,
which includes goods considered to be lost because of pilferage or packaging
damage, as well as expired products. Based on inventory shrinkage data and store
managers’ assessment regarding the proportion of inventory shrinkage that can be
classified as surplus food (mainly expired products and damaged packaging), the
value of surplus food was estimated to be approximately 6 million Euros per year, or
2% of annual sales. Given an average product value density of 2.5 Euros per kg, the
overall amount of surplus food generated at the five stores is 2,400 tonnes per year.
The main sources of surplus food at the store level are reaching the product sell-by
date and, to a lesser extent, damaged packaging. Surplus food is managed in two
ways: donation to food banks and charitable institutions, involving different
organizations at each hypermarket (5%), and disposal by municipal waste
management companies (95%). The prevalence of disposal is partly explained by the
standard practice of keeping products on the shelves until the expiration date,
thereby limiting the opportunities for redistributing the products as surplus food.
Overall, at the five stores, food waste at a social level – i.e. not recovered for human
consumption - amounts to 2,270 tonnes per year, or 1.9% of sales.
CASE C
Case C is a multinational company in the food services industry. It operates in both
collective and commercial catering (e.g. school and corporate canteens, and cafés
and restaurants). The case study focused on one of the company’s corporate
25
canteens, which prepares 170,000 meals per year. The kitchen is located at the
canteen and the ingredients are replenished daily from a company warehouse
according to forecast demand (in terms of amount and variety of meals per day). The
kitchen is equipped with a special “cooler” to rapidly reduce the temperature of
surplus food.
Surplus food consists mainly of cooked products that never leave the kitchen.
Overproduction, caused by forecasting errors, is the main reason surplus food is
generated. The amount of surplus food generated is approximately 8,000 meals per
year - 5% of the total - which is equal to 5 tonnes per year. There would be even
more surplus food if the food that is not consumed were not reused or recooked:
internally recovered food amounts to at least 10% of cooked food.
Surplus food is managed in two ways: donation to food banks (30%) and disposal by
municipal waste management companies (70%). In the former case, at the end of the
service shift, surplus food is rapidly cooled and then put into single meal boxes. A
few hours later, food bank operatives pick up the boxes for immediate distribution to
the needy. The proportion of surplus food donated to food banks appears to be
consistent with the medium degree of recoverability that characterises the collective
catering segment (see subsection 5.2.4). Overall, food waste at a social level
amounts to 3.5 tonnes per year, corresponding to 3.3% of cooked food and 70% of
surplus food.
In summary, the three case studies demonstrate that the conceptual ASRW model
enables researchers and managers to better understand surplus food and food waste
at the company level. Moreover, the three case studies confirmed the relevance of
the variable "degree of recoverability" as a lens through which surplus food
management and food waste can be better analysed.
26
7 Conclusions
This paper presents a model that describes surplus food generation and management,
and provides a methodology for quantifying surplus food, “recoverable” surplus
food and food waste. The authors believe that this model can be used to help
companies, governments, and non-profit organizations to design and implement
sound strategies to reduce food insecurity and to limit the amount of surplus food
that becomes food waste. The model also provides a clear method by which
researchers and policymakers can assess surplus food and food waste at the micro
(i.e. individual players and sectors) and macro (i.e. the whole country) levels.
First of all, the ASRW model (Availability-Surplus-Recoverability-Waste) was
presented in fairly broad terms. The conceptual model was based on the reality of
the food supply chain by defining 5 supply chain stages and 12 product segments,
and by conducting 30 exploratory case studies and interviews with experts, which
shed light on the unique aspects of each segment, providing information that was
used to customize and refine the model. Finally, testing of the model, i.e. three in-
depth confirmatory case studies, illustrated how it can be used at the corporate level,
and how information on surplus food generation and management can be obtained.
Although the only way to fully validate the ASRW model and obtain robust
empirical results is to apply it to a large-scale sample, , the confirmatory case studies
have shown that the model, in and of itself, has some significant implications for
policy-makers and other food supply chain players as well as for researchers.
First of all, the customized model provides a means for differentiating surplus food
management strategies according to type of business or sector. Each segment of the
supply chain was examined and characterized in terms of most frequent sources of
surplus food, degree of recoverability, and typical policies used to manage surplus
food. More specifically, the assessment of degrees of recoverability demonstrates
that surplus food recovery for human consumption is potentially within easy reach in
segments that have a high degree of recoverability (e.g. distribution centres, and
manufacturing of ambient products. A more intense communication effort by
governments and charitable organizations would likely be all that is needed to
27
further reduce food waste and encourage donation to the food poor in these
segments. The sustainable management of surplus food is more challenging in
segments with a medium (e.g. stores) or low (e.g. commercial catering) degree of
recoverability, where more significant logistical and transactional costs create
barriers to the donation of surplus food. It is precisely in this area that the ASRW
model can help policymakers and companies to reduce food waste.
A second objective of this paper was to develop a replicable methodology for the
assessment of surplus food and food waste. The characterization of segments within
supply chain stages is essential to the design of a large-scale empirical study(i.e.
sample definition and preparation of case study protocols or survey questionnaires),
and the confirmatory case studies have demonstrated that reliable quantitative results
can be obtained by applying the model at the micro level. A large-scale, standard
quantitative assessment strategy may help policymakers identify the most relevant
sources of surplus food in each segment. This, in turn, will allow policy-makers (and
industry managers) to more easily monitor and control the generation of surplus
food, and to better understand whether surplus food can be further reduced at the
source. In another respect, it is expected that a broader application of the model will
show whether responsible surplus food management practices also exist in critical
segments, which is information that can then be disseminated to business
associations, companies, sector policymakers, and intermediaries such as food
banks.
The development of this conceptual model has resulted in two new contributions to
the research on sustainable management in the food supply chain. Up until now
there have been no universally accepted definitions for some of the key concepts. As
seen in some other recent articles, an attempt has been made in this paper to
establish a common language that can be used at company, sector or country levels.
The authors have proposed explicit definitions for various terms, and have
differentiated between environmental and social perspectives. Furthermore, this
paper supplements the pre-existing literature insofar as it also discusses the
feasibility of strategies to re-use surplus food and reduce food waste. To this end, the
concept of “degree of recoverability” was introduced in the conceptual model, and
28
the assessment showed that the potential for surplus food recovery and food waste
reduction varies significantly between segments, due to different structural
characteristics.
An assessment of the costs of various surplus food management policies was beyond
the scope of this study, however cost effectiveness is just as relevant as improved
food security and food waste reduction if the goal of food supply chain sustainability
is to be achieved. One of the next steps in the continuing research on this topic
should be to find a way to introduce cost factors in the ASRW model Another key
step in the progression of this research would be the broader application of the
ASRW model to a regional agri-food supply chain, assessing all stages including
consumption at home, a task that is currently underway.
29
References
Aiking, H., De Boer, J., 2004. Food sustainability Diverging interpretation. Br. Food
J. 106, 359–365.
Alexander, C., Smajne, C., 2008. Surplus retail food redistribution: an analysis of a
third sector model. Resour Conserv Recy. 52, 1290-1298
Bates, M.P., Phillips, P. S., 1999. Sustainable waste management in the food and
drink industry. Br. Food J. 101, 580–589.
Beddington, J., 2010. Food security: contributions from science to a new and
greener revolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B., 365, pp. 61-71
Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U., Hellweg S., 2013. Quantifying food losses and
the potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Manag. 33, 764–773.
Brundtland, G., 1987. Our common future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Buzby, J.C., Hyman J., Stewart H., Wells, H.F., 2011. The value of retail-and
Costumer-level fruit and vegetable losses in the United States. Journal of
Consumer Affairs. 45, 492–515.
Buzby, J.C., Hyman J., 2012. Total and per capita value of food loss in the United
States. Food Policy. 37, 561–570.
Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., Carlson, S., 2012. Household Food
Security in the United States in 2011. ERR-141, US Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
Cuéllar, A., Webber, M., 2010. Wasted food, wasted energy: the embedded energy
in food waste in the United States. Env. Sci. Technol. 44, 6464–6469.
Darlington, R., Rahimifard, S., 2006. A responsive demand management framework
for the minimization of waste in convenience food manufacture. Int. J. Computer
Integr. Manuf. 19, 751–761.
Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Manag. Review. 14, 532–550.
Engström, R., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., 2004. Food losses in food service institutions
examples from Sweden. Food Policy. 29, 203.213
EPA, 2006. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd-gener.htm.
Eurostat, 2013. Income and Living Conditions Statistics. Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/.
Fao (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2013. Food
Security Statistics. Available at: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/en/.
Garnett, T., 2013. Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. The
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 72, 29–39.
Gentilini, U., 2013. Banking on Food. Examining the scale, features and
implications of food banks in high-income countries. Draft. Institute of
Development Studies, Brighton.
Godfray, H. Charles J., 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion
people. Science 327, 812-818.
Griffin, M., Sobal, J., Lyson, T., 2009. An analysis of a community food waste
stream. Agriculture and Human Values 26, 67–81.
30
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., 2011. Global food losses and food
waste. Gothenburg, Sweden. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf.
Hagelaar, G., Van der Vorst, J., 2002. Environmental supply Chain management:
using life cycle assessment to structure supply chains. Int. Food Agribus. Manag.
Review 4, 399–412.
Hall, H. D., Guo, J., Dore, M., Chow, C. C., 2009. The progressive increase of food
waste in America and its environmental impact. PLoS ONE. 4, e7940.
Johnston, N., Green, A., 2004. Food surplus; reduction, recovery and recycling.
K.Waldron, C. Faulds, A. Smith. Total Food. IFR Norwich. Pp. 35-40. Available
at:http://www.ifr.ac.uk/totalfood2009/Total%20Food%202009/ProceedingsTotalF
o od2004.pdf.
Kantor, L., Lipton, K., Manchester, A., Oliveira, V., 1997. Estimating and
addressing America's food losses. Food Review 20, 2-12
Kummu, M., De Moel, H., Porkka M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012. Lost
food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on
freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sc. Tot. Envir. 438, 477–489.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., Van Erk, R., 2005. Assessing the sustainability
performances of industries. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 373–385.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., 2008. An industry perspective of the completeness
and relevance of a social assessment framework for project and technology
management in the manufacturing sector. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 253–262.
Levis, J., Barlaz, M., Themelis, N., Ulloa, P., 2010. Assessment of the state of food
waste treatment in the United States and Canada. Waste management 30, 1486–
1494.
Lozano, R., 2008. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod. 16,
1838–1846.
Lundie, S., Peters, G., 2005. Life cycle assessment of food waste management
options. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 275–286.
Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., Yurt, O., 2011. The causes of food waste in the
supplier-retailer interface: Evidences from UK and Spain. Resource, Conservation
and Recycling 55, 648–658.
O’ Connor, C., 2013. Quantification of food waste in the EU. 4th OECD Food Chain
Network Analysis Meeting. OECD. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/site/agrfcn/Session%201_ClementineOConnor.pdf (accessed
8th October 2013).
OECD, 2013. Global Food Security: Challenges for the Food and Agricultural
System,OECD, Paris.
Ondersteijn, C.J.M., Wijnands, J.H.M., Huirne, R.B.M., Kooten, O.V., 2006.
Quantifying the Agri-Food Supply Chain, Springer.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply
chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B
365, 3065–3081.
Pettigrew, A., 1988. The management of strategic change, Blackwell, Oxford.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2009. Food security: definition and measurement. Food
security 1, 5–7.
31
Sonnino, R., McWilliam, S., 2011. Food waste, catering practices and public
procurement: A case study of hospital food systems in Wales. Food policy. 36,
823–829.
Steiner, G., Posch, A., 2006. Higher education for sustainability by means of
transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-
world problems. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 877–890.
Tarasuk, V., Eakin, M., 2003. Charitable food assistance as symbolic gesture: an
ethnographic study of food banks in Ontario. Soc. Sci. Med. 56, 1505–1515.
Tarasuk, V., Eakin, M., 2005. Food assistance through ‘‘surplus’’ food: Insights
from an ethnographic study of food bank work. Agric. Hum. Values 22, 177–186.
Van Bommel, H.W.M., 2011. A conceptual framework for analyzing sustainability
strategies in industrial supply networks from an innovation perspective. J. Clean.
Prod. 19, 895–904.
Van De Ven, A.H., 1989. Nothing is quite as practical as a good theory. Academy of
Manag. Review 14, 486–489.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., Frohlich, M., 2002. Case research in operations
management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22, 195–219.
Winne, M., 2005. Waste not, want not?. Agric. Hum. Values 22, 203–205.
WRAP, 2010. Waste arising in the supply of food and drink to households in the
UK. Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/RSC002-
005_March_24_2010_FINAL_Amended_26_May_2010.cf0bfef8.8904.pdf
(accessed 20th March 2012).
Yin, R.K., 1994. Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
32
Figure 1 – The ASRW conceptual model
33
Case
number
Stage
Job title of interviewee
Main characteristics of companies and industry experts
1
Agriculture
and fishing
General manager
National association of apple producers
2
Quality manager
National association of fruit and vegetable producers
3
Company owner
National seafood distributor
4
Quality manager
National breeding company
5
Manufacturing
General and suppliers accounting
manager
National company that produces conserve, sauce, and dry convenience
food
6
Logistics manager
International company that produces chocolate food
7
Logistics and purchasing manager
International company that produces jam and snacks
8
Logistics manager
National company that produces ham and ham-convenience food
9
Supply chain manager
International company that produces yogurt
10
General manager-chilled products
International company that produces vegetable and vegetable-
convenience food
11
Operations manager
International company that produces frozen fish products
12
Logistics manager
International company that produces bakery products and frozen bread
13
Retail trade
Logistics manager
International retail company with 3 DCs and more than 100 POSes
14
Logistics manager
National retail company with 4 DCs and more than 300 POSes
15
Logistics manager
National retail company with more than 20 DCs and more and 1,000
POSes
16
Store manager
International POS over 2,500 m2 and €70 million of food turnover
17
Food Service
Planning and control manager
National company that prepares more than 70 million meals per year
18
Quality and food safety manager
International company that prepares more than 20 million meals per year
19
Quality health and safety
environment director
International commercial catering company with more than 500 POSes
20
Store manager
National commercial catering company that prepares more than 130
thousand meals per year
21
/
Full professor
Expert in supply chain management within the agri-food system
22
/
Full professor
Expert in agricultural policies
23
/
Full professor
Expert in agricultural policies
24
/
Manager of no-food Organization
Expert in surplus management (70,000 tonnes of food managed per year)
25
/
Manager of no-food Organization
Expert in surplus management in collective catering services (1,500
tonnes of food managed per year)
26
/
Manager of no-food Organization
Expert in surplus management (15,000 tonnes of food managed per year)
27
/
Manager of Governmental agency
Expert in agricultural policies
28
/
Manager of an association that
represents trade companies
Expert in Organization of Points of Sale
29
/
Manager of an association of food
firms
Expert in food production technologies
30
/
Manager of an association of
farmers
Expert in harvest technologies
Table 1 - Exploratory case studies
34
Stage
Supply Chain
Segment
Products
Players
Main Surplus Food
sources
Agriculture
and fishing
Fruits and
vegetables
Fruit and
vegetables
Farmers, farmers' associations,
logistics centres to support
agriculture
Non-compliance with
market standards;
Overproduction
Cereals
Cereals
Farmers, farmers' associations
Livestock farming
Meat/milk
Farmers
Fishing
Fish
Fishermen, logistics centres in
support of fisheries
Manufacturing
Ambient
Dry products,
beverage, juices,
oil, wine
Manufacturers
Exceeding internal
sell-by date; Non-
compliance of
products and
packages with market
requirements
Chilled
Cheese, meat,
cold cuts, fish,
eggs
Manufacturers
Frozen
Frozen fruit and
vegetables, ice-
cream
Manufacturers
Retail trade
Distribution
Centres
All categories
Distribution Centres
Exceeding internal
sell-by date; Package
damages;
Product returns
Points of Sale
All categories
Points of Sale
Food Service
Collective
catering
All categories
Corporate, school, hospital canteens
Overproduction
Commercial
catering
All categories
Restaurants, fast food
Household
Consumption
Consumer
All categories
Households
Exceeding use-by
date; Meal leftovers
Table 2 Segmentation of the food supply chain in 5 stages and 12 segments
35
Stage
Supply Chain
Segment
Intrinsic
Recoverability
(IR)
Management
Intensity
(MI)
Degree of
Recoverability)
Agriculture
and Fishing
Fruits and
vegetables
High
Medium
Medium
Cereals
Low
High
Low
Livestock
farming
Low
High
Low
Fishing
Medium
High
Low
Manufacturing
Ambient
High
Low
High
Chilled
Medium
Medium
Medium
Frozen
High
High
Medium
Retail trade
Distribution
Centres
High
High
High
Points of Sale
Medium
Medium
Medium
Food Service
Collective
catering
Medium
Medium
Medium
Commercial
catering
Medium
High
Low
Household
Consumption
Consumer
Low
High
Low
Table 3 - Degree of Recoverability in supply chain segments