The role of strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships in reducing food loss and waste in South Africa

Abstract

Food loss and waste is a wicked problem (a problem with no single solution). This problem is addressed by SDG 12. Solving this wicked problem in South Africa requires the collaboration of a variety of stakeholders, all with their own organisational interests. Therefore, multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSP) are imperative to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3, which focuses on the reduction of food waste. This qualitative case study unpacks the necessity for the use of multi-stakeholder partnerships (SDG 17) in achieving SDG 12.3. The South African Food Loss and Waste Voluntary Agreement (SAFLWVA) is the multi-stakeholder partnership being studied in this article. Multi-stakeholder partnerships cannot be effective without strategic communication. Therefore, the barriers and enablers of strategic communication, within a multi-stakeholder partnership of this nature, are explored. The was conducted in South Africa, with stakeholders involved with the SAFLWVA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 participants. The findings indicate that strategic communication is one of the pillars of a successful multi-stakeholder partnership. Additionally, the following enablers for successful communication in MSPs were identified: trust, information sharing, education about benefits, receiving value, and gaining ownership. The study contributes to our understanding of communication barriers and enablers within multi-stakeholder partnerships.

Full text

53PB
THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC MULTI-
STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS
IN REDUCING FOOD LOSS AND
WASTE IN SOUTH AFRICA
ABSTRACT
Food loss and waste is a wicked problem (a problem with no
single solution). This problem is addressed by Sustainable
Development Goal 12. Solving this wicked problem in South
Africa requires the collaboration of a variety of stakeholders,
all with their own organisational interests. Therefore, multi-
stakeholder partnerships (MSP) are imperative to the
achievement of SDG 12.3, which focuses on the reduction
of food waste. This qualitative case study unpacks the
necessity for the use of multi-stakeholder partnerships
(SDG 17) in achieving SDG 12.3. The South African Food
Loss and Waste Voluntary Agreement (SAFLWVA) is the
multi-stakeholder partnership being studied in this article.
MSPs cannot be eective without strategic communication.
Therefore, the barriers and enablers of strategic commu-
nication within a multi-stakeholder partnership of this nature
are explored. The study was conducted in South Africa with
stakeholders involved with the SAFLWVA. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with 15 participants. The ndings
indicate that strategic communication is one of the pillars of
a successful MSP. Additionally, the following enablers for
successful communication in MSPs were identied: trust,
information sharing, education about benets, receiving
value, and gaining ownership. The study contributes to
the understanding of communication barriers and enablers
within MSPs.
Keywords: multi-stakeholder partnerships, strategic com-
munication, SDG 12.3, food loss and waste, Sustainable
Development Goals, South African Food Loss and Waste
Voluntary Agreement
INTRODUCTION
A third of South Africa’s available food is wasted, amounting
to approximately ten million tonnes of food waste yearly
(CGCSA 2019: 18; WWF 2017: 8). This is a worldwide
challenge that is being addressed as part of the United
1Dr Olebogeng Selebi
Email: olebogeng.selebi@
up.ac.za (corresponding
author)
ORCID: https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-9934-
8538
1Criska Slabbert
Email: criskaslabbert0712@
gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-6917-
7985
1Elizma van Niekerk
Email: hello@elizmavn.
co.za
ORCID: https://orcid.
org/0000-0003-3992-
0886
1 Department of Business
Management, University of
Pretoria, South Africa
DOI: https://doi.
org/10.38140/com.
v28i.6981
ISSN 2415-0525 (Online)
Communitas 2023 28: 53-70
Date submitted:
27 December 2022
Date accepted:
15 June 2023
Date published:
15 December 2023
© Creative Commons With
Attribution (CC-BY)

5554
Selebi, Slabbert & Van Niekerk
Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 to reduce 50 percent of food loss
and waste by 2030 (FAO 2020a). Food loss and waste is an example of a wicked
problem (Thornsbury & Minor 2019: 55), which is characterised as a problem that has
no single cause or solution (Dentoni et al. 2018: 336; Thornsbury & Minor 2019: 55).
The Consumer Goods Council of South Africa (CGCSA) initiated the implementation
of a multi-stakeholder partnership (MSP) – the South African Food Loss and Waste
Voluntary Agreement (SAFLWVA). Their approach is focused on the formation of a
strategic MSP consisting of various stakeholder groups such as the government,
industry, academia, and civil society (CGCSA 2019: 20-24).
Sloan and Oliver (2013: 1837) dene MSPs as formal agreements between various
stakeholders mainly from the private, public, and non-prot sector. Having all the
stakeholders contribute their resources and capabilities to an MSP ensures that a
common goal is achieved more e󰀨ectively than in their individual capacity (Brouwer
et al. 2016a: 20-22; Sloan & Oliver 2013: 1837). In line with this, the 17 SDGs are
interconnected and all equally important (FAO 2020a). SDG target 12.3 focuses on
the reduction of food loss and waste across the entire food supply chain – from farm
to fork levels (United Nations 2020). For MSPs to achieve SDG 12.3 targets, good
communication is necessary (Lindén & Carlsson-Kanyama 2002: 897). MSPs are at
risk of failure without e󰀨ective communication on the expectations of each stakeholder,
as well as their roles and responsibilities (Brouwer et al. 2016a: 20-22; Brouwer et al.
2016b: 9-11).
The SAFLWVA is the rst voluntary agreement to be signed in South Africa to reduce
food loss and waste. Limited studies have been conducted on food waste in South
Africa (Nahman et al. 2012: 2147-2149). The purpose of a voluntary agreement is to
be a policy instrument with which an issue can be tackled by applying new technology,
knowledge, or routines (Lindén & Carlsson-Kanyama 2002: 897). Additionally, there
is a lack of research on the communication barriers and enablers in an MSP, in the
form of a voluntary agreement (CGCSA 2020). This study, therefore, lls the gap in
the academic literature and provides insight into the creation of a communication
framework for the SAFLWVA and similar MSPs.
This study focused on the communication between the stakeholders of the SAFLWVA
voluntary agreement, targeting the core signatories – private sector, the government
and NGOs/NPOs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 participants to
investigate the communication enablers and barriers faced in the process leading up
to the establishment of the voluntary agreement.
The following research questions guided the study:
1. Why is understanding multi-stakeholder partnerships necessary for the
success of SAFLWVA?
2. How do the stakeholders communicate within the SAFLWVA MSP?
3. What are the communication enablers and barriers within the SAFLWVA?

5554
e role of strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships in reducing food loss
The intended academic contribution of this study is threefold. Firstly, this study
contributes to the academic literature by o󰀨ering insight into possible communication
barriers and enablers in MSPs. As MSPs are becoming more relevant in today’s world
to solve wicked problems (Dentoni et al. 2018: 333-356), it will be valuable and serve
as a starting point for future research. Secondly, this study explores an MSP that takes
the form of a voluntary agreement. This will provide academic literature for future
studies on both voluntary agreements and MSPs. Lastly, this study contributes to the
academic conversation on the role of strategic communication in the success of MSPs
by looking at the barriers and enablers of communication in this context.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Global, continental, and local perspectives on food loss
and waste
In 2015, the United Nations set 17 goals to be achieved in the next 15 years to make
the world a better place for everyone. This includes addressing food loss and waste
(United Nations 2020). The 17 Sustainable Development Goals set out by the United
Nations are the “blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all” (FAO
2020a). The goals are all interconnected and should be achieved by 2030, according
to the agreed UN Agenda (FAO 2020a). SDG 12 is aimed at sustainable consumption
and production, stating the goal to “by 2030, halve per capita global food waste at
the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply
chains, including post-harvest losses” (United Nations 2019).
SDG target 12.3 seeks to reduce (United Nations 2020):
♦food losses that occur from production up to (but not including) the retail
level, and
♦food waste, which comprises the retail and consumption levels.
SDG 17 seeks to strengthen global partnerships to support and achieve the ambitious
targets of the 2030 Agenda, bringing together national governments, the international
community, civil society, the private sector, and other actors at all levels (international,
national, regional, and local) to create partnerships to be able to achieve the targets
set out in the other 16 SDGs (FAO 2020b).
The complexity of the issues of food waste and loss (SDG 12.3) today requires
the involvement of government, as well as local businesses, non-governmental
organisations, and citizens. The involvement of all these parties is best done through
an MSP (MacDonald et al. 2018).
Research has shown that globally around a third of all food produced for human
consumption is lost or wasted at some point in the value chain (CGCSA 2019: 18;
WWF 2017: 8). Despite the amount of food being produced worldwide increasing,
there are still approximately one in nine people who do not have daily food to eat
(Shaee-Jood & Cai 2016: 8432). An estimated 1.3 billion tonnes of the edible parts

5756
Selebi, Slabbert & Van Niekerk
of food are not utilised, forming part of food loss and waste annually (Shaee-Jood &
Cai 2016: 8433). This results in more pressure on the planet’s agricultural system to
produce increased amounts of food to account for the loss, while producing enough
food for human survival (Lipinski et al. 2013: 4-7; Secondi et al. 2015: 25).
It is estimated that 30 to 40 percent of food loss occurs in developing countries
(Irfanoglu et al. 2014: 2; Sheahan & Barrett 2017: 3). In Sub-Saharan Africa, the food
waste and loss estimate is estimated at 37 percent (Sheahan & Barrett 2017: 3).
This gure, however, is not completely accurate as there is no agreed-upon standard
method of measurement to record food loss and waste (Sheahan & Barrett 2017: 3;
Thornsbury & Minor 2019: 55-57). In South Africa, food losses are estimated to be
around 50 percent of all food produced for consumption throughout the entire supply
chain process (Nahman et al. 2012: 2147). This accounts for at least ten million tonnes
of food loss and waste annually (CGCSA 2019: 18; WWF 2017: 8).
“Food loss and waste refers to the edible parts of plants and animals that are produced
or harvested for human consumption but that are not ultimately consumed by people”
(Lipinski et al. 2013: 1). This refers to food that spoils or reduces in quality before it
reaches the end-consumer as part of the supply chain process (Lipinski et al. 2013: 1;
Nahman et al. 2012: 2147). This is due to carelessness or consciously discarding food
(Lipinski et al. 2013: 1). The impact of food loss and waste emphasises why it can be
considered a wicked problem that requires MSPs to solve it (Lipinski et al. 2013: 2;
Nahman et al. 2012: 2148-2149; Secondi et al. 2015: 25; Thornsbury & Minor 2019:
55). It is also important to consider that each stakeholder within an MSP seeks to
approach the solutions to the reduction of food loss and waste di󰀨erently (Dentoni et
al. 2018: 336-338; Thornsbury & Minor 2019: 55). The SDGs are interconnected and
no one goal can be seen as superior to another, making the SDGs unique and allowing
organisations to better identify areas in which they can make a di󰀨erence or join an
MSP to make a societal impact (Murray 2018).
Voluntary agreements as a tool to reduce food waste
Lindén and Carlsson-Kanyama (2002: 897) describe voluntary agreements as a
communication process between stakeholders who are mutually dependent and have
a common goal. The purpose of a voluntary agreement is to be a policy instrument,
which can address an issue by applying new technology, knowledge, or routines
(ibid.). As stated above, food loss and waste can be dened as a wicked problem as
various stakeholders can each envision a di󰀨erent solution to the problem. Therefore,
a voluntary agreement can be a useful tool for addressing food loss and waste. It
allows all stakeholders to participate in the solution whilst an independent entity is in
control (Lindén & Carlsson-Kanyama 2002: 897; Thornsbury & Minor 2019: 55). Baggot
(1986) states that a voluntary agreement is “any agreement between the government
(or one of its agencies) and a section of the community (or its representatives) whose
main purpose is to establish a degree of regulation over the specic activities of the
latter, and which involves a non-statutory regulatory procedure or code of practice,
or both, which the latter is committed to following under the terms of the agreement”.

5756
e role of strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships in reducing food loss
Currently, there are food loss and waste voluntary agreements both in the pilot and
implementation phases worldwide. Numerous countries have published research
on voluntary agreements and their success (Refresh 2018b: 1-6). Reviewing these
voluntary agreements across the globe provides insight into the use of these MSPs
for the achievement of the SDGs. Several countries have prioritised socioeconomic
development through MSPs between leading universities, research institutes, private
businesses, governments, civil society, and other actors and stakeholders (Refresh
2018b: 1-6).
The Netherlands is one of the countries in the European Union (EU) where the
voluntary agreement has progressed well into the implementation phase. The success
of this voluntary agreement has been so signicant that the Netherlands is seen as
a leader in achieving SDG 12.3 (Refresh 2018b: 1-6). The United Kingdom is also a
leading country in achieving SDG 12.3 as its voluntary agreement has been active
since 2005. Food waste was reduced by 2.3 million tonnes in 2013. This testies to the
fact that an MSP formalised in a voluntary agreement can achieve signicant success
(Priefer et al. 2016: 159). China has set up a ve-year plan to achieve the SDGs.
The China Chain Store and Franchise Association (CCFA) proposed that a voluntary
action plan should be formulated (Refresh 2018a: 18). The voluntary action plan would
be called The Food Waste Reduction China Action Platform. This action plan ows
form an international MSP with IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, CCFA
and CHEARI, guided by FAO, UNEP ‘Think, Eat, Save’, and supported by REFRESH,
in the aim of supporting China to achieve SDG 12.3 (Refresh 2018a: 18).
In Kenya, between 30 and 40 percent of food is being lost and wasted. This amounts
to more than 50 million bags of food (Kimiywe 2015: 489). Most of these losses
happen post-harvest due to the lack of infrastructure for farmers to transport all the
produce to communities (Kimiywe 2015: 490). To address this, the government has
been encouraged to partner with farmers and NGOs to reduce food loss and waste.
Proposals have been drafted on systems that will assist with reducing post-harvest
loss through infrastructure changes (A󰀨ognon et al. 2015: 491-493; Kimiywe 2015:
50-64).
Currently, plans are in progress among South African food manufacturers, suppliers,
and retailers to commit, via a voluntary agreement, to reduce food waste and loss
(CGCSA 2020). Three main stakeholder groups will be stakeholders in this voluntary
agreement – the government, the private sector, and NGOs. This MSP was launched
at a three-day meeting from 1 to 3 April 2019, hosted by the Consumer Goods
Council of South Africa (CGCSA) in partnership with the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI), and funded by the European Union (SA-EU Dialogue Facility) (CGCSA
2020). This rst stakeholder meeting focused on the rst step of understanding food
loss and waste and to develop a deeper understanding of why and where this loss
and waste occurs in the markets and industries, in line with the research done by
Thornsbury and Minor (2019: 55). A series of further workshops were held to facilitate
a deeper understanding of food waste and loss among stakeholders and to investigate
collaborative options to address this wicked problem.

5958
Selebi, Slabbert & Van Niekerk
Currently, in South Africa, no formalised food waste voluntary agreement has been
implemented (CGCSA 2019). “In a country where millions of people go to bed hungry
daily, this is monumental waste which we cannot allow to continue,” said CGCSA
Executive Matlou Setati (CGCSA 2020). South Africa’s situation is like that of Hungary
in terms of the lack of information available regarding the measurement and reporting of
food waste (Nahman et al. 2012: 2148; Refresh 2018b: 1-6). Limited studies have also
been conducted on the analysis of the food waste streams in South Africa (Nahman
et al. 2012: 2147-2149). This raises the need for a food waste voluntary agreement
between all stakeholders involved in the food supply chain. Voluntary agreements help
various stakeholders to collaborate more e󰀨ectively and to understand the drivers of
food loss and waste in their supply chain (Thornsbury & Minor 2019: 56).
Communication within MSPs
An MSP can be dened as a formal agreement between various stakeholders from
the private, public, and non-prot sectors (Sloan & Oliver 2013: 1837). Voluntary
agreements are a form of MSP. The core of MSPs is based on having a shared goal to
solve a problem that none of the stakeholders can solve in their individual capacity. This
is the key driving force that encourages stakeholders to work collaboratively (Brouwer
et al. 2016a: 20-22; Sloan & Oliver 2013: 1837). Any successful MSP must provide
and ensure benets for all stakeholders involved. While all stakeholders will benet
from the partnership, they will also have to contribute their expertise and resources
to ensure partnership success. Knowledge-sharing is a key characteristic of an MSP
(Beisheim & Simon 2016: 3; Brouwer et al. 2016a: 20-22).
Brouwer et al. (2016a: 44-46) set out various principles that will ensure an MSP is
e󰀨ective. At the foundation of these principles lies the importance of communication
between partners. It can be argued that this is the foundation and that there would
be no partnership without constructive dialogue with one another to reach a common
end goal (Brouwer et al. 2016b: 9-11). Communication is necessary to set out the
expectations of all partners, and to determine leadership, and to delegate roles and
responsibilities. If these factors are not communicated clearly, the MSP will not be able
to function e󰀨ectively, leading to unmet expectations. It is of critical importance that
all stakeholders should be actively involved in the communication process (Brouwer
et al. 2016a: 20-22; Brouwer et al. 2016b: 9-11). This communicative collaboration
facilitates transformative change, which is a key requirement to successfully address
the wicked problems set out in the SDGs (Brouwer et al. 2016a: 20-22; Brouwer et al.
2016b: 9-11).
For an MSP to be successful, all stakeholders must be equally willing to share
information and power. There should be an equal level of commitment from the
stakeholders. This will contribute to the success of the MSP as everyone will focus
on meeting the joint goal to the best of their individual abilities (Brouwer et al. 2016a:
18-19; Mohr & Spekman 1994: 137-138). Therefore, having e󰀨ective communication
is key to an MSP’s success (Brouwer et al. 2016a: 18-19; Mohr & Spekman 1994:
137-138).

5958
e role of strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships in reducing food loss
In an MSP (such as a voluntary agreement), certain stakeholders may have more
institutional power than others. For stakeholders to communicate e󰀨ectively within
an MSP, interdependence must be established to ensure each stakeholder is of
equal importance and value to the partnership. This will also create an equal level of
respect amongst the stakeholders. Without respect, there will not be free and open
communication (Brouwer et al. 2016a: 18-19; Mohr & Spekman 1994: 137-138).
Establishing mutual respect amongst the stakeholders is a key factor in creating an
environment of trust. Stakeholders will be more inclined to share information when
trust is established. This will lead to stakeholders communicating more openly to
collectively reach the joint goals of the partnership (Brouwer et al. 2016a: 18-19; Mohr
& Spekman 1994: 137-138). As South Africa is a diverse country, all stakeholders
will be from di󰀨erent cultures and religions, and this might a󰀨ect the way in which a
stakeholder communicates with other stakeholders or how communication is received
from other stakeholders (Kapur 2018: 4).
The cultural diversity of South Africa is reected in the country’s 12 o󰀩cial languages.
This could create a semantic barrier of misunderstanding among stakeholders when
di󰀨erent languages are used for communication. As all stakeholders are also from
various sectors and industries, the sectoral and industry jargon used might also create
communication barriers among stakeholders (Kapur 2018: 5).
RESEARCH DESIGN
Methodology
This study used a single qualitative case study research design. The purpose of a
single case study research design is to describe and interpret the phenomenon being
studied in a real-world context (Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. 2014: 178-179; University of
Pretoria 2019: 2). This requires an extensive study of one or more space-and time-
bound events (University of Pretoria 2019: 2). Case studies in business usually involve
an investigation of the functioning of some aspect of the organisation (Myers 2013: 78).
For this study, the researchers worked with the CGCSA to describe and understand
the communication within the MSP of the SAFLWVA towards the achievement of
SDG 12.3. A single case study research design was most suited to this study as the
researchers were focusing on the topic of communication barriers and enablers within
the MSP of the voluntary agreement to achieve SDG 12.3.
Sampling
The unit of analysis consisted of representatives from the signatory organisations
from three sectors – the government, the private sector, and NGOs – that are part
of the SAFLWVA. The units of observation were 15 individuals representing each
organisation interviewed.
The purposive technique was used to select the organisations and individual
participants who were deemed to be information-rich with regards to the study’s
research questions. The organisations and participants were carefully chosen based

6160
Selebi, Slabbert & Van Niekerk
on specic inclusion and exclusion characteristics. Additionally, snowball sampling
allowed for participants to refer other individuals or organisations who were also
relevant to the study. These information-rich interviews gave deeper insights and
a clear understanding of the phenomenon (Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. 2014: 142-143;
Palinkas et al. 2015: 1).
Inclusion criteria for individual participants:
♦Individual must have been employed by an organisation which is a stakeholder
or potential signatory of the SAFLWVA;
♦Individual must be actively involved in the organisation’s participation in the
voluntary agreement; and
♦Individual must have been residing in South Africa.
TABLE 1: PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS
Pseudonym Position Firm Length of
interview
(minutes)
I001 Deputy Director M001 55
I002 Sustainability and External Reporting Director M002 35
I003 Sustainability Manager M003 20
I004 Group Sustainability Specialist M004 20
I005 Principal Researcher M005 30
I006 Food Safety Initiative Executive M006 50
I007 Director M007 50
I008 Transport Research and Logistics O󰀩cer M008 23
I009 Sustainability Manager M009 25
I010 Waste Sector Desk Analyst M010 50
I011 CEO M011 31
I012 Deputy-Director: Waste Policy and Minimisation M012 32
I013 Sustainability Professional M013 30
I014 Technical Director M014 50
I015 Chief Director M015 30
Average: 36

6160
e role of strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships in reducing food loss
Data collection
One-on-one semi-structed interviews took place via online video calls. The online semi-
structured interviews used open-ended questions that allowed the participants more
exibility to answer the questions freely and without the interviewer’s bias (Creswell
2012: 218). A discussion guide was created. The researchers started the interview
with introductions and consent before heading into the interview questions. The
discussion guide allowed for the researchers to use probing questions encouraging
the respondents to give detailed responses.
A pre-test was conducted on two individuals participating in the SAFLWVA. The pre-
test was used to improve the discussion guide to ensure optimal results in the data
collection (Du Plooy-Cilliers et al. 2014: 15).
Data collection took place from September to October 2020, with a total of 15 semi-
structured online interviews conducted. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the 15
interviews, each lasting an average of 36 minutes. All the interviews were conducted
virtually using the Google Meet and Zoom online platforms. All participants granted
their consent for the interviews to be recorded.
An auto-transcription tool, Fireies.ai, was utilised for transcribing the interviews.
Each transcription was available within an hour after completing the interview. The
researchers downloaded the transcriptions immediately after the interviews and edited
any errors made by the transcription tool.
Data analysis
Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. The readings of Braun and Clarke
(2012: 57-71) and Creswell (2012: 236-253) were used as guidelines to conduct the
thematic analysis. This process involved preliminary studying of all the transcripts
in-depth to develop a master code list from which the relevant sub-themes and
themes were derived. The codes identied were used to analyse and codify all
the transcriptions.
Ethical considerations
The Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Business Management at
the University of Pretoria approved the study in August 2020. All participants were
encouraged to read and sign an informed consent form before participating in an
interview. The form claried the intent of the study, and emphasised that participation
in the research was voluntary and that a respondent could cease to participate at
any point in time. This form guaranteed the anonymity and condentiality of the
information provided during the interviews. This information was reiterated before the
audio recording of the interview commenced. The anonymity of all the participants
was further protected by providing pseudonyms for all of them and by removing any
identifying information from the transcripts. No organisation or individual participant’s
information is identiable in the nal research article.

6362
Selebi, Slabbert & Van Niekerk
FINDINGS
Four main themes were identied in the ndings. Table 2 illustrate how the main
themes and their sub-themes link to the research questions.
TABLE 2: A SUMMARY OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RELATED
THEMES
Research
Question:
RQ1: Why is
understanding
multi-stakeholder
partnerships
necessary for the
success of the
SAFLWVA?
RQ2: How do
the stakeholders
communicate
within the
SAFLWVA MSP?
RQ3: What are the
communication
enablers and barriers
within the SAFLWVA
MSP?
Themes: Function of an MSP Communication
methods
Communication
enablers
Communication
barriers
Sub-themes: Reason for joining MSP
Voluntary Agreement
Role of MSP
Stakeholder mapping
Communication
channels
Table 2 was adapted from Mostert et al. (2017: 8) and provides an e󰀨ective way to
illustrate the links between the research questions and the themes identied. In the
following sections each of the themes and sub-themes will be discussed in more detail
with a relevant quotation from the data.
eme 1: Function of an MSP
The rst identied theme, function of an MSP, relates to the rst research question
about the role (purpose) of an MSP in reducing food waste. An MSP is seen as a
vehicle to involve all the stakeholders to work together to tackle the issue of food
waste and loss. This is illustrated by the following quote:
It’s throughout the supply chain and therefore making one or getting one part in the
value chain on board will not have as much eect as having dierent partners from
the entire value chain to come on board. That is why it is important to have a multi-
stakeholder involvement in this process (I005, Principal Researcher)
This links back to previous literature. Food loss and waste is seen as a complex
problem that cannot be solved without the collaboration of various stakeholders
(Lipinski et al. 2013: 2; Nahman et al. 2012: 2148-2149; Secondi et al. 2015: 25;
Thornsbury & Minor 2019: 55).

6362
e role of strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships in reducing food loss
Sub-theme 1: Reason for joining voluntary agreement
MSPs are necessary to solve the issue of food loss and waste. The rst sub-theme
emphasises the importance of understanding the reasons why stakeholders would
join an MSP. Each stakeholder also must understand the importance and relevance of
joining the voluntary agreement. This should be clearly communicated.
The ndings illustrate that an organisation will join an MSP on the following pre-
conditions: (1) there should be strategic alignment with the voluntary agreement’s
goals and the organisation’s goals; and (2) there must mutual benets. The following
quotes illustrate this:
…I think at the moment, what would be important to us that a voluntary agreement
is within our scope and our mission as an organisation… (I011, CEO)
…then mutual benet probably for all the partners (I003, Sustainability Manager)
Understanding the reasons why a stakeholder joins will assist in understanding how to
best communicate with stakeholders and can set the tone for the communication and
indicate the frequency and possible vehicles that could be utilised.
Sub-theme 2: Understanding the purpose of MSPs
The ndings indicate that an MSP allows for stakeholders, who would otherwise not have
come together, to share their skills and knowledge for a mutually benecial purpose.
Such a partnership also creates a support network that serves all stakeholders in the
form of information and knowledge-sharing. The following quote summarises this:
I think once stakeholders agree to achieve the objective, I think what becomes
relevant then is to build an ecient system to achieve that objective. I think the
natural progression should be that these stakeholders then would engage with
each other and, collaborate with each other in order to achieve the objective (I012,
Deputy-Director: Waste Policy and Minimisation)
eme 2: Communication methods
This theme explores how the stakeholders should communicate with each other within
an MSP.
Sub-theme 1: Stakeholder mapping
Understanding the audience is imperative to e󰀨ective communication. An MSP consists
of various stakeholders. In the SAFLWVA, there are stakeholders ranging from large
corporates to smallholding farms. This makes it essential to conduct stakeholder
mapping, as only one method of communication will not align with all stakeholders.
The quotes below explain the relevance of stakeholder mapping:
…the farmers … in Cape Town, they are very old school and conservative, and the
only reason why they will ever change is if the neighbour changes. If you go speak to
them face to face. ... [Farmers] Does not talk, or send emails, honours. They actually
go out and to meet them... (010, Waste Sector Desk Analyst)
I think that we have to be very selective and sensitive about what communication
platforms and methods we use (I011, CEO)

6564
Selebi, Slabbert & Van Niekerk
Sub-theme 2: Identifying communication channels
Following from the previous sub-theme, it is important to determine the channels of
communication perceived to be most e󰀨ective. The four most prominent communication
channels mentioned by the participants are indicated in Table 3.
TABLE 3: IDENTIFIED COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
Item
Ranking
Channel Number of
participants
who mentioned
the item
Illustrative quote
1 Face-to-face/
virtual meetings
13 “…I think, I mean, obviously with
Covid it is a bit di󰀩cult, but really face
to face networking events are much
more valuable than communicating
via electrical, like e-meetings,
virtual meetings. You with the actual
signatories, I think it is important that
it is face to face if possible, if not then
yeah, probably virtual then…” (I010,
Waste Sector Desk Analyst)
2 Written 12 “In other words, it’s a communication
either, through the written word or
email or WhatsApp or one of those
platforms, and then there’s on di󰀨erent
methods, more important matters.”
(I011, CEO)
3 Social media 2 “You can do, on social media
campaigns around, food waste and
loss, whether it’s Twitter, whether it’s
LinkedIn, whether it’s Facebook and
we’ve really seen the e󰀨ectiveness
of using those platforms…” (I002,
Sustainability and External Reporting
Director)
4 Advertising 1 “…how will we communicate
around it is building it into your TV
advertisements, building it into the
branding itself in the shops.” (I002,
Sustainability and External Reporting
Director)

6564
e role of strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships in reducing food loss
eme 3: Communication enablers
The third theme relates to the communication enablers that are perceived to improve
communication within the SAFLWVA. Table 4 lists the communication enablers
necessary for a successful MSP.
TABLE 4: IDENTIFIED COMMUNICATION ENABLERS
Item
Ranking
Communication
enablers
Number of
participants
who mentioned
the item
Illustrative quote
1 Trust 6 “…so denitely trust in the process
organisation, that’s collaborative
convening the PR, the VA, trust in
your partner, stakeholders.” (I004,
Group Sustainability Specialist)
2 Information sharing 3 “Trust, respect, sending only
relevant information” (I008,
Transport Research and Logistics
O󰀩cer)
3 Education about
benets
3 “I think there is some learning
that we can take forward.” (I005,
Principal Researcher)
4 Receiving value 2 “The perception of power also
plays a big role, I think, in this
whole partnership because those
partners that feel weaker should
be empowered to believe, or they
should be reminded of the value
that they bring to the table.” (I003,
Sustainability Manager)
5 Gaining ownership 2 “I think one of the best sorts of
enablers is where you end up
with a lot of the parties doing
most of the talking and providing
the key inputs to working groups,
because the whole purpose of a
voluntary agreement is the sense
of ownership amongst the di󰀨erent
parties, rather than a top-down
organisation where people at the top
are managers and dictate what the
messages should be and what the
actions should be.” (I014, Technical
Director)

6766
Selebi, Slabbert & Van Niekerk
The literature identied openness and closure as communication enablers (Radovic
Markovic & Salamzadeh 2018; Stacho et al. 2019). The research ndings have
contributed these ve additional enablers: (1) trust; (2) information sharing; (3)
education about benets; (4) receiving value; and (5) gaining ownership, which will
enhance e󰀨ective communication within the MSP of the SAFLWVA.
eme 4: Communication barriers
The last theme explains some of the communication barriers the participating
stakeholders identied in this MSP. Table 5 summarises the ndings related to the
communication barriers that may a󰀨ect the success of the voluntary agreement.
TABLE 5: IDENTIFIED COMMUNICATION ENABLERS
Item
Ranking
Item Name Number of
participants
who mentioned
the item
Illustrative quote
1 Information overload 4 “Too much information given at a
time.” (I010, Waste Sector Desk
Analyst)
2 Lack of stakeholder
information sharing
3 “We ought to know exactly what
the other person’s problems and
objectives are so that we can work
together in the group, because
it does not make sense that the
system is working to accomplish a
shared purpose, but they are not
talking to each other.” (I006, Food
Safety Initiative Executive)
3 Exclusion of
stakeholders
2 “…the relevant stakeholders.
They could be a situation
where probably those, I do
not know, it is a possibility that
they [stakeholders] could have
excluded…” (I012, Deputy-
Director: Waste Policy and
Minimisation)
4 Inconsistency 2 “I got two di󰀨erent people, or
one more, the next meeting is a
di󰀨erent person who you have to
give a background; always you
continue giving the background.”
(I001, Deputy Director: Agro-
processing)

6766
e role of strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships in reducing food loss
The four barriers identied in the ndings are: (1) information overload; (2) lack of
stakeholder information sharing; (3) exclusion of stakeholders; and (4) inconsistency.
CONCLUSION
This study’s aim was to show that e󰀨ective communication in MSP can help achieve
SDG 12.3 through the SAFLWVA. The ndings revealed valuable insights, which
answered the research questions posed at the beginning of the study.
The ndings indicate that stakeholder mapping is vital and provides insights into
the various channels of communication seen by the participants as most e󰀨ective
within the SAFLWVA. The research ndings provide new insights into improving
communication with all stakeholders using the necessary channels, which are suited
to each stakeholder within an MSP.
The research further found that stakeholders will encounter di󰀨erent communication
enablers and barriers that a󰀨ect how they will communicate with each other in
the SAFLWVA. The ndings as to the main communication enablers for the multi-
stakeholders were that there needs to be trust amongst stakeholders to share important
and relevant information. The participants also noted that e󰀨ective education on the
benets of participating in the partnership, accompanied by ensuring that partners
receive perceived value from the SAFLWVA, is essential for achieving SDG 12.3.
The communication barriers that the participants stated could hinder the e󰀨ectiveness
of the MSP pertain to large amounts or too much information being shared by the
CGCSA, but not enough information being shared by the relevant stakeholders
who are involved in the SAFLWVA. Some participants also noted that certain key
stakeholders were not involved from the start and were still not involved, creating a
large gap of knowledge and information sharing that needed to be lled.
Managerial recommendations
The ndings of this study clearly identify the main communication barriers and
enablers that are present in the SAFLWVA MSP. These should be used to develop a
communication framework enabling better communication, whilst actively curtailing the
barriers. Addressing these barriers will lead to more e󰀨ective communication and thus
a more successful voluntary agreement. Secondly, the need for stakeholder mapping
emerged in the ndings. Therefore, it is recommended that within the communication
framework a section be included where various communication channels and
techniques are mapped according to the needs of each relevant stakeholder. Lastly,
the benets stakeholders would enjoy in signing up with the SAFLWVA MSP should
be more clearly communicated. From the ndings of this study, the already identied
benets should be used in the communication messaging. The ndings could be
used to determine the messaging and communication strategy (evolving from the
stakeholder mapping, communication methods, barriers, and enablers).

6968
Selebi, Slabbert & Van Niekerk
Limitations and directions for future research
This study specically focused on how the MSP could achieve SDG 12.3 for the
SAFLWVA. Further research could broaden the knowledge on utilising MSPs in
voluntary agreements to achieve other SDGs. Not many studies have been conducted
on voluntary agreements in developing countries. Therefore, more studies of this nature
should be undertaken in a variety of contexts. This study received responses from 15
participants. These research ndings could be expanded to quantitatively evaluate
the ndings allowing for a larger number of participants and a broader reection of the
views of MSP stakeholders.
REFERENCES
A󰀨ognon, H., Mutungi, C., Sanginga, P. & Borgemeister, C. 2015. Unpacking postharvest
losses in Sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis. World Development 66: 49-68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.002
Baggot, R. 1986. By voluntary agreement: The politics of instrument selection. Public
Administration 64(1): 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1986.tb00603.x
Beisheim, M. & Simon, N. 2016. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for implementing the 2030
Agenda: Improving accountability and transparency. Analytical Paper for the 2016
ECOSOC Partnership Forum. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2767464
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. 2012. Thematic analysis. In: Cooper, H. (ed.) APA Handbook of
research methods in psychology. Volume 2. Research designs. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Brouwer, H., Woodhill, J., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K. & Van Vugt, S. 2016a. The MSP
Guide. Available at: http://www.mspguide.org/sites/default/les/case/msp_guide-
2016-digital.pdf [Accessed on 16 March 2020].
Brouwer, J.H., Hemmati, M. & Woodhill, A.J. 2016b. Seven principles for e󰀨ective and
healthy multi-stakeholder partnerships. Great Insights 8(1): 9-11. https://doi.
org/10.3362/9781780446691.000
CGCSA. 2019. South African Food Waste Voluntary Agreement: Business Plan
Implementation Workshop. Available at: https://www.cgcsa.co.za/wp-content/
uploads/2019/07/Business-Plan-Implementation-Workshop-Morning-Session.pdf
[Accessed on 28 March 2020].
CGCSA. 2020. South African companies close to signing voluntary agreement to
reduce food loss and waste. Available at: https://www.cgcsa.co.za/south-african-
companies-close-signing-voluntary-agreement-reduce-food-loss-waste/ [Accessed
on 1 May 2020].
Creswell, J.W. 2012. Education research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. (Fourth edition). Boston: MA: Pearson.
Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V. & Schouten, G. 2018. Harnessing wicked problems in multi-
stakeholder partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics 150(2): 333-356. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-018-3858-6
Du Plooy-Cilliers, F., Davis, C. & Bezuidenhout, R.M. 2014. Research matters. Paarl:
Paarl Media.

6968
e role of strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships in reducing food loss
FAO. 2020a. Sustainable Development Goal 12. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
sustainable-development-goals/goals/goal-12/en/ [Accessed on 20 March 2020].
FAO. 2020b. Sustainable Development Goal 17. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
sustainable-development-goals/goals/goal-17/en/ [Accessed on 20 April 2020].
Irfanoglu, Z.B., Baldos, U.L., Hertel, T. & Van der Mensbrugghe, D. 2014. Impacts of
reducing global food loss and waste on food security, trade, GHG emissions and
land use. Conference papers 332486. Purdue University, Centre for Global Trade
Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
Kapur, R. 2018. Barriers to e󰀨ective communication. Available at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/323794732_Barriers_to_Effective_Communication/citation/
download [Accessed on 1 April 2020].
Kimiywe, J. 2015. Food and nutrition security: challenges of post-harvest handling in
Kenya. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 74(4): 487-495. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0029665115002414
Lindén, A.-L. & Carlsson-Kanyama, A. 2002. Voluntary agreements – a measure for energy-
e󰀩ciency in industry? Lessons from a Swedish programme. Energy Policy 30(10):
897-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00003-4
Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R. & Searchinger, T. 2013. Reducing
food loss and waste. World Resources Institute Working Paper 1-40.
MacDonald, A., Clarke, A., Huang, L., Roseland, M. & Seitanidi, M.M. 2018. Multi-stakeholder
partnerships (SDG #17) as a means of achieving sustainable communities and
cities (SDG #11). In: Leal Filho, W. (ed.). Handbook of sustainability science and
research. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_12
Mohr, J. & Spekman, R. 1994. Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes,
communication behavior, and conict resolution techniques. Strategic Management
Journal 15(2): 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150205
Mostert, W., Niemann, W. & Kotzé, T. 2017. Supply chain integration in the product return
process: A study of consumer electronics retailers. Acta Commercii 17(1): 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v17i1.487
Murray, J. 2018. How Unilever integrates the SDGs into corporate strategy. GreenBiz,
15 October. Available at: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-unilever-integrates-
sdgs-corporate-strategy [Accessed on 1 April 2020].
Myers, M.D. 2013. Qualitative research in business and management. (Second edition).
Los Angeles: CA: SAGE.
Nahman, A., De Lange, W., Oelofse, S. & Godfrey, L. 2012. The costs of household
food waste in South Africa. Waste Management 32(11): 2147-2153. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.04.012
Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N. & Hoagwood, K. 2015.
Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method
implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental
Health Services Research 42(5): 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-
0528-y

PB70
Selebi, Slabbert & Van Niekerk
Priefer, C., Jörissen, J. & Bräutigam, K. R. 2016. Food waste prevention in Europe – A
cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 109: 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2016.03.004
Radovic Markovic, M. & Salamzadeh, A. 2018. The importance of communication in
business management. 7th International Scientic Conference on Employment,
Education and Entrepreneurship, Belgrade, Serbia.
Refresh. 2018a. Launch of food waste reduction China action platform at the 2018 China
sustainable consumption roundtable. Available at: https://eu-refresh.org/launch-
food-waste-reduction-china-action-platform-2018-china-sustainable-consumption-
roundtable [Accessed on 28 April 2020].
Refresh. 2018b. Voluntary agreements as a policy instrument for food waste reduction.
Available at: https://eu-refresh.org/sites/default/les/MINUTES_REFRESH-Policy-
Working-Group-on-VAs.pdf [Accessed on 27 April 2020].
Secondi, L., Principato, L. & Laureti, T. 2015. Household food waste behaviour in EU-
27 countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy 56: 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodpol.2015.07.007
Shaee-Jood, M. & Cai, X. 2016. Reducing food loss and waste to enhance food security
and environmental sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology 50(16):
8432-8443. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01993
Sheahan, M. & Barrett, C.B. 2017. Food loss and waste in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy
70: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.012
Sloan, P. & Oliver, D. 2013. Building trust in multi-stakeholder partnerships: Critical
emotional incidents and practices of engagement. Organisation Studies 34(12):
1835-1868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613495018
Stacho, Z., Stachová, K., Papula, J., Papulová, Z. & Kohnová, L. 2019. E󰀨ective
communication in organisations increases their competitiveness. Polish Journal of
Management Studies 19: 391-403. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2019.19.1.30
Thornsbury, S. & Minor, T. 2019. Food loss as a wicked problem. The Economics of Food
Loss in the Produce Industry 55-58. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429264139-22
United Nations. 2019. Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals
and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available at: https://
unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global%20Indicator%20Framework%20after%20
2019%20renement_Eng.pdf [Accessed on 2 April 2020].
United Nations. 2020. About the sustainable development goals. Available at: https://www.
un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ [Accessed on
20 April 2020].
University of Pretoria. 2019. An overview of selected qualitative research designs. Available
at: https://clickup.up.ac.za [Accessed on 17 June 2020].
WWF. 2017. Food loss and waste: Facts and futures. Available at: https://dtnac4duyw8.
cloudfront.net/downloads/wwf_2017_food_loss_and_waste_facts_and_futures.
pdf?21641/Food-Loss-and-Waste-Facts-and-Futures-Report [Accessed on
22 February 2020].