Abstract
Literature analysing reasons for Consumer Food Waste (CFW) revealed that it cannot be reduced to consumer behaviour alone. In fact, CFW should not be conceptualised as the problem but as a symptom of a food system that oversupplies and encourages consumerism. This research focuses on preventing CFW in the United Kingdom (UK), as a representative of a developed country, by improving the traditional food provisioning system to better integrate production and consumption. To achieve this, five stages are identified to design a sustainable product service system (PSS) capable of supporting consumers to better manage their food operations: (1) strategic analysis of current food provisioning system, (2) exploring system level innovations leading to minimisation of CFW, (3) refinement and selection of PSS, (4) designing the most promising PSS from an environmental, economic and social perspective, and (5) evaluating designed PSS. This paper considers the first of these stages, reviews reasons for and existing solutions to CFW, and provides a strategic analysis of the current food provisioning system to identify characteristics that could be exploited within a new PSS. Initial investigations reveal applicability of PSS concept to the food provisioning system and potential for reduction of CFW if core causes are addressed.
1. Introduction
Consumer food waste (CFW) is particularly problematic because in comparison to waste generated at other stages of the supply chain its associated environmental and economic impacts are the highest. This is due to the cumulative amount of resources (labour, energy, water, etc.) required to produce the final products. For instance, the cumulative energy use for 1 kilogramme of beef can increase from 28.16 MJ at the farm gate to 49.91 MJ at the consumption stage (Foster et al. Citation2006; WRAP Citation2013a).
In the UK, 72% of post-farm food waste is generated at household level (Figure ): some 7.3 million tonnes per annum, of which 5.7 million tonnes (78%) is classed as avoidable or possibly avoidable (WRAP Citation2017). Avoidable food waste refers to food that is discarded because it is not wanted anymore or has been left to expire, whereas possibly avoidable food waste is food that some consumers eat but not others (e.g. bread crust), or food that can be eaten if prepared differently (e.g. raw potato peeling vs. potato peel crisps) (WRAP Citation2013b). CFW is not only a UK issue, studies have shown that on a European level, the majority of food waste created is attributed to consumers (European Court of Auditors Citation2016). These alarming figures suggest that an improvement in how consumers purchase and manage food is needed. Environmentally and economically, prevention is the best option to manage waste (European Commission Citation2012; Garcia-Garcia et al. Citation2016), this research focuses on preventing avoidable and possibly avoidable CFW generated in the household.
The choice of UK as a valid case to analyse CFW and explore its potential solutions is underpinned by two main factors. Firstly, UK is identified as one of the EU countries with the highest amount of CFW per capita (Monier et al. Citation2010; Vanham et al. Citation2015). Secondly, thanks to the work conducted by WRAP (Citation2013b, 2017) there is a relatively more detailed analysis and quantification of CFW in the UK compared to other countries of the EU (Vanham et al. Citation2015). Thus, the availability of UK CFW data and the fact that UK is one of the most wasteful nations of the EU informed this research scope.
This paper begins with an analysis of the UK CFW issue and its challenges, provides an overview of the solutions present in the literature that seek to support businesses to reducing it, examines attributes of the current food provisioning system that could support a new product service system (PSS) in substantially minimising CFW and discusses these outputs in terms of designing a new PSS.
2. Causes and solutions to CFW
In relation to causes of CFW, several studies have revealed that reasons for wasting food at household level are various and complex (Evans Citation2011; Evans and Welch Citation2015; Stancu, Haugaard, and Lähteenmäki Citation2016). Direct reasons of CFW include food not used in time, accidents (i.e. burning, spoilage, etc.), personal preferences (WRAP Citation2013b) and leftover waste (Cicatiello et al. Citation2016). These reasons are in turn consequences of unplanned grocery shopping (Stefan et al. Citation2013) – interestingly, consumers who make shopping lists are found to be more concerned about CFW issue (Principato, Secondi, and Pratesi Citation2015) – over-purchasing (Cicatiello et al. Citation2016), poor management of stored food (WRAP Citation2007), incorrect storage (Cicatiello et al. Citation2016), lack of cooking skills, over-preparation (Cicatiello et al. Citation2016) and over-serving (WRAP Citation2013b). Thus, it is observed that CFW is a consequence of how consumers purchase, store, cook and consume food.
Furthermore, studies within the fields of social science and psychology reveal that CFW is influenced by factors related to (1) the individual, (2) the society/area and (3) the retail-manufacturing system (Aschemann-Witzel et al. Citation2015; Quested et al. Citation2013; Secondi, Principato, and Laureti Citation2015). Factors related to the individual include (a) socio-demographic aspects such as age, gender and household composition, (b) psycho-demographic aspects such as motivation, attitudes, values and habits, and (c) socio-economic aspects such as income, level of education and household storage infrastructure. Regarding the society and area factors, studies show that social norms influence how consumers handle food operations (e.g. family norm), and that economic, environmental and governmental characteristics of the country of residency have some impact on CFW generation. Interestingly, Secondi, Principato, and Laureti (Citation2015) argue that the more land consecrated for agriculture a country has the less food waste its citizens generate. Additionally, characteristics of the retail-manufacturing system are believed to influence consumers’ wasteful behaviour. For instance, retail environment is designed to make consumers buy more by providing special offers such as buy one get one free and competing on relatively low prices. Thus, consumers are encouraged to buy more than what they need which results in almost one-fifth of food purchased by UK consumers being wasted (WRAP Citation2013b).
Considering the reviewed models above, it is understood that CFW is more than a behaviour issue but rather a symptom of a bigger societal problem shaped by an unsustainable production and consumption system that relies on oversupply, consumerism and competition on cheap prices (Aschemann-Witzel et al. Citation2015; Lang Citation2013). It is therefore important to not only address the symptoms but also the core causes when formulating a solution that could lead to a significant reduction of CFW. Figure represents this research conceptual framework which enumerates the different causes and factors influencing CFW, found in the literature, revealing a need for a food system that caters for individualisation, changes food provisioning processes, takes into consideration environment where it operates, and is scalable.
The current research recognises the role of food providers, particularly manufacturers and retailers, in supporting the minimisation of CFW. This is primarily due to the fact that some manufacturing and retail activities can contribute to the generation of CFW (i.e. packaging, promotions, portioning, etc.), and also the power that manufacturers and retailers hold in controlling the majority of the flow of food products from producers to consumers. This enables them influence both production and consumption. Hence, a review of the literature regarding the solutions supporting businesses in fostering more sustainable consumption and preventing CFW is conducted. It is noticed that the majority of published academic articles around food waste provide an analysis of the issue rather than a solution. Thus, solutions discussed on commercial websites and in generic reports are also considered.
Regarding actions that can be taken by providers, some solutions call for the abolishment of best before dates to prevent people from throwing away perfectly edible food (Adam Citation2015) while other solutions promote innovative technology to offer more precision in detecting if food is spoilt such as temperature sensitive smart labels (Zhang et al. Citation2013), and bio-reactive tactile tags made of gelatine that can change texture (Smithers Citation2016). Other solutions helped in extending product shelf-life (or percentage of shelf-life available to consumers) through packaging technology (Kirtil and Oztop Citation2016; Sand Citation2015; Smithers Citation2016) or though logistics and supply chain management (i.e. first-expired-first-out transportation model) (Jedermann et al. Citation2014). Furthermore, packaging and mobile apps have been used to provide guidance on how to store food to preserve its quality (WRAP Citation2014) as well as how to utilise stored food before it expires (Woolley et al. Citation2016). Providing flexible portioning is also one of the actions that can be taken by food providers to facilitate prevention of CFW, examples of solutions that offer this flexibility are pre-cut and resealable packages (Sand Citation2015). Those are examples of technologies that businesses could implement to assist consumers in maximising their use of food resources.
In relation to actions that can be taken by consumers, one of the most prominent educative programmes in the UK is love food hate waste (LFHW) (WRAP Citation2015) which raises consumers’ awareness around planning, portioning, storing and understanding date labels. This programme also stresses the importance of efficiently managing stored food and purchasing only needed items by encouraging consumers to plan and shop for specific ingredients with meals in minds. Since LFHW launch in 2007, CFW in the UK reduced from 8.2 million tonnes in 2007 to 7.0 million tonnes in 2012 but then increased to 7.3 million tonnes in 2015 (WRAP Citation2017). Although the latest change from 2012 to 2015 is regarded as statistically insignificant (WRAP Citation2017), it can support the suggestion that the decrease in CFW from 2007 to 2012 was mainly due to price inflation and other economic factors and not solely to the effectiveness of the various engagement campaigns (WRAP Citation2013b).Thus, it can be argued that educating consumers is an important enabler to change their behaviour but is not enough to minimise CFW.
The existing solutions reviewed suggest that reduction of CFW can be achieved through actions that can either be taken by food providers or actions that can be taken by consumers which providers could support and facilitate as presented in Figure . It is also identified that the majority of developed or underdevelopment solutions encourage businesses to deploy communication, innovation, technology and policy-making to minimise CFW. Furthermore, it is observed that the majority of proposed solutions address the direct reasons for CFW and ignore the core issues previously discussed.
One potential approach to address food surplus issue is by improving the existing food provisioning system such that providers could work in partnership with consumers to develop smart, value-adding and targeted solutions. To achieve this, this research proposes to apply the PSS concept within a food waste context to design a more sustainable food provisioning system where CFW is prevented. PSS is defined by Mont (Citation2004) as ‘a system of products, services, networks of actors and supporting infrastructure that is developed to be competitive, satisfy customers and be more environmentally sound than traditional business models’. The most prominent case study where PSS concept has been applied within a food context is the ODIN project analysed by the pioneers of PSS Goedkoop et al. (Citation1999). The aforementioned project’s main aim was not to reduce CFW; however, it has led to environmental improvements via reduction of transportation and prevention of food loss at production level. Thus, these research main hypotheses are:
(a) Consumer food waste is a symptom of a complicated societal issue affected by inefficiencies related to the current conventional food provisioning system, and (b) developing and implementing a new product service food provisioning system will lead to a significant reduction of consumer food waste.
(1) | How could the current food provisioning system be improved? | ||||
(2) | What are the specific products, services and system attributes that manufacturers and retailers could adopt to influence consumer behaviour towards food waste? | ||||
(3) | How could they be clustered to form a system? | ||||
(4) | What are the changes required for single companies, supply chains and consumers to implement such a change? What is the design of this change (new system) from both production and consumption sides? | ||||
(5) | How can the financial, economic and environmental benefits of this change be evaluated? Do the results of this evaluation verify the research hypothesis? |
3. Methods
The literature consists of several methodologies that support the design, development and implementation of PSSs. This research methodology is influenced by four major design methodologies aimed to support the design of PSS that would foster more sustainable consumption:
(1) | MSDS: Methodology for system design for sustainability (Vezzoli, Kohtala, and Srinivasan Citation2014); | ||||
(2) | MEPSS: Methodology for PSS development (Van Halen, Vezzoli, and Wimmer Citation2005); | ||||
(3) | Sushouse methodology: Strategies towards the sustainable households (Quist et al. Citation2001); and | ||||
(4) | SOPMF: Solution-oriented partnership methodological framework (Manzini, Collina, and Evans Citation2004). |
Table 1. Reviewed system level design methodologies and current research methodology.
(1) | Current food provisioning system analysis: Strategically analyse the current UK food provisioning system (from manufacturer to consumer, including also retail and logistics) in terms of its characteristics that lead to or encourage a reduction of CFW; | ||||
(2) | Identifying general PSS concepts: Identify feasible opportunities for converting the food provisioning system into a PSS that could lead to reduced levels of CFW, | ||||
(3) | Refinement and selection of PSS: Select PSS concepts based on economic and technological feasibility, user acceptability, and potential environment benefits; | ||||
(4) | PSS design: Design (and demonstrate) the most promising PSS (from economic, environmental and social points of view) that facilitates an overall reduction of CFW; and | ||||
(5) | PSS assessment: Evaluate the new PSS against the current food provisioning system in terms of CFW reduction as well as other potential environmental, economic and social implications. |
The strategic analysis stage is important in gathering necessary information that can support, feed in and facilitate the generation of possible system level innovations. This assessment is comprised of three processes of analyses selected and modified from MSDS and MEPSS methodologies. These processes are: stakeholder identification, current system and macro-trend analysis, and customer needs analysis, and have been used because they allow to assess the interest and influence of stakeholders in developing a new PSS, identify the current system capabilities in order to optimally utilise them in the design of the new PSS, and identify customers’ needs that should be met in order to facilitate prevention of CFW. The content of these analyses is derived from the literature review and from discussions with a broad set of industry and third sector organisations, and the tools used to guide each of these three processes are presented in Table .
Table 2. Processes and tools used to strategically analyse the current food provisioning system.
3.1. Stakeholder identification methodology
The first process of this stage was to identify the main actors and their respective motivations for changing the current provisioning system. Supported by information gathered from the literature review and discussions with business experts, a number of brainstorming workshops were organised to address the following questions:
Who are the stakeholders of the current system used by the consumer to acquire food?
Who should be the main actors of the new PSS?
Who could be the potential customers for the new PSS?
3.2. Methodology for current food provisioning system analysis
As argued in Section 2, the current food provisioning system is not efficient in terms of CFW prevention. However, it still has characteristics that present a potential for addressing this issue. Thus, a SWOT analysis was conducted to assess the current system environmental, economic, social and technological strengths and opportunities that could support the reduction of CFW. The current system dynamics and macro-trends were also analysed in relation to their capacity of forming an opportunity to prevent CFW.
Moreover, weaknesses of and threats (challenges) to the current system in relation to CFW minimisation were also investigated to identify the capabilities needed to improve the provisioning system. Under this angle, some challenges and weaknesses can be regarded as opportunities if they are addressed effectively.
3.3. Customer needs analysis methodology
The third process of the strategic analysis stage aims to analyse consumers’ needs in terms of solutions that could enable them waste less food. The content of this analysis was mainly based on the investigation of reasons for CFW discussed in Section 2. This investigation helped in identifying services, products and support that need to be available to address CFW causes.
To guide this analysis, the means-end chain method is used which is a tool that enables the understanding of how consumers perceive the value of a certain product or a service, by clearly linking the product/service tangible and intangible attributes to their consequential benefits and eventually to their instrumental and terminal values. This tool has previously been adapted for different uses and purposes where some studies used it to understand consumers values behind either ‘wasting’ or ‘not wasting’ behaviours in a foodservice context (Mirosa et al. Citation2016).
In this research, the means-end chain analysis is used to identify products, services and system attributes that could support consumers to purchase, store, prepare and consume food efficiently so that food waste is minimised. This is in addition to identifying solutions that could support the efficient utilisation of leftovers and the analysis of any waste created. This tool is also used to facilitate the generation of innovative sustainable PSS ideas and thus is regarded as a link between the current system analysis stage and the general PSS concepts identification stage.
4. Results
The results of the stakeholder identification, current food provisioning system and customer needs analyses are presented in the following sections. The significance of these results is also explored and discussed.
4.1. Actors identification
To identify the current system stakeholders that could participate in reducing CFW, a system map is developed (Figure ) focusing on the actors that collaborate to provide consumers with food.
This exercise helped listing the stakeholders that need to be analysed, using the stakeholder prioritisation matrix, in terms of their potential contribution in developing and/or supporting the new PSS. The identified stakeholders include: consumers, retailers, manufacturers, logistics providers, primary producers, packaging manufactures, crop producers, local shops, market stalls and food subscriptions. Takeaways are excluded in this exercise as this research does not cover food operations happening in the food service and hospitality sector.
The stakeholder prioritisation matrix as presented in the MEPSS methodology by Van Halen, Vezzoli, and Wimmer (Citation2005) has been modified for this research as the focus is not on one branded specific company, but the production–consumption system. Thus, the word stakeholder is replaced by system actor. Moreover, to help attain an objective classification of system actors, a score from 1 to 5 has been allocated to each party’s influence and interest in developing the desired PSS. The scoring was guided by answering two main questions:
(1) | To what extent does the actor influence decisions taken by consumers? | ||||
(2) | To what extent is the actor interested in changing their business model/behaviour? |
Retailers and manufactures are both believed to have a medium to high interest (score 4) in the PSS development as it could be an opportunity to increase their offering value. The PSS could also be an opportunity for these two actors to differentiate from the market fierce competition on low prices. Moreover, retailers’ brand image could benefit from the PSS as there is an increase market demand on eco-friendly and socio-ethical products. Manufactures could also profit from the PSS as it would help them increase their production planning accuracy by closely collaborating with end-consumers which could lead to a reduction in their internal waste as seen in ODIN project (Goedkoop et al. Citation1999).
Regarding retailers and manufacturers influence in the PSS development, it is considered to be medium to high (score 4) and medium (score 3), respectively. Retailers are considered to be the chain managers since they are the system touchpoint. They also hold a powerful position as more than 70% of the UK grocery market share is controlled by only four big players (Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons) (Kantar Worldpanel Citation2017). Furthermore, manufactures have the ability to produce innovative offers that could address consumers need and demand.
In this exercise, logistics are isolated from retail and manufacturing to emphasise their importance in the PSS development. Logistics here do not only refer to third-party logistics providers but to any actor performing this function whether it is outsourced or not. Due to their ability in facilitating interactions between all other actors, and their responsibility for managing the flow of products and services across the supply chain, logistics influence in PSS development is argued to be medium (score 3). Moreover, the new PSS might lead to an increased demand for logistics services, especially as the new system model would require a higher engagement with end consumers (interest score 4).
Primary producers and packaging manufacturers are considered to have medium influence (score 3) and low to medium interest (score 2) in the PSS development. The new PSS can be of interest to primary producers as it could improve their forecasting since they should be able to better understand the market demand. Producers could also contribute in the new PSS by providing advice on the product content of the offering. Furthermore, the new PSS might necessitate more variated (i.e. flexible portioning) and innovative (i.e. provision of cooking/storing guidance) packaging in order to provide consumers with high-quality and -personalised offerings.
Food subscriptions are an alternative way for consumers to acquire food. The organisations managing these schemes aim to satisfy consumers demand for convenience and quality food. Thus, the development of the desired PSS could be of medium to high interest (score 4) to these enterprises as it could pose a potential competition to their business or a possible business opportunity in case of collaboration with the conventional food providers. As for their influence, the existing food subscription schemes attract a niche market and thus, only influence behaviour of a relatively small group of consumers (score 1).
Regarding crop producers, local shops and market stalls, their interest and influence in the PSS development is agreed to be low (score 1) as it is outside of their business interest and expertise. Furthermore, although information and communication technology (ICT) does not have a physical role in the PSS, this research recognises its high importance in facilitating and enabling the integration of production and consumption. The above actors’ influence-interest analysis is summarised in Tables and , and Figure presents the final prioritisation matrix where the dark-shaded areas refer to the primary system actors and the white areas refer to the secondary system actors. Based on this, the system map presented in Figure is updated to draw system boundaries (Figure ).
Table 3. System actors influence on PSS development.
Table 4. System actors interest in PSS development.
In relation to the potential customers for the new PSS, studies have shown that consumers waste food regardless of their age, social class, housing tenure, gender, etc. (WRAP Citation2007). Hence, at this stage of research, customers of the new PSS are believed to be the whole UK market. Moreover, as the ultimate benefit of the new PSS is to address individual needs and to provide targeted solutions, consideration will be taken to develop different satisfaction subsystems during stage 2 of this project.
4.2. Current food provisioning system analysis
The main tool used to analyse the current food provisioning system in terms of its potential to lead to a reduction of CFW was a SWOT analysis (Table ). The objective of this analysis was to obtain an understanding of the system strengths that could be used in the new PSS, the different opportunities that the new system could exploit, as well as the weaknesses, threats and challenges that are facing the current system and which should be tackled within the new PSS. The focus of the SWOT analysis is on the primary stakeholders identified in Section 4.1 (manufacturers, retailers, logistics providers and consumers) and the newest available reports analysing food and drink industry (BIS Citation2010), food manufacturing sector (BDO Citation2016), grocery retail sector (IGD Citation2016a; PwC Citation2014; Retailthinkthank Citation2014), food logistics sector (IGD Citation2009) and consumers behavioural change (IGD Citation2016b; PwC Citation2014) are used. This is in addition to reports and researches analysing reasons for CFW discussed in Section 2.
Table 5. Current food provisioning system SWOT analysis.
The analysis shows that the current system already has many strengths that could be of benefit in reducing CFW. The main three strengths are: its ability for flexible production, its efficient delivery and its advancement in ICT. These three capabilities in addition to the changing consumer behaviour, where UK citizens demand more convenience, better service levels and more connectivity, can form a foundation for the development of the new PSS. Alternatively, despite its flexibility, the current system does not enable for personalisation. For instance, food portioning is very standardised and does not take into consideration individual needs. Moreover, technology in packaging, for example, is mainly driven by preserving food until first use, and similarly, ICT advances are mainly exploited within business-to-business contexts.
Therefore, it is clear that the current food provisioning system focuses on improving its industrial operations but there is not much focus on improving household operations. This means that the system is set up so that production and delivery run efficiently, but fails to consider if the operations carried out by consumers at household level are efficient. This gained insight could be summarised using Fisher’s (Citation1997) definition of supply chain.
A supply chain performs two distinct types of functions: a physical function and a market mediation function. A supply chain’s physical function is readily apparent and includes converting raw materials into parts, components, and eventually finished goods, and transporting all of them from one point in the supply chain to the next. Less visible but equally important is market mediation, whose purpose is ensuring that the variety of products reaching the marketplace matches what consumers want to buy.
This market mediation function could be improved through exploitation of the current system strengths. The system’s ability for flexible production could be used to initiate the development of future smart factories that are capable of producing high-personalised offerings that meet specific consumer needs and demands in a manner that leads to CFW reduction. For instance, it is possible to foresee a system that is able to recognise consumers in terms of their lifestyle, household mix, preferences, etc. and adequately providing them with food packages that are specific to their needs in terms of portions, allergies, taste, etc. This high level of system efficiency would also benefit from the existing efficient distribution network and the Omni channel retail which is predicted to profit from more variety that should provide more options to different types of consumers. This is in addition to the support that the advanced ICT could provide from utilising big data to understand consumer behaviour, to facilitating real time information sharing among all actors of the supply chain (including consumers).
4.3. Customer needs analysis
To analyse customers’ needs in terms of support that could enable customers to reduce CFW, the means-end chain analysis tool is used. This analysis is carried out based on the four stages of the food provisioning process where food waste generation or actions leading to food waste occur. These stages are purchasing, storage, preparation and consumption. A fifth stage ‘post-consumption’ is also added to enable for the waste generation analysis. Providing adequate support for these stages is believed to lead to the instrumental value which is ‘eating while producing less waste’. This instrumental value is in turn believed to lead to the terminal values which are reducing environmental impact, saving money, supporting individual high self-esteem and supporting food security.
This analysis helped in identifying products, services and system attributes that can support consumer during the five aforementioned stages. For instance, a replenishment service providing remote access to household inventory (fridge and cupboards) in terms of what products are stored, their quantity and their expiry dates can support consumers during their purchasing so that they only buy what they need in the quantity needed. Moreover, a service analysing the environmental impact and cost of the waste generated by consumers, could increase consumers’ awareness of the amount of waste they generate, and support businesses better understand individual households’ needs. The remaining results of this analysis are detailed in Figure . Furthermore, it is observed that many of these services, products and attributes are already developed, or under development, but they exist independently and are not within a system which could lead to synergies and an improved reduction of CFW. Thus, the challenge is to combine and integrate all these solutions and organise all stakeholder interactions within a system that could enable the integration of production and consumption. The specific design of this system is what stage 3 of this research is concerned with.
5. Discussion
A review of the literature has suggested that CFW is a consequence of societal issues shaped by an inefficient retail-manufacturing system and influencing how consumers provision and handle food. This review revealed the need for a system level solution that will not only address the direct reasons for CFW but also the core issues driving it. Research hypotheses and questions were then formulated to investigate how this system level solution can be developed and how its effect on CFW generation could be assessed. This paper has focused on addressing the first and second research questions which aim to examine how the current food provisioning system could be improved and identify the products, services and attributes that would support food providers influence consumer behaviour.
Moreover, the literature review prompted the application of PSS thinking to the existing food provisioning system in order to effectively address the central reasons for CFW. PSS application has been proven to be, in many cases, environmentally, economically and socially beneficial. However, it is also accepted that adoption of such concept has some inherent risks: the traditional and transitional investment costs of the system, and the capabilities it will need to acquire in order to enable its transition from offering pure products to offering products and services.
In this research, aspects of a combination of existing methodologies have been adopted to strategically analyse the current food provisioning system. The methodology was modified so that analysis is focused on the production–consumption system rather than a single company. This strategic analysis has demonstrated that the current food provisioning system has many characteristics and potentials that can facilitate the reduction of CFW. However, its main weakness resides in its adoption of a standardised production system which fails to address individual needs and lifestyles. Moreover, means-end chain analysis of the existing food provisioning system revealed some 30 aspects that could support a reduction in CFW. This analysis indicates that through the adoption of a PSS, providers would be able to access information that could help them better understand consumer behaviour, and that consumers would have access to evidential information that could increase their awareness regarding the environmental impact of their purchasing and consumption behaviour.
Furthermore, the strategic analysis demonstrates that the generation of system level innovations could be deployed within a new PSS to achieve a minimisation of CFW. From an early vantage point, two potential PSS scenarios could be:
(a) | Services that can offer supporting platforms to customer i.e. a PSS scenario where consumers are provided with ingredients that help make a meal at home. These ingredients are provided in adequate portions, are accompanied with cooking guidance and necessary tools to prevent generation of food waste. These ingredients could be either delivered or sold in physical stores; or | ||||
(b) | Services that can offer final results to consumers i.e. a PSS scenario where consumers are provided with chilled, frozen or warm ready-meals which are suitable for their taste and which are portioned adequately so food waste is prevented. These ready-meals could be either delivered or displayed in physical stores. |
6. Conclusions
This work has highlighted the importance of system level collaboration between actors, including manufacturers, retailers and consumers, in minimising CFW. It also discussed a major flaw in the current food provisioning system in that it focuses on improving operations until point of purchase, and thus, creating a disparity between production and consumption. To bridge this gap and enable food providers to support consumers at household level, the application of PSS concept to the existing system was proposed. A strategic analysis was conducted as a primary step in designing the potential PSS. The strategic analysis included an assessment of the existing food provisioning system in terms of its strengths and weakness in addressing CFW, and the identification of specific solutions that could support consumers waste less. The primary analyses demonstrated the applicability and potential feasibility of a PSS within the food waste context. Finally, this change is believed to support food providers to transition from being a pure economic entity to an organisation that uses profits as an outcome and facilitator of sustainable activities.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK [grant number EP/K030957/1].
Notes on contributors
Aicha Jellil MSc, BSc Research student. Interest Product Service Systems, Sustainable Comsumption.
Elliot Woolley MPhys, PhD Lecturer in Sustainable Manufacturing. Expertise: Energy Management and Modelling, Renewable Energy, Environmental Enterprise Resource Planning.
Shahin Rahimifard BSc MSc PhD CEng FIMechE FHEA Professor of Sustainable Engineering. Expertise: Sustainable Manufacturing, Sustainable Design, Automation in Remanufacturing/Reuse/Recycling, Business Models.
References
- Adam, A. 2015. “Drivers of Food Waste and Policy Responses to the Issue: The Role of Retailers in Food Supply Chains.” Accessed November 12, 2015. http://www.ipe-berlin.org/fileadmin/downloads/working_paper/ipe_working_paper_59.pdf/
- Aschemann-Witzel, J. , I. de Hooge , P. Amani , T. Bech-Larsen , and M. Oostindjer . 2015. “Consumer-related Food Waste: Causes and Potential for Action.” Sustainability 7 (6): 6457–6477.10.3390/su7066457
- BDO . 2016. “The Food and Drink Report 2016.” Accessed January 16, 2017. https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/industries/manufacturing/the-food-and-drink-report-2016/
- BIS . 2010. “Manufacturing in the UK: An Economic Analysis of the Sector.” Department for Business Innovation & Skills. Accessed January 14, 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31785/10-1333-manufacturing-in-the-UK-an-economic-analysis-of-the-sector.pdf/
- Cicatiello, C. , S. Franco , B. Pancino , and E. Blasi . 2016. “The Value of Food Waste: An Exploratory Study on Retailing.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30: 96–104.10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.004
- Deloitte . 2016. “There’s No Place like Phone – Consumer Usage Patterns in the Era of Peak Smartphone: Global Mobile Consumer Survey 2016 UK Cut.”Accessed February 19, 2017. https://www.deloitte.co.uk/mobileuk/assets/pdf/Deloitte-Mobile-Consumer-2016-There-is-no-place-like-phone.pdf/
- European Commission . 2012. “Guidance on the Interpretation of Key Provisions of Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste.” Accessed January 4, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/guidance_doc.pdf/
- European Court of Auditors . 2016. “Combating Food Waste: An Opportunity for the EU to Improve the Resource-Efficiency of the Food Supply Chain.” Accessed September 5, 2017. http://www.eca.europa.eu/
- Evans, D. 2011. “Blaming the Consumer – Once Again: The Social and Material Contexts of Everyday Food Waste Practices in Some English Households.” Critical Public Health 21 (4): 429–440.10.1080/09581596.2011.608797
- Evans, D. , and D. Welch . 2015. “Food Waste Transitions: Consumption, Retail and Collaboration towards a Sustainable Food System.” Accessed February 3, 2016. http://www.sci.manchester.ac.uk/library/evans-d-welch-d-2015-food-waste-transitions-consumption-retail-and-collaboration-towards/
- FDF . 2016. “Statistics at Glance.” Accessed February 19, 2017. http://www.fdf.org.uk/statsataglance.aspx/
- Fisher, M. L. 1997. “What is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product?” Harvard Business Review 75: 105–117.
- Foster, C. , K. Green , M. Bleda , P. Dewick , B. Evans , A. Flynn , and J. Mylan . 2006. Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption: A Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School . London: Defra.
- Garcia-Garcia, G. , E. Woolley , S. Rahimifard , J. Colwill , R. White , and L. Needham . 2016. “A Methodology for Sustainable Management of Food Waste.” Waste and Biomass Valorization : 1–19. doi:10.1007/s12649-016-9720-0.
- Goedkoop, M. , C. Van Halen , H. TeRiele , and P. Rommens . 1999. “Product Service Systems, Ecological and Economic Basics.” Report for Dutch Ministries of Environment (VROM) and Economic Affairs (EZ). Accessed March 1, 2016. http://teclim.ufba.br/jsf/indicadores/holan%20Product%20Service%20Systems%20main%20report.pdf/
- Hulme, J. , A. Beaumont , and C. Summers . 2013. “Energy Follow-up Survey – Report 9: Domestic Appliances, Cooking & Cooling Equipment.” Accessed February 19, 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/274778/9_Domestic_appliances__cooking_and_cooling_equipment.pdf/
- IGD . 2009. “UK Food and Grocery Retail Logistics Overview.” Accessed February 15, 2017. http://www.igd.com/Research/Supply-chain/UK-food–grocery-retail-logistics-overview/
- IGD . 2016a. “What Will the UK Food and Grocery Market Look like by 2021?” Accessed February 11, 2017. http://www.igd.com/Research/Retail/Five-year-forecast-the-grocery-market-by-2021/
- IGD . 2016b. “Consumer Engagement.” The Champions of Change Events 2016 .
- Jedermann, R. , M. Nicometo , I. Uysal , and W. Lang . 2014. “Reducing Food Losses by Intelligent Food Logistics.” Philosophical Transactions A 372: 1–20.
- Kantar Worldpanel . 2017. “Great Britain Grocery Market Share.” Accessed January 29, 2017. https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/en/grocery-market-share/great-britain/
- Kirtil, E. , and M. Oztop . 2016. “Controlled and Modified Atmosphere Packaging.” In Reference Module in Food Science Elsevier . doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.03376-X.
- Lang, T. 2013. “Food Waste is the Symptom, Not the Problem.” The Conversation . Accessed February 2, 2017. https://theconversation.com/food-waste-is-the-symptom-not-the-problem-15432/
- Manzini, E. , L. Collina , and S. Evans . 2004. Solution Oriented Partnership . Cranfield: Cranfield University.
- Manzini, E. , and C. Vezzoli . 2003. “A Strategic Design Approach to Develop Sustainable Product Service Systems: Examples Taken from the ‘Environmentally Friendly Innovation’ Italian Prize.” Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (8): 851–857.10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00153-1
- Mirosa, M. , H. Munro , E. Mangan-Walker , and D. Pearson . 2016. “Reducing Waste of Food Left on Plates.” British Food Journal 118 (9): 2326–2343.10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0460
- Monier, V. , M. Shailendra , V. Escalon , C. O’Connor , T. Gibon , G. Anderson , M. Hortense , and H. Reisinger . 2010. “Preparatory Study on Food Waste across EU 27.” European Commission (DG ENV) Directorate C-Industry. Accessed September 1, 2017. http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/eudds/pdf/bio_foodwaste_report.pdf/
- Mont, O. 2004. “Institutionalisation of Sustainable Consumption Patterns Based on Shared Use.” Ecological Economics 50 (1–2): 135–153.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.030
- Principato, L. , L. Secondi , and C. Pratesi . 2015. “Reducing Food Waste: An Investigation on the Behaviour of Italian Youths.” British Food Journal 117 (2): 731–748.10.1108/BFJ-10-2013-0314
- PwC . 2014. “Front of the Line – How Grocers Can Get Ahead for the Future.” Accessed January 24, 2017. http://www.pwc.com/us/en/advisory/customer/assets/grocery-customer-insights-global-experience-radar-2014.pdf/
- Quested, T. , E. Marsh , D. Stunell , and A. Parry . 2013. “Spaghetti Soup: The Complex World of Food Waste Behaviours.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 79: 43–51.10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.04.011
- Quist, J. , M. Knot , W. Young , K. Green , and P. Vergragt . 2001. “Strategies towards Sustainable Households Using Stakeholder Workshops and Scenarios.” International Journal of Sustainable Development 4 (1): 75–89.10.1504/IJSD.2001.001547
- Retailthinkthank . 2014. “The Future of the Grocery Sector in the UK.” Accessed January 21, 2017. http://www.retailthinktank.co.uk/app/uploads/2015/12/RTT_Whitepaper_2014_06_19_TheFutureOfTheGrocerySectorInTheUK.pdf/
- Sampson, S. , and M. Spring . 2012. “Customer Roles in Service Supply Chains and Opportunities for Innovation.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 48 (4): 30–50.10.1111/jscm.2012.48.issue-4
- Sand, C. K. 2015. “Decreasing Consumer-derived Food Waste.” Food Technology Magazine . Accessed May 27, 2016. http://www.packagingtechnologyandresearch.com/decreasing-consumer-derived-food-waste.html/
- Secondi, L. , L. Principato , and T. Laureti . 2015. “Household Food Waste Behaviour in EU-27 Countries: A Multilevel Analysis.” Food Policy 56: 25–40.10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.007
- Smithers, R. 2016. “Tech Innovations That Could Reduce Food Waste.” The Guardian . Accessed July 14, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/14/tech-innovations-that-could-reduce-food-waste/
- Stancu, V. , P. Haugaard , and L. Lähteenmäki . 2016. “Determinants of Consumer Food Waste Behaviour: Two Routes to Food Waste.” Appetite 96: 7–17.10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.025
- Stefan, V. , E. van Herpen , A. Tudoran , and L. Lähteenmäki . 2013. “Avoiding Food Waste by Romanian Consumers: The Importance of Planning and Shopping Routines.” Food Quality and Preference 28: 375–381.10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.11.001
- Van Halen, C. , C. Vezzoli , and R. Wimmer . 2005. Methodology for Product Service System Innovation: How to Develop Clean, Clever and Competitive Strategies in Companies . Assen: Van Gorcum.
- Vanham, D. , F. Bouraoui , A. Leip , B. Grizzetti , and G. Bidoglio . 2015. “Lost Water and Nitrogen Resources due to EU Consumer Food Waste.” Environmental Research Letters 10: 1–15.
- Vezzoli, C. , C. Kohtala , and A. Srinivasan . 2014. Product-Service System Design for Sustainability . Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.10.9774/GLEAF.978-1-909493-69-8_5
- Woolley, E. , G. Garcia-Garcia , R. Tseng , and S. Rahimifard . 2016. “Manufacturing Resilience via Inventory Management for Domestic Food Waste.” ProcediaCIRP 40: 372–377.
- WRAP . 2007. “Food Behaviour Consumer Research: Quantitative Phase.” Accessed December 21, 2015. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Food%20behaviour%20consumer%20research%20quantitative%20jun%202007.pdf/
- WRAP . 2013a. “An Initial Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Grocery Products.” Accessed February 16, 2016. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/An%20initial%20assessment%20of%20the%20environmental%20impact%20of%20grocery%20products%20final_0.pdf/
- WRAP . 2013b. “Household Food and Drink Waste in the United Kingdom 2012.”Accessed November 9, 2015. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/hhfdw-2012-main.pdf.pdf/
- WRAP . 2014. “From Concept to Consumer – Preventing Food Waste in the Home – How Can You and Your Business Make an Impact?” Accessed January 8, 2016. https://partners.wrap.org.uk/assets/4083/
- WRAP . 2015. “Introduction to Love Food Hate Waste Resource Pack.” Accessed February 20, 2017. https://partners.wrap.org.uk/assets/3453/
- WRAP . 2017. “Household Food Waste in the UK, 2015.” Accessed January 15, 2017. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household_food_waste_in_the_UK_2015_Report.pdf
- Zhang, C. , A. Yin , R. Jiang , J. Rong , L. Dong , T. Zhao , L. Sun , J. Wang , X. Chen , and C. Yan . 2013. “Time–Temperature Indicator for Perishable Products Based on Kinetically Programmable Ag Overgrowth on Au Nanorods.” ACS Nano 7: 4561–4568.10.1021/nn401266u