food management research paper

Advertisement

A Methodology for Sustainable Management of Food Waste

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 25 October 2016
• Volume 8 , pages 2209–2227, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Guillermo Garcia-Garcia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5562-9197 1 ,
• Elliot Woolley 1 ,
• Shahin Rahimifard 1 ,
• James Colwill 1 ,
• Rod White 2 &
• Louise Needham 3  

68k Accesses

133 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

As much as one-third of the food intentionally grown for human consumption is never consumed and is therefore wasted, with significant environmental, social and economic ramifications. An increasing number of publications in this area currently consider different aspects of this critical issue, and generally focus on proactive approaches to reduce food waste, or reactive solutions for more efficient waste management. In this context, this paper takes a holistic approach with the aim of achieving a better understanding of the different types of food waste, and using this knowledge to support informed decisions for more sustainable management of food waste. With this aim, existing food waste categorizations are reviewed and their usefulness are analysed. A systematic methodology to identify types of food waste through a nine-stage categorization is used in conjunction with a version of the waste hierarchy applied to food products. For each type of food waste characterized, a set of waste management alternatives are suggested in order to minimize environmental impacts and maximize social and economic benefits. This decision-support process is demonstrated for two case studies from the UK food manufacturing sector. As a result, types of food waste which could be managed in a more sustainable manner are identified and recommendations are given. The applicability of the categorisation process for industrial food waste management is discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

Waste Valorization in Food Industries: A Review of Sustainable Approaches

Sustainable Food Waste Management: A Review

Food Wastes: Perceptions, Impacts and Management

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Food waste is one of the most challenging issues humankind is currently facing worldwide. Currently, food systems are extremely inefficient: it is estimated that between one-third and one half of the food produced is lost before reaching a human mouth [ 1 , 2 ]. The Sustainable Development Goal 12 ‘Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns’ established by the United Nations in 2015 includes a specific target for food waste reduction: halve per capita global food waste at retail and consumer levels by 2030. Additionally, it also includes a more general goal to reduce food losses along food supply chains [ 3 ]. Therefore, it is expected that there will be an increasing number of initiatives, campaigns and legislative developments in order to reach the aforementioned objectives.

Nevertheless, reduction of the current levels of food waste must be accompanied by better management of the waste: inevitably there will always be some food waste. Furthermore, some parts of the food products are inedible and will unavoidably become a waste stream. There are countless alternatives to manage food waste, however the most common solution worldwide is still landfilling [ 4 ], which is highly damaging to the environment and poses a risk to human health, whereas it does not provide any benefit. In spite of the progress achieved in recent years to find alternative solutions, particularly in developed nations, better management of food waste in supply chains is still required.

Sustainable management of food waste is a momentous research area that has rapidly grown over recent years. Meritorious examples of research aiming to find sustainable solutions for food waste management are numerous, but they have been generally inclined to look into only one area of sustainability: environmental, economic or social ramifications [ 5 , 6 ]. Recent research aims to expand the scope and consider two or even all three pillars of sustainability implications mentioned above. Remarkable examples are work by Münster et al. [ 7 ], Ahamed et al. [ 8 ] and Martinez-Sanchez et al. [ 9 ], who consider economic and environmental ramifications of food waste management.

Nevertheless, as the scope of this research area expands, systematic analyses are needed to obtain comparable results. Examples of frameworks with this aim have been developed for solid waste management (e.g. [ 10 , 11 ]), but are less common for food waste management. A recent example of this is the framework recently developed by Manfredi et al. [ 12 ], which provides a useful six-step methodology to evaluate environmental and economic sustainability of different alternatives to manage food waste, with the aim of also incorporating social considerations.

The waste hierarchy applied to food products is a useful tool to rank waste management alternatives by sustainability performance. The waste hierarchy concept was introduced for the first time into European waste policy in 1975 [ 13 ], and has been continuously used until today in European Directives which have been implemented since then. It is also used in the UK by the Government and institutions such as Defra [ 14 ] and WRAP [ 15 ], and has been implemented in UK law [ 16 ]. There is a considerable number of research papers published in prestigious scientific journals discussing the waste hierarchy, plenty of them focussed on food waste, e.g. [ 17 , 18 ]. More detailed information on the technologies described in the food waste hierarchy and their associated emissions can be found in the Best Available Techniques for the Waste Treatments Industries [ 19 ].

This paper describes a novel, systematic methodology to support sustainable decisions regarding management of food waste. With this objective, a nine-stage categorization and a version of the food waste hierarchy are used as a basis of a methodical procedure to identify types of food waste and alternative activities to manage them. As a result, a novel Food Waste Management Decision Tree is developed and discussed, and its applicability is tested using two case studies from the UK food manufacturing sector.

Methodology

Research aim and structure.

The decision as to which is the most beneficial waste management alternative to utilise to manage food waste is usually made considering fundamentally only economic reasons and availability of waste management facilities. Furthermore, legislation delimits the range of solutions applicable to manage different types of food waste and therefore the decision is often made considering only a few alternatives. This paper seeks to add environmental and social considerations to the decision-making process so that more sustainable solutions can be achieved from the range of feasible waste management options. With this aim, the structure of the research presented in this paper is as follows: firstly, the definition of food waste used throughout this paper is provided; secondly, previous categorizations of food waste are discussed; thirdly, a categorization process is described based on the most pertinent indicators to classify food wastes; fourthly, the different types of food waste identified are linked to their most appropriate waste management alternatives, building a Food Waste Management Decision Tree; and finally, the categorization process is illustrated with two case studies from the UK food industry. A visual model of the research approach used can be seen in Fig.  1 .

Structure of the research presented in this paper

Definition of Food Waste

The first aspect to look upon in order to improve food waste management is to define unambiguously the exact meaning of ‘food waste’. Unfortunately an agreement has not been reached yet and rather there are a range of definitions used. For consistency in this paper, food waste will be defined as food materials (including drinks) originally intended to be used to feed humans and not ultimately sold for human consumption by the food business under study, and inedible parts of food. Consequently, food sent to charities by companies is considered food waste in this paper, as it implies an economic loss to the food business, although from a biological and legal aspect this product remains being food and could be classified as surplus food. Inedible parts of food are also included in the definition because waste is often composed of both edible and inedible parts difficult to separate, and food businesses must manage this waste. Inedible food waste is thus considered unavoidable waste. Any food used in other way than for human consumption is also considered food waste (e.g. animal feeding, industrial uses). On the other hand, food wasted by consumers and managed at home (e.g. home composting) falls out of the scope of this paper. Clearly, the inclusion of these factors in the definition is debatable; this paper studies the management of these materials and therefore they have been included in the term ‘food waste’.

Review on Methods to Classify Food Waste

Categorization is a key step in order to identify the most appropriate waste management alternative for different types of food waste. Such categorization should consider all the divisions necessary to link different types of food waste with treatment methodologies in a way that their economic and social benefit are maximised and their environmental impact is minimized. Usually different studies use their own categorizations [ 20 ]. This section describes different attempts to classify food waste. These classifications are assessed and their usefulness to select optimal food waste management alternatives is discussed.

The most obvious categorization divides different types of food waste according to the type of food: cereals, fruits, meat, fish, drinks, etc. This categorization is useful to quantify the amount of food wasted based on mass (more commonly), energy content, economic cost, etc. There exist plenty of examples to classify food waste according to its food sector, e.g. [ 21 , 22 ]. This type of classification is typically based on codes, e.g. the recently published Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard recommends the use of the Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) system or the United Nations’ Central Product Classification (CPC) system as main codes, and when more precise classifications are needed, the Global Product Category (GPC) code or the United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPSC) as additional codes [ 23 ]. Additionally, food waste can be categorized with regard to its nutrient composition (e.g. carbohydrate and fat content [ 24 ]), chemical composition (e.g. C, H, N, O, S and Cl content [ 25 ]) or storage temperature (e.g. ambient, chilled or frozen [ 26 ]). Nonetheless, the information provided with these examples is not enough to prioritise some waste management alternatives against others.

In the UK, WRAP also identified the stages of the supply chain where food waste was generated (e.g. manufacturer, retailer) and assess the edibility of the waste. In this way, food waste can be avoidable (parts of the food that were actually edible), unavoidable (inedible parts of the food, such as bones, fruit skin, etc.) and possibly avoidable (food that some people would have eaten and others do not, such as bread crusts and potato skins) [ 27 ]. Different authors have further classified food waste at the household level as cooked/uncooked, as unpackaged/packaged food waste (when waste is packaged, it is additionally sorted as opened/unopened packaging) and according to their reason to disposal [ 28 – 30 ]. Other researchers also identified the leftovers and untouched food which goes to waste (e.g. [ 31 ]). Considering these options will be useful for a more comprehensive categorization, but there is still a lack of sections that further classify the waste in a way that a selection of the most appropriate waste management practice is facilitated. Furthermore, some of these classifications have been applied only to household food waste: a comprehensive categorization must include all stages of the food supply chain.

A more detailed attempt to classify food waste was carried out by Lin et al. [ 32 ], where food waste falls into the following categories: organic crop residue (including fruits and vegetables), catering waste, animal by-products, packaging, mixed food waste and domestic waste. In this study the potential for valorisation and some of the most appropriate options to manage the waste were assessed for each type of waste. However, the edibility of the waste and whether the food was fully processed during manufacturing were not considered.

Edjabou et al. [ 33 ] included two new factors: vegetable/animal-derived food waste and avoidable-processed/avoidable-unprocessed food waste. A more explicit classification with sub-categories was also suggested by Lebersorger and Schneider [ 20 ]. However the new sub-categories introduced, namely life cycle stage and packaging, are applicable only at the retail and household levels. They are irrelevant to improve the management of waste at other stages of the supply chain. On the other hand, Chabada et al. [ 34 ] used the ‘seven wastes’ approach from lean theory (namely transport, inventory, motion, waiting, overproduction, over-processing and defects) to classify categories of waste in fresh foods and identify the causes of waste generation, but not solutions for waste management. Garcia-Garcia et al. [ 35 ] suggested a number of indicators to classify food waste that provides useful information to delimit the range of waste management solutions applicable, nevertheless these indicators have not been used yet to identify the different types of food waste and propose the most appropriate waste management alternatives to manage them.

Therefore, a comprehensive and exhaustive analysis of all types of food waste has yet to be published. A holistic approach, where all relevant sub-categories of food wastes are identified and assessed, is necessary to support effective waste management. A solution to fill this knowledge gap is described in the following sections of this paper.

Indicators to Classify Food Waste

The previous section of the paper highlights the lack of a standardised and holistic approach to food waste management and the need for a classification process applicable to all types of food wastes as defined previously. The final aim of such a classification is to provide support for a better selection of alternatives to manage food waste. Any scheme should allow prioritisation of sustainability decisions in terms of the three pillars of sustainability:

Economic ramifications, which can be either positive (economic benefit obtained from management of the waste) or negative (economic cost to dispose of the waste).

Environmental impacts, which are usually negative (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions), but can also be positive (e.g. use of waste for the removal of pollutants in wastewater).

Social considerations, which can be either positive (e.g. food redistributed to people in need) or negative (e.g. increased taxes).

The categorization proposed in this paper is based on nine indicators as explained by Garcia-Garcia et al. [ 35 ] and shown in Fig.  2 . The assessment of these characteristics provides a systematic classification of the different types of food waste that enables a more appropriate selection amongst the available waste management alternatives. In each stage of the categorization process, one characteristic out of two or three options must be selected. Clarification of the different indicators can be found below:

Indicators to categorize food waste. Adapted from Garcia-Garcia et al. [ 35 ]

Edibility : the product is edible if it is or has been expected to be consumed by humans at any point during its life cycle, otherwise the product is inedible. Inedible products include fruit skins, meat bones, some vegetable stalks, etc. When the product is edible from a biological point of view, but there is no demand for it (e.g. some types of offal, spent grain from breweries) it is considered inedible in this scheme, as it is not possible to reallocate it for human consumption. Therefore, the edibility of some food wastes can vary over time and geographical area considered. Various foods contain inedible parts when they are sold (e.g. banana and its skin); these food products are considered edible.

State : this characteristic must be assessed only for edible products. The product is eatable if it has not lost the required properties to be sold and fit for human consumption at the moment of its management as waste, otherwise the product is uneatable. If the food had not lost those properties, but requires further processing in the factory before being sold or consumed, it is classified as eatable and unprocessed (see indicator 6). A food product can become uneatable by being damaged at different points of the supply chain (e.g. overcooked during its manufacture, spilled during its distribution), being spoiled (e.g. leaving the cold chain), passing its use-by date, etc. If a product contains both uneatable and eatable parts and it is going to be managed as a whole, it must be considered uneatable. When the product is eatable from a biological point of view, there may still be ethical issues that can lead to classify it as uneatable to restrict its usage for human consumption, for instance to prevent using surplus alcoholic drinks for redistribution to charities, or products of lower quality to an acceptable established level. A third category includes products uneatable for humans because of safety concerns, but still fit for animal feeding (e.g. fallen from conveyor belts during manufacturing).

Origin : the product is animal based if it was produced by an animal (e.g. dairy products, eggs, honey) or using parts of animals (meat, including fish), otherwise the product is plant based. When the product contains both plant and animal-based materials (e.g. ready meals), it must be classified according to its predominant ingredient. If this is a plant ingredient the product will be also classified as a mixed product (see next categorization stage).

Complexity : this characteristic is only required for plant-based products. The product is single if it is formed of only one type of ingredient and it has not been in contact with other food material, otherwise the product is mixed.

Animal product presence : when the product is animal based, it must be categorized as meat (including fish), animal product (a product produced by animals) or by-product from animal bodies not intended for human consumption (e.g. by-products from slaughterhouses). In the last case, the waste should be further classified according to European regulations into Category 1, 2 or 3 [ 36 ]. When the product is plant based and mixed, it must be assessed as to whether the product contains any animal-based material or has been in contact with animal-based material.

Treatment : a food is considered processed when it has the same properties as the final product to be sold to the consumer (i.e. it has completed the manufacturing process, e.g. a ready meal; or the food does not need any processing before being distributed, e.g. fresh fruits and vegetables). If the food still needed any treatment at the moment of its management as waste it is unprocessed. Consequently, only edible and eatable waste should be assessed in this stage.

Packaging : a product is unpackaged if it is not contained in any packaging material. If the product is packaged but there is an available technology for unpacking and separating the food waste from its packaging, the product can be considered unpackaged; otherwise the product is packaged.

Packaging biodegradability : this characteristic must be assessed for packaged foods. Commonly, biodegradability of a material means that it can be digested by microorganisms, although the process may last for several months or years. Therefore, in this paper biodegradable packaging refers to that made of materials which have been tested and received a certificate of being “suitable for anaerobic digestion” or “compostable” in a technical composting plant (e.g. ‘DIN CERTCO’ logo and the ‘OK compost’ logo). Biodegradable packaging is generally composed of paper, bioplastics, wood or any plant-based product. Typically non-biodegradable packaging is made of plastic, glass or metal.

Stage of the supply chain : catering waste includes domestic waste and waste from food services (e.g. restaurants, schools, hospitals, etc.); non-catering waste is generated in earlier stages of the supply chain (i.e. during farming, manufacturing, distribution or retailing).

The assessment of these nine stages, and the consequent determination of nine characteristics, is the starting point to select the most convenient waste management alternative. The hypothesis of this work is that each combination of nine indicators has associated with it one most favourable solution. The nine-stage categorization scheme is intended to be easy to apply and determinative for selection of the optimal waste management alternatives, taking into account regulations and economic, environmental and social ramifications. The next chapter proposes a set of waste management alternatives for the different food waste types identified following the categorization based on the nine indicators explained in this section.

Development and Partial Results

Having identified and classified the different food wastes following the guidelines presented in the previous section, the next step is to identify and analyse the food waste management alternatives. In order to do so, the waste hierarchy applied to food products is an appropriate tool to classify the different options to manage food waste, based on the sustainability of its results. The particular order of the different options in the hierarchy (i.e. the preference of some alternatives against others) is debatable (e.g. anaerobic digestion is considered better than composting), but the final aim is to prioritize options with better environmental, economic and social outcomes. Hence, there are several slightly different adaptations of the food waste hierarchy, however the most recent versions are usually based on the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC [ 37 ]. An example of a food waste hierarchy which aims to prioritise sustainable management alternatives can be seen in Fig.  3 ; it is based on previous versions, including those of Defra et al. [ 14 ], Adenso-Diaz and Mena [ 38 ], Papargyropoulou et al. [ 17 ] and Eriksson et al. [ 18 ].

Waste hierarchy for surplus food and food waste. Adapted from Garcia-Garcia et al. [ 35 ] and based on Defra et al. [ 14 ], Adenso-Diaz and Mena [ 38 ], Papargyropoulou et al. [ 17 ] and Eriksson et al. [ 18 ]

It is difficult to apply a waste hierarchy to food products due to the heterogeneity of these materials and the numbers of actors at different stages of the food supply chain that waste food. Therefore, the waste hierarchy must be assessed for each type of food waste, rather than for ‘food waste’ as a whole. This case-specific application of the waste hierarchy has been also recommended by Rossi et al. in their analysis of the applicability of the waste hierarchy for dry biodegradable packaging [ 39 ].

In this paper, environmental, economic and social ramifications associated with food waste management are considered, but impacts of the food during its life cycle are not included as they do not affect food waste management decisions (i.e. the impacts have already occurred before the food was wasted). Consequently, a life-cycle approach was not necessary to assess different alternatives and only end-of-life impacts were studied.

In order to link the categorization process and the waste management alternatives from the food waste hierarchy, the indicators described previously have been firstly used to identify the different types of food waste. Each indicator has been assessed and the superfluous categories for each indicator have been eliminated to simplify the analysis (e.g. state for inedible waste). The optimal waste management alternatives have been identified for each type of food waste in compliance with UK and European regulations and based on the food waste hierarchy, therefore prioritising the most sustainable solutions (Fig.  3 ). The result of this analysis has been represented in a diagram (namely Food Waste Management Decision Tree, FWMDT) that helps with analysing food waste using the indicators described. This FWMDT has been divided into four parts for display purposes and can be seen in Fig.  4 (edible, eatable animal-based food waste), Fig.  5 (edible, eatable, plant-based food waste), Fig.  6 (edible, uneatable food waste) and Fig.  7 (inedible and uneatable for humans, eatable for animals food waste).

Food Waste Management Decision Tree (FWMDT). Edible, eatable, animal-based food wastes and their most convenient waste management alternatives

Food Waste Management Decision Tree (FWMDT). Edible, eatable, plant-based food wastes and their most convenient waste management alternatives

Food Waste Management Decision Tree (FWMDT). Edible, uneatable food wastes and their most convenient waste management alternatives

Food Waste Management Decision Tree (FWMDT). Inedible and uneatable for humans, eatable for animals food wastes and their most convenient waste management alternatives. The list of materials classified as animal by-products categories 1–3 can be found in [ 36 ]

The FWMDT functions as a flowchart. The user begins at the highest level, and selects the indicator that best describes the food waste (e.g. edible or inedible). The user then moves through subsequent levels of the diagram, following the arrows and making further indicator selections. At the bottom the user is presented with a set of waste management alternatives that differ according to the set of indicators for that food type.

The food waste must be broken down for analysis into the same subgroups as for the treatments to be applied, e.g. if a food business generates both plant-based waste and animal-based waste which are collected and treated separately, they must be also assessed independently. However, if a producer of convenience foods produces undifferentiated waste composed of both plant and animal products, this must be studied as a whole. In the latter example, the waste is classified as a mixed product. It is readily seen that separate collection provides the benefit that more targeted management practices can be carried out on the different food waste streams. When separate collection is not possible, a thorough waste sorting is still recommended, although some of the alternatives will not be available then (e.g. plant-based food waste that has been in contact with meat cannot be used for animal feeding).

The development of a categorization that covers all types of food waste is arduous due to the number of waste types and their dissimilarity. Similarly, there are numerous alternatives for food waste management. In Fig.  3 some of these numerous alternatives have been grouped—for instance, all processes for extracting substances from all types of food waste are included in extraction of compounds of interest. This is because there are dozens of chemical and physical routes to obtain bio-compounds from food products, and also numerous possibilities to use different types of food waste for industrial applications such as removal of pollutants from wastewater. It is therefore unfeasible to consider all these options explicitly for all the food waste categories. Consequently, in all cases when there are management alternatives other than redistribution and animal feeding suggested in the FWMDT, a targeted study for each type of waste must be carried out in order to find what opportunities there are to extract compounds of interest or for industrial use, before considering options lower down in the food waste hierarchy.

Additionally, prevention of food waste generation is not included in the FWMDT because is out of the scope of this research, and also this option would be always prioritised, as it is at the top of the food waste hierarchy and can potentially be applied to all types of edible food wastes. The option of prevention also includes alternative uses of products for human consumption (e.g. a misshapen vegetable that can be used in convenience foods). In these cases the products must be reprocessed and they would not be considered food waste according to the definition provided in the previous section, and therefore they are out of the scope of this work. If instead they are directly consumed without further processing the alternative to follow will be redistribution, although this will normally give a smaller economic benefit to the food company than selling them at their normal price. In this paper it is assumed that all prevention steps have been taken to minimize food waste generation, but nevertheless food waste is created and requires waste management optimisation.

Landspreading can be used with the majority of food waste types, but according to the food waste hierarchy (Fig.  3 ) this alternative is less beneficial than composting. As both alternatives can be used to treat the same types of food wastes, landspreading has not been further considered in this work and only composting has been examined.

Additionally, the last two waste management practices, namely landfilling and thermal treatment without energy recovery, are not considered in the analysis. Landfilling has a high environmental impact, and its economic and social outcomes are also negative. Treatment without energy recovery damages the environment likewise, but its economic and social ramifications are generally less adverse. In both cases there are always more sustainable management practices that can be used to manage food waste, even if these two alternatives could be potentially used with all types of food waste, regardless of their nature.

The FWMDT was designed as far as possible to embody the categories and indicators described in the previous section, but this was not always achievable. For instance, the category animal-product presence includes additional indicators for inedible, animal-based products, as can be seen in Fig.  7 , to comply with European regulations [ 36 ].

A description of each management alternative evaluated and the associated types of waste can be found below.

Redistribution for Human Consumption

Redistribution for human consumption is the optimal alternative, as food is used to feed people. Agreements with charities and food banks help to distribute surplus food to those in need. Products must be edible, eatable and processed, as defined in the previous section. It must be noted that processed does not necessarily mean that the final product was fully processed as initially planned by the food business, e.g. surplus potatoes for the preparation of chips for ready meals can be redistributed if they are fit for human consumption and distribution (for example, they have not been peeled yet) and comply with regulations. In this case the potatoes are defined as processed because they are as sold to final consumers. The European legislation redistribution for human consumption must meet is the General Food Law [ 40 ], the Food Hygiene Package [ 41 – 44 ], the Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 [ 45 ], and the Tax legislation [ 46 ], as explained by O’Connor et al. [ 47 ]. An extensive study of the situation of food banks and food donation in the UK was carried out by Downing et al. [ 48 ].

Animal Feeding

This is the best alternative for foods which are not fit for human consumption but are suitable for animal feeding. In this category only farmed animals are considered (e.g. cattle, swine, sheep, poultry and fish). Pets, non-ruminant zoo animals, etc. are excluded, following guidelines explained in [ 49 ]. In order to be used for animal feeding, products must either be eatable or uneatable for humans but eatable for animals, unpackaged or separable from packaging, and non-catering waste. Inedible, plant based, single product, non-catering waste can be used for animal feeding depending on the type of waste. This particular case must be assessed for each type of waste independently. When the product is mixed, it must be either not in contact with or containing meat, by-products from animal bodies or raw eggs if it is eatable, or not in contact with or containing animal-based products if it is inedible or uneatable for humans but eatable for animals. Mixed waste containing animal products from manufacturers is suitable for animal feeding when the animal product is not the main ingredient. Meat (or plant-based products containing meat) cannot be sent for animal feeding. Eggs and egg products (or plant-based products containing them) must come from the agricultural or manufacturing stage when used for animal feeding and must follow specific treatments. Milk and dairy products can be used for animal feeding if they are processed (the processing needed is similar to that for human consumption), or unprocessed under UK rules if the farm is a registered milk processing establishment. Inedible, animal based, category 3 waste can also be used for animal feeding only under the conditions listed in the FWMDT (Fig.  7 ). According to European regulations, all types of category 3 animal by-products can be used in animal feed except hides, skins, hooves, feathers, wool, horns, hair, fur, adipose tissue and catering waste. Nevertheless the UK regulation is stricter than European regulations and this has been incorporated into the FWMDT. It must be noted that technically some category 3 animal by-products are edible, but they are not intended for human consumption. In any case, they must be not spoiled in order to be usable for animal feeding, and in most cases they must be processed following specific requirements before being used. If a waste contains different categories of animal by-products, it must be treated following the requirements of the material with the highest risk (category 1: highest risk, category 3: lowest risk). The following sources have been used to develop the FWMDT and must be consulted when using animal by-products in animal feeds: European regulations [ 36 , 50 , 51 ] and UK legislation [ 52 ]. Useful guidance information on this matter in the UK can be found at [ 49 , 53 ]. Further information on additional legislation that applies to work with animal by-products can be found at [ 54 ] and [ 55 ] for milk products. Eggs must be treated in a processing facility under national rules [ 56 ]. The following additional legislation for animal feeding has also been consulted: European regulations [ 57 – 59 ] and regulations in England [ 60 ]. General guidance on animal feeding was collected by Food Standards Agency [ 61 ].

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion can be used with all types of food waste except animal by-products category 1 and packaged waste (i.e. non-separable from packaging) in a non-biodegradable packaging. The animal by-products category 3 must be pasteurised; the particle size of animal by-products category 2 must be 50 mm or smaller, and its core must have reached a temperature of 133 °C for at least 20 min without interruption at an absolute pressure of at least 3 bar [ 36 , 52 , 62 ]. Anaerobic digestion plants in the UK must comply with regulations with regard to environmental protection, animal by-products, duty of care, health and safety and waste handling (more information about the different legal requirements can be found in [ 63 ]).

The types of material suitable for composting are the same as for anaerobic digestion: all food waste except animal by-products category 1 and packaged waste (i.e. non-separable from packaging) in non-biodegradable packaging. Animal by-products category 2 can be composted if processed according to regulations [ 36 , 52 ]. Composting must be carried out in closed vessels (in-vessel composting) if the waste contains or has been in contact with any animal-based material [ 15 , 62 ], as it can attract vermin. Further guidance for the composting of waste can be found in [ 64 ].

Thermal Treatment with Energy Recovery

This alternative can be applied to every type of food waste; nevertheless its use must be minimized as it provides small benefit compared to the impacts generated. Additionally, a great quantity of energy is needed to treat food waste due to its mainly high water content, and therefore this alternative may be useful and give an energy return on investment when treating dry food wastes (e.g. bread and pastries) or food waste mixed with other materials, such as in municipal solid waste. Thermal treatments with energy recovery, which includes incineration, pyrolysis and gasification, is the only alternative available to treat packaged food (non-separable from packaging) in non-biodegradable packaging, except the cases when the product is also edible, eatable and processed, and therefore can be redistributed for human consumption. As this type of waste is the final packaged product it will usually be generated in the last stages of the supply chain, particularly at retailing and consumer level (municipal solid waste). Thermal treatments with energy recovery are also the most appropriate alternative to treat animal by-products category 1, and in some cases, it is also necessary to process by pressure sterilisation [ 36 , 52 ]. Useful information on incineration of municipal solid waste can be found in [ 65 ] and on technologies and emissions from waste incineration in the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration [ 66 ].

Final Results and Discussion: Case Studies

Introduction to case studies.

The food waste categorization process presented in this paper has been applied to two case studies to demonstrate its applicability: a brewery (Molson Coors) and a manufacturer of meat-alternative products (Quorn Foods). These food companies were selected because previous contact between the researchers and the industries existed, and also due to their leading position in their product market, large size and therefore a predictable number of different types of food waste produced. A visit to their headquarters took place in June 2015, in which interviews were held with company employees. A questionnaire was used to systematically identify food waste streams and collect relevant data.

The categorization of these wastes according to the categorization scheme and the most favourable waste treatment alternatives identified using the FWMDT (Figs.  4 – 7 ) are explained in the following sections. The rest of the alternatives from the food waste hierarchy were also assessed for each type of food waste.

Brewery: Molson Coors

This section categorizes the different types of food waste generated at one of Molson Coors’ manufacturing sites, a brewery situated in central England. The different types of food waste generated, in order of decreasing quantity, are: spent grain, waste beer, conditioning bottom, filter waste and trub. The quantity of waste generated during a year is only dependent on the level of production, since a relatively constant percentage of waste is generated per amount of final product manufactured. The different types of food waste identified are categorized in Table  1 and explained below.

Spent Grain

Spent grain accounts for around 85 % of the total food waste in the manufacturing plant. It is an unavoidable by-product of the mashing process and is formed of barley and small amounts of wheat.

According to the FWMDT (Fig.  7 ), the best option is to send the waste for animal feeding. Currently spent grain is mixed with trub (in an approximate proportion of 99 % spent grain, 1 % trub) and used for animal feeding. However, the possibility of reprocessing the waste to adapt it for human consumption was also assessed, as suggested in the previous subsection. Spent grains contain high proportions of dietary fibres and proteins which may provide a number of health benefits [ 67 ]. Spent grain should not be mixed with trub if it is intended to use it to produce food products. Flour can be produced from spent grain following a process that includes drying and grinding [ 67 ]. This can be mixed afterwards with wheat flour and used in a wide range of food products such as bread, muffins, biscuits, etc., increasing their health benefits [ 68 ]. It must be noted that production of new food products was not selected by using the FWMDT because spent grain was considered inedible, as there is no current consumer demand for the products described above. If technology existed to produce new food products from spent grain, such as those described above, and these products could be sold because there was a consumer demand for it, spent grain would not be considered food waste providing it was used for this purpose.

Other uses for spent grain, apart from food uses and for animal fodder, include pet food, use in construction bricks, removal of pollutants in wastewater, production of paper, growing medium for mushrooms or microorganisms, extraction and synthesis of compounds (e.g. bioethanol, lactic acid, polymers and resins, hydroxycinnamic acids, arabinooligoxylosides, xylitol, pullulan), anaerobic digestion, composting, thermal treatment with energy recovery and landspreading [ 68 – 70 ].

This waste corresponds to the final product which is not ultimately consumed. There are three reasons as to why this waste is generated:

Beer left in casks brought back from the food service sector, which accounts for most of the waste in this category. It means an economic loss to the food service sector, not to the brewing company; therefore, it has not been given a high importance by the beer producer.

Beer rejected because of mislabelling.

Spilled beer in the filling process, which accounts for a negligible amount.

Currently, 95 % of the waste is sent to farms and mixed with other waste to feed animals (pigs). The remaining 5 % is sent to sewage.

Ideally, and according to the FWMDT (Fig.  5 ), beer left in casks could be reused for human consumption; however, as this comes from outside of the factory, it is difficult to prove that it has not been altered and is safe for consumption. If the option of redistribution for human consumption is discarded, the next recommended alternative is animal feeding, which is the current final use.

Beer rejected because of mislabelling is perfectly potable, so it is potentially reusable; however, there is difficulty of extracting the product from its packaging (i.e. emptying bottles and dispensing the product into new bottles). This would require significant employee time or new technologies for automation of the process, but would prevent beer from being wasted. Alternatively, in England the mislabelled beer can be sold at a lower price to a redistributor of surplus products such as Company Shop, where the label is corrected to meet Food Information Regulations 2014 [ 71 ], and providing the beer is compliant with food safety legislation it can be sold at a lower price to the final consumer. Similarly, European legislation that regulates the food information that must be provided to consumers in product labelling is the Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 [ 45 ]. Food banks generally do not serve beer and therefore in these cases it cannot be redistributed to charities for people in need.

Alternatively, extraction of alcohol from waste beer by distillation could also give an economic benefit.

Conditioning Bottom

This waste is an unavoidable by-product which settles to the bottom of the conditioner tanks during the maturation process. It is composed principally of yeast, thus it is edible. However, it is not suitable for redistribution for human consumption, as the waste is not processed. Currently it is sent for animal feeding (pigs), which is the optimal alternative according to the FWMDT (Fig.  5 ).

Alternatively, some substances from the conditioning bottom can be used to produce new food products. Yeast can be separated and used to produce foodstuff. In order to recover yeast, the sediment should be filtered and squeezed, and this gives the opportunity to recover cloudy-type beer. As well as with spent grain, discussed previously, production of new food products was not selected by using the FWMDT because conditioning bottom is unprocessed, as there is either no current consumer demand for it or no technology available to undertake the processes required.

Filter Waste

Filter waste is formed of diatomaceous earth, yeasts and proteins. Yeast and proteins are edible; typically diatomaceous earth (i.e. fossilized remains of diatoms) is considered inedible; however there are two types: food grade diatomaceous earth and inedible diatomaceous earth. In order to choose the best waste management alternative the type of diatomaceous earth must first be identified. As the current use for beer production is as a filter medium, it will be assumed to be inedible diatomaceous earth.

Following the FWMDT (Fig.  7 ), the waste should be used in animal feeds. However, the type of diatomaceous earth used is not suitable for animal feeding and therefore the next alternative from the food waste hierarchy was suggested: anaerobic digestion to obtain energy. Currently, filter waste is sent to composting (when it is dry) and sewage (when it is wet). As composting is an alternative under anaerobic digestion in the waste hierarchy and sewage is at the bottom of the hierarchy, there is an important opportunity for improvement. Potential additional uses of diatomaceous earth include industrial (filter medium, stabiliser of nitroglycerin, abrasive in metal polishes and toothpaste, thermal insulator, reinforcing filler in plastics and rubber, anti-block in plastic films, support for catalysts, activation in blood coagulating studies, cat litter, etc.), additive in ceramic mass for the production of red bricks, insecticide and anticaking agent for grain storage (when it is food grade), growing medium in hydroponic gardens and plotted plants and landspreading [ 72 , 73 ].

This is an unavoidable by-product obtained principally in the separator after the brewing process. It is formed of hops, inactive yeast, heavy fats and proteins. Currently this waste is mixed with spent grain and sent to animal feeding, which is the best alternative according to the FWMDT (Fig.  7 ).

On the other hand, while hops are typically considered inedible, some parts are actually edible. For example, hop shoots can be consumed by humans [ 74 ]. Ideally edible parts of the hops would be separated and used in food products and the remaining hops be sent to animal feeding. Yeast, fats and proteins could potentially be used in food products. As well as with spent grain, discussed previously, production of new food products was not selected by using the FWMDT because trub was considered inedible, as there is either no current consumer demand for the products described above or no technology available to undertake the processes required.

Applicability of the Categorization Process and the FWMDT

The FWMDT was proved to be useful to classify food waste generated at Molson Coors, as two types of waste were identified to be upgradeable: waste beer and filter waste could be managed in an alternative way in which more value would be obtained.

The assessment of some categories was complex for some food wastes, e.g. edibility for spent grain and waste beer. Spent grain was demonstrated to be edible, but as there is no market for this product for human consumption spent grain waste was consequently further classified as inedible. Research and investment to produce new food products from spent grain is encouraged, and when that takes place the categorization of spent grain will have to be amended. Waste beer was classified as eatable, however safety concerns regarding beer left in casks brought back from the food service sector must be overcome before the beer is reused. Should waste beer be considered safe for consumption but of low quality, ethical issues may arise regarding the benefits of using it for human consumption. Following the FWMDT, redistributing safe food for human consumption is always better from a sustainable point of view than any other alternative from the food waste hierarchy.

The feasibility to send food waste to animal feeding was also difficult to assess. It was found that when considering animal feeding for inedible, plant-based, single or mixed product not in contact with or containing animal-based products, non-catering waste (Fig.  7 ) each type of food waste should be analysed independently. For instance, trub can be sent for animal feeding but filter waste not because it contains diatomaceous earth which cannot be digested by animals.

Additionally, waste formed principally of yeast could not be strictly classified as plant-based or animal-based. The ‘microorganisms’ indicator was introduced for this reason, but in practice this was considered as plant-based material, since it is not under animal by-product regulations.

Molson Coors also generates a by-product from the mashing process, spent yeast, which is currently sold to a food company nearby to produce Marmite ® , a food spread. Since this by-product is sold as planned by Molson Coors to produce a food product, it is not considered food waste according to the definition provided previously, and therefore is out of the scope of this work. If spent yeast were sent for any other use, it would be considered food waste and would have to be analysed using the FWMDT.

Manufacturer of Meat Alternatives: Quorn Foods

This section categorizes the different types of food waste generated at Quorn Foods, a manufacturer of meat alternatives situated in Northern England. Two types of food waste were identified: food solid/slurry mix and food product returns, which account for 63 and 21 % of the total waste in the factory respectively. The rest of the waste is non-food materials such as cardboard, plastic, etc. The quantity of waste generated during a year is only conditional on the level of production: a relatively constant percentage of waste is generated per amount of final product manufactured. The different food waste types are listed and categorized in Table  2 and explained below.

Food Solid/Slurry Mix

This category of waste includes products being lost through the production line: product falling from conveyor belts, trimmings, product stuck onto inner walls of the industrial equipment, etc. It has the same ingredients as the final product: fungus (mycoprotein), plant-based material, and animal-based products (egg albumen) in low proportions: 2–3 % by mass of the final product. It is an avoidable waste as it could be reduced or eliminated with more appropriate industrial equipment.

This waste was considered eatable, as it is generated only because of the inefficiency of the systems rather than to due to problems with the product. However, a more detailed analysis should be carried out to identify all different cases where this waste is generated and assess their state. If uneatable waste (e.g. spilled food onto the floor) is found, this should be classified as a different category of waste [ 75 ], although the new food waste management alternative for this waste according to the FWMDT would remain unchanged in this particular case: animal feeding.

Considering the previous comments, the most beneficial alternative according to the FWMDT (Fig.  5 ) is animal feeding, which is the option currently followed by the company. Unfortunately, this does not provide any economic income at present.

An investment in improvements in the industrial equipment would reduce the amount of food wasted in this category. Alternatively, the waste generated could be recovered and used to produce more final product.

Food Product Returns

Food product returns is the final product which cannot be sold to the final consumer for a number of reasons, including incorrect formulation, no traceability, packaging errors, etc. It has the same ingredients as the final product: fungus (mycoprotein), plant-based material, and animal-based products (egg albumen) in low proportions: 2–3 % by mass of the final product. It is an avoidable waste as it could be reduced or eliminated with more appropriate manufacturing practices.

This waste was considered eatable, as it corresponds to the final product. However, a more detailed analysis must be carried out before redistributing the food for human consumption in order to identify all different cases where this waste is generated and assess their state. If uneatable waste is found (e.g. its use-by date has passed), it must be classified as a different category of waste and this will allow a bespoke solution for this type of food waste. In this case, since the product is packaged, there is no risk of uneatable waste contaminating eatable waste.

Considering the previous comments, the most beneficial alternative is redistribution for human consumption, according to the FWMDT (Fig.  5 ). Currently the waste is separated from its packaging and sent to anaerobic digestion. The remaining packaging is used to produce refuse-derived fuel.

The FWMDT was proved to be useful to classify food waste generated at Quorn Foods, as one type of waste was identified to be upgradeable: food product returns could be managed in an alternative way in which more value would be obtained.

A more detailed analysis would be useful to identify sub-types of food waste and consequently the categorization process should be completed for all new food wastes found. This would provide a tailored waste management alternative for each type of food waste. For instance, if a final product for which the use-by date has passed is found, this could be named as ‘expired food product returns’ and its most appropriate waste management alternative would be anaerobic digestion, unlike the current generic ‘food product returns’ which should be redistributed.

Additionally, waste formed principally of fungus could not be strictly classified as plant-based or animal-based. The ‘fungus’ indicator was introduced for this reason, but in practice this was considered as plant-based material, since it is not covered by animal by-product regulations.

Conclusions

The food waste categorization and management selection flowchart (i.e. the Food Waste Management Decision Tree) discussed in this paper facilitates the selection of the most sustainable food waste management alternative, with the objective of minimizing environmental impacts and maximising economic and social benefits. The categorization is intended to be easy to apply, facilitating identification of the type of food waste generated, and its link with the most appropriate food waste management alternative. This methodology has been illustrated with case studies from two large UK food and drink manufacturers. Their food waste types have been identified and their existing waste management practices compared to the proposed alternatives. It was found that a detailed breakdown of the types of food waste provides significantly better results than general itemisation, since bespoke solutions can be used for each food waste.

The analysis described can be applied to every type of food waste from every stage of the food supply chain. However, this methodology is expected to be more useful in the early stages (agricultural and manufacturing) of the food supply chain, where separate collection is generally carried out more effectively, than in the retailing and consumer stages where waste is often sent to municipal solid waste. Additionally, it is recommended to adapt the categorization to each food sector or business and include more waste management alternatives in the analysis (e.g. extraction of compounds of interest from food waste).

Unfortunately, the alternatives at the top of the food waste hierarchy are applicable to fewer food waste types than those at the bottom. Consequently, a range of solutions is required for a tailored treatment of each food waste type. A clear example of this is the reduction in the previously widespread use of food waste for animal feeding. This is due to stricter regulation that has resulted in fewer types of food waste that can be used to feed animals [ 76 ]. Health and safety concerns influence legislation on food waste management, but excessively zealous bans of food waste management options results in the unintended consequence that less advantageous alternatives are more commonly used. Regarding the animal feeding example, there are initiatives to change legislation and allow more types of food waste to be fed to animals [ 77 ].

The food waste categorization scheme is also useful for monitoring purposes. It provides an easy way to classify food waste in a business or a region to assess progress in management and sustainability and measure against other companies or areas. In order to do that, firstly a clear definition of food waste must be agreed, the boundaries of the system to analyse must be delimited, and afterwards the food waste types can be identified and quantified.

Evaluating the relative merits of waste management alternatives is a complex task. The factors determining which solution is more convenient are difficult to assess and sometimes even difficult to identify, including yields of the processes, proximity of waste management facilities, tax regulations, and demand for by-products, amongst many others. As a consequence, the waste hierarchy should be applied to every type of food waste identified independently, rather than to food waste as a whole, and undertake an exhaustive analysis for each food waste. To meet this challenge the authors are developing an analysis method and associated figures of merit to allow quantitative comparison of waste management alternatives, with a focus on environmental impacts, as an improvement over the current, qualitative approach.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Global food losses and food waste—extent, causes and prevention, Rome (Italy) (2011)

Institute of Mechanical Engineers: Global Food—Waste Not. Want Not, London, UK (2013)

Google Scholar  

United Nations: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Toolkit. Reducing the Food Wastage Footprint (2013)

Griffin, M., Sobal, J., Lyson, T.A.: An analysis of a community food waste stream. Agric. Human Values 26 , 67–81 (2009)

Article   Google Scholar  

Thyberg, K.L., Tonjes, D.J.: A management framework for municipal solid waste systems and its application to food waste prevention. Systems 3 , 133–151 (2015)

Münster, M., Ravn, H., Hedegaard, K., Juul, N., Ljunggren Söderman, M.: Economic and environmental optimization of waste treatment. Waste Manag. 38 , 486–495 (2015)

Ahamed, A., Yin, K., Ng, B.J.H., Ren, F., Chang, V.W.-C., Wang, J.-Y.: Life cycle assessment of the present and proposed food waste management technologies from environmental and economic impact perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 131 , 607–614 (2016)

Martinez-Sanchez, V., Tonini, D., Møller, F., Astrup, T.F.: Life-cycle costing of food waste management in Denmark: importance of indirect effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 , 4513–4523 (2016)

Harrison, K.W., Dumas, R.D., Solano, E., Barlaz, M.A., Downey Brill, E.J., Ranjithan, S.R.: Decision support tool for life-cycle-based solid waste management. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 15 , 44–58 (2001)

Karmperis, A.C., Aravossis, K., Tatsiopoulos, I.P., Sotirchos, A.: Decision support models for solid waste management: review and game-theoretic approaches. Waste Manag. 33 , 1290–1301 (2013)

Manfredi, S., Cristobal, J.: Towards more sustainable management of European food waste: methodological approach and numerical application. Waste Manag. Res. 0734242X16652965 (2016)

The Council of the European Communities: Council Directive of 15 December 1975 on waste (75/442/EEC). Off. J. Eur. Communities. L 194/39–41 (1975)

Defra, Environment Agency, WRAP: Applying the Waste Hierarchy: evidence summary. London (UK) (2011)

Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Applying the waste hierarchy: a guide to business (2011)

Statutory Instruments: The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (2011)

Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J.K., Wright, N., bin Ujang, Z.: The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76 , 106–115 (2014)

Eriksson, M., Strid, I., Hansson, P.-A.: Carbon footprint of food waste management options in the waste hierarchy—a Swedish case study. J. Clean. Prod. 93 , 115–125 (2015)

European Commission: Reference document on Best Available Techniques for the Waste Treatments Industries (2006)

Lebersorger, S., Schneider, F.: Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Manag. 31 , 1924–1933 (2011)

Flores, R.A., Shanklin, C.W., Loza-Garay, M., Wie, S.H.: Quantification and characterization of food processing wastes/residues. Compost Sci. Util. 7 , 63–71 (1999)

Malamis, D., Moustakas, K., Bourka, A., Valta, K., Papadaskalopoulou, C., Panaretou, V., Skiadi, O., Sotiropoulos, A.: Compositional analysis of biowaste from study sites in Greek municipalities. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 6 , 637–646 (2015)

Food Loss + Waste Protocol: Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard (2016)

Russ, W., Meyer-Pittroff, R.: Utilizing waste products from the food production and processing industries. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 44 , 57–62 (2004)

Hla, S.S., Roberts, D.: Characterisation of chemical composition and energy content of green waste and municipal solid waste from Greater Brisbane, Australia. Waste Manag. 41 , 12–19 (2015)

Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., Yurt, O.: The causes of food waste in the supplier-retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 , 648–658 (2011)

Bridgwater, E., Quested, T.: Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Synthesis of Food Waste Compositional Data 2012 (2013)

Ventour, L.: Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). The food we waste (2008)

Quested, T., Murphy, L.: Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Household food and drink waste: A product focus (2014)

Schott, A.B.S., Andersson, T.: Food waste minimization from a life-cycle perspective. J. Environ. Manage. 147 , 219–226 (2015)

Matsuda, T., Yano, J., Hirai, Y., Sakai, S.: Life-cycle greenhouse gas inventory analysis of household waste management and food waste reduction activities in Kyoto, Japan. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 , 743–752 (2012)

Lin, C., Pfaltzgraff, L.A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E.B., Solhy, A., Clark, P.J., Koutinas, A., Kopsahelis, N., Stamatelatou, K., Dickson, F., Thankappan, S., Zahouily, M., Brocklesby, R., Luque, R.: Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ. Sci. 6 , 426–464 (2013)

Edjabou, M.E., Jensen, M.B., Götze, R., Pivnenko, K., Petersen, C., Scheutz, C., Astrup, T.F.: Municipal solid waste composition: sampling methodology, statistical analyses, and case study evaluation. Waste Manag. 36 , 12–23 (2015)

Chabada, L., Dreyer, H.C., Romsdal, A., Powell, D.J.: Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Towards a Framework for Waste Identification. In: Emmanouilidis, C., Taisch, M., Kiritsis, D. (eds.) Advances in Production Management Systems. Competitive Manufacturing for Innovative Products and Services, pp. 208–215. Springer, Berlin (2013)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Garcia-Garcia, G., Woolley, E., Rahimifard, S.: A framework for a more efficient approach to food waste management. Int. J. Food Eng. 1 , 65–72 (2015)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 300/1–33 (2009)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 312/3–30 (2008)

Adenso-Diaz, B., Mena, C.: Food industry waste management. In: Tiwari, B.K., Norton, T., Holden, N.M. (eds.) Sustainable Food Processing, pp. 453–462. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2014)

Rossi, V., Cleeve-Edwards, N., Lundquist, L., Schenker, U., Dubois, C., Humbert, S., Jolliet, O.: Life cycle assessment of end-of-life options for two biodegradable packaging materials: sound application of the European waste hierarchy. J. Clean. Prod. 86 , 132–145 (2015)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 (2002)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 226/3–21 (2004)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 226/22–82 (2004)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 226/83–127 (2004)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Corrigendum to Directive 2004/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 195/12–15 (2004)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 304/18–63 (2011)

The Council of the European Union: Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 347/1–118 (2006)

O’Connor, C., Gheoldus, M., Jan, O.: Comparative Study on EU Member States’ legislation and practices on food donation, Final report (2014)

Downing, E., Kennedy, S., Fell, M.: Food Banks and Food Poverty. House of Commons Library. SN06657. Libr. House Commons. (2014)

Gov.uk: Supplying and using animal by-products as farm animal feed. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/supplying-and-using-animal-by-products-as-farm-animal-feed . Accessed November 2015

The European Comission: Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 54 , 1–254 (2011)

European Comission: Reference document on Best Available Techniques in the slaughterhouses and animal by-products industries (2005)

The Secretary of State: The Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. Statut. Instruments (2013)

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra): Controls on Animal By-Products: Guidance on Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 and accompanying implementing Regulation (EC) 142/2011, enforced in England by the Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2011 (2011)

Gov.uk: Guidance for the animal by-product industry. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/guidance-for-the-animal-by-product-industry . Accessed October 2015

Gov.uk: Using leftover milk and milk products as farm animal feed. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-leftover-milk-and-milk-products-as-farm-animal-feed . Accessed October 2015

Gov.uk: How to operate an animal by-product (ABP) processing facility. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-operate-an-animal-by-product-abp-processing-facility . Accessed November 2015

European Commission (EC): Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed. Off. J. Eur. Union. L140, 10–21 (2002)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 268/29–42 (2003)

The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009. Off. J. Eur. Union. L 229/1–28 (2009)

The Secretary of State: The Animal Feed (England) Regulations 2010. Statut. Instruments (2010)

Food Standards Agency (FSA): Animal feed legislation and guidance. http://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/farmingfood/animalfeed/animalfeedlegislation . Accessed November 2015

Gov.uk: Using animal by-products at compost and biogas sites. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-animal-by-products-at-compost-and-biogas-sites . Accessed December 2015

Biogas-info.co.uk: Regulation. http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/about/regulation/

Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Quality Protocol. Compost. End of waste criteria for the production and use of quality compost from source-segregated biodegradable waste

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),: Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste. (2013)

European Commission: Reference document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration. Integr. Pollut. Prev. Control. (2006)

Santos, M., Jiménez, J.J., Bartolomé, B., Gómez-Cordovés, C., Del Nozal, M.J.: Variability of brewer’s spent grain within a brewery. Food Chem. 80 , 17–21 (2003)

Mussatto, S.I., Dragone, G., Roberto, I.C.: Brewers’ spent grain: generation, characteristics and potential applications. J. Cereal Sci. 43 , 1–14 (2006)

Aliyu, S., Bala, M.: Brewer’s spent grain: a review of its potentials and applications. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10 , 324–331 (2013)

Environmental Protection Agency: BAT Guidance Note on Best Available Techniques for the Brewing. Malting & Distilling Sector, Wexford (Ireland) (2008)

Statutory Instruments: The Food Information Regulations 2014 (2014)

Ferraz, E., Coroado, J., Silva, J., Gomes, C., Rocha, F.: Manufacture of ceramic bricks using recycled brewing spent Kieselguhr. Mater. Manuf. Process. 26 , 1319–1329 (2011)

Diatomaceous Earth. https://www.diatomaceousearth.com/ . Accessed March 2016

The Guardian: “It”s like eating a hedgerow’: why do hop shoots cost €1,000 a kilo? http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2015/may/18/its-like-eating-a-hedgerow-why-do-hop-shoots-cost-1000-a-kilo . Accessed March 2016

European Commission: Reference document on Best Available Techniques in the food, drink and milk industries (2006)

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),: Feeding catering waste to farmed animals is ILLEGAL., London (UK)

Stuart, T., Miers, T., Wahaca: The pig idea. http://thepigidea.org/ . Accessed March 2016

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) UK through the Grant EP/K030957/1.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Sustainable Manufacturing and Recycling Technologies (SMART), Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK

Guillermo Garcia-Garcia, Elliot Woolley, Shahin Rahimifard & James Colwill

Molson Coors, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK

Quorn Foods, Stokesley, North Yorkshire, UK

Louise Needham

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elliot Woolley .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Garcia-Garcia, G., Woolley, E., Rahimifard, S. et al. A Methodology for Sustainable Management of Food Waste. Waste Biomass Valor 8 , 2209–2227 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9720-0

Download citation

Received : 09 June 2016

Accepted : 29 September 2016

Published : 25 October 2016

Issue Date : September 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9720-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Waste categorization
• Waste management
• Food sustainability
• Brewery waste
• Mycoprotein waste
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Systematic literature review of food waste in educational institutions: setting the research agenda

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

ISSN : 0959-6119

Article publication date: 29 January 2021

Issue publication date: 6 May 2021

In the recent past, academic researchers have noted the quantity of food wasted in food service establishments in educational institutions. However, more granular inputs are required to counter the challenge posed. The purpose of this study is to undertake a review of the prior literature in the area to provide a platform for future research.

Design/methodology/approach

Towards this end, the authors used a robust search protocol to identify 88 congruent studies to review and critically synthesize. The research profiling of the selected studies revealed limited studies conducted on food service establishments in universities. The research is also less dispersed geographically, remaining largely focused on the USA. Thereafter, the authors performed content analysis to identify seven themes around which the findings of prior studies were organized.

The key themes of the reviewed studies are the drivers of food waste, quantitative assessment of food waste, assessment of the behavioural aspects of food waste, operational strategies for reducing food waste, interventions for inducing behavioural changes to mitigate food waste, food diversion and food waste disposal processes and barriers to the implementation of food waste reduction strategies.

Research limitations/implications

This study has key theoretical and practical implications. From the perspective of research, the study revealed various gaps in the extant findings and suggested potential areas that can be examined by academic researchers from the perspective of the hospitality sector. From the perspective of practice, the study recommended actionable strategies to help managers mitigate food waste.

Originality/value

The authors have made a novel contribution to the research on food waste reduction by identifying theme-based research gaps, suggesting potential research questions and proposing a framework based on the open-systems approach to set the future research agenda.

• Plate waste
• School cafeteria
• University cafeteria
• Out-of-home consumption
• Consumer behaviour
• Food waste cause

Kaur, P. , Dhir, A. , Talwar, S. and Alrasheedy, M. (2021), "Systematic literature review of food waste in educational institutions: setting the research agenda", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1160-1193. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0672

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Puneet Kaur, Amandeep Dhir, Shalini Talwar and Melfi Alrasheedy.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

unavoidable food waste: expired or spoiled ingredients, food scraps such as meat scraps (e.g. end pieces of baked ham after slicing, meat pieces after trimming) and vegetable scraps (e.g. tomato ends, outer leaves of lettuce, potato peels, vegetable stems); and

avoidable food waste: meal scraps such as peeling or trimming waste arising from the less proficient handling of food items; overproduction for banquets, events and catering; poor ordering procedures; poor food rotation practices, causing food spoilage; and poor inventory systems, leading to food and plate waste such as unconsumed pasta ( Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ).

Academics categorize food waste based on the stages of waste generation, such as pre- and post-consumer food waste ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ). Pre-consumer waste occurs at the production level, and post-consumption waste occurs at the consumer level. Scholars argue they associate different factors with food waste generation at these stages. Accordingly, various mitigation approaches perhaps can reduce such waste ( Papargyropoulou et al. , 2016 ). Furthermore, thorough diagnoses of food waste generated at various stages are crucial for ensuring the effective management of waste ( Dhir et al. , 2020 ).

Food waste is an important concern because it threatens the environment and sustainability. In fact, it is a serious concern in the hospitality and tourism domain (Okumus et al. , 2020). Close to 1.3 billion tonnes of edible food is wasted annually, leading to severe financial, environmental and health outcomes ( Gustavsson, 2011 ). Past research has identified several adverse outcomes of food waste, such as threats to food security ( Wang et al. , 2018 ), climate change and greenhouse gas emissions ( Kallbekken and Sælen, 2013 ; Katajajuuri et al. , 2014 ) and monetary loss (Hennchen, 2019). For instance, the annual emissions because of food waste in Finland constitute more than 1% of the country’s yearly greenhouse gas emissions ( Katajajuuri et al. , 2014 ). Similarly, scientists found the ecological impact of food waste in hotels, cafés and restaurants nearly twice the size of the arable land in Lhasa ( Wang et al. , 2018 ). Notably, sustainability has come under intense focus in the hospitality industry in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Jones and Comfort, 2020). In addition, studies have underscored the nutritional loss associated with food waste. For instance, Blondin et al. (2017) revealed that, in the USA, fluid milk waste results in 27% and 41% losses, respectively, of the vitamin D and calcium required under school breakfast programme meals. Consequently, scholars argue that reducing food waste is critical from financial (e.g. food cost) and non-financial (e.g. sustainability) standpoints ( Okumus, 2019 ). In fact, research reports suggest that, by saving one-fourth of the food being wasted, we can feed 870 million hungry people ( Khadka, 2017 ). Similarly, the sustainable development goals of the United Nations (UN) have also emphasized responsible production and consumption, underscoring the importance of mitigating food waste ( Gustavsson, 2011 ).

Regarding food waste generation, prior studies have indicated that a large amount of food waste is generated at the consumption stage, which includes both out-of-home and at-home dining ( Martin-Rios et al. , 2018 ). Households represent at-home dining, whereas the food service sector represents out-of-home dining. The food service sector includes both non-commercial and commercial establishments ( Betz et al. , 2015 ), such as restaurants, hotels, health-care companies, educational institutions and staff catering.

An important subdomain where out-of-home dining takes place is food service establishments at educational institutions. In this context, prior studies have observed that school cafeterias are a major source of unconsumed food ( Smith and Cunningham-Sabo, 2014 ; Adams et al. , 2016 ). For instance, in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) in the USA, more than 30% of the food served is wasted ( Byker Shanks et al. , 2017 ). In fact, food waste in educational settings is a significant issue ( Yui and Biltekoff, 2020 ). What is most worrying in this context is that, in spite of the acknowledgement of such a high quantity of waste generated, the authorities in educational institutions, food service managers in schools and university food service companies’ staff are not intent on reducing food waste ( Wilkie et al. , 2015 ). Furthermore, the academic research in this area is limited, with most studies in educational settings (particularly in the context of schools) skewed towards using food waste as a measure to estimate the amount of nutrients lost. Food waste does not hold a central place in the existing debate. Other studies have focused on aspects such as the composition of waste generated in the food service operations in schools (Hollingsworth et al. , 1995) and the monetary implications of various waste disposal strategies (Wie et al. , 2003).

the substantial volume of meals that educational institutions handle at a single location ( Wilkie et al. , 2015 ); and

the opportunity that such research presents for creating a culture of sustainability and for reinforcing the pro-environment habits of future consumers by making them ecologically aware of the food system and its importance ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ).

analyze the research profile of studies on food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions (RO1);

identify, comprehend and evaluate the thematic foci of the existing research on food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions (RO2);

critically assess emergent themes to highlight gaps in the extant literature and suggest potential research questions (RO3); and

develop a framework that multiple stakeholders can use as a reference to understand the contours of food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions (RO4).

To achieve the ROs of the study, we used the systematic literature review (SLR) approach to identify, analyze and synthesize past studies in the area in consonance with recent studies ( Kushwah et al. , 2019 ; Dhir et al. , 2020 ; Ruparel et al. , 2020 ; Seth et al. , 2020 ). Towards this end, we conducted the following steps. First, we defined the extraction method of congruent studies concerning the conceptual boundary, database identification, keyword choice and actual search and shortlisting of relevant studies. We formulated a robust search protocol based on 18 keywords as well as comprehensive inclusion criteria (IC) and exclusion criteria (EC). We also conducted a peer review of shortlisted studies to finalize the total number of studies to be included in the review (88). Second, we conducted a research profiling of selected studies to present the summary statistics related to publication frequency, publication sources, geographical scope of each study, type of educational institution investigated and theoretical framework. Third, we performed a manual content analysis of the congruent studies to delineate the thematic foci of such studies. This helped us identify seven distinct themes. The emergent themes were critically analyzed to identify the gaps in the extant research and to suggest theme-based potential research questions and future research avenues. Fourth, we developed a framework (the food waste ecosystem) for presenting a systems view of food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions by building on the key findings of the review that we conducted (i.e. research themes, research gaps and avenues of future research). Fifth, we discuss herein the theoretical and practical implications of the study, followed by the study limitations, which should be kept in mind while implementing the results of this study.

2. Research method

Step I. Planning the review: Setting the conceptual boundary and identifying the relevant keywords and databases to identify the congruent studies.

Step II. Specification of the study screening criteria: Defining the IC and EC.

Step III. Data extraction: Using multiple levels of screening to identify congruent studies.

Step IV. Data execution: Presenting the research profile and the thematic foci of the congruent studies uncovered through content analysis.

2.1 Planning the review

We proposed to review studies on food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions. These institutions include pre-schools, schools (primary, secondary and upper secondary), tertiary education centres, colleges and universities. Furthermore, we distinguished between food waste and food loss. Some prior studies used the terms “food loss” and “food waste” interchangeably ( Betz et al. , 2015 ). However, many scholars have treated them as two different concepts. They described food loss as food gone to waste in the initial stage of the value-added chain and food waste as food lost at the end of the food supply chain ( Parfitt et al. , 2010 ). Our understanding is that “food loss” pertains to food leaving the supply chain initially. “Food waste”, though, pertains to the food that is not consumed at the point of food consumption. Therefore, in this SLR study, we treated food waste and food loss as distinct concepts. Accordingly, we identified an initial set of keywords for use in searching the studies to be reviewed, as follows: pre-schools, schools, tertiary education centres, colleges and universities. We searched for these keywords on Google Scholar, and we analyzed the first 100 results to update the keywords list. Afterward, we examined leading journals from the areas of nutrition, food waste and hospitality to confirm if the list of keywords was exhaustive. We selected the final list of 18 keywords after consultation with three experts from the area of hospitality and food waste (two professors and one practitioner; Table 1 ). Finally, in consonance with Mariani et al. (2018) , we selected Scopus and Web of Science as the two academic databases from which to retrieve the relevant studies. These two are the most comprehensive databases of social science and hospitality academic studies, with extensive disciplinary coverage ( Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016 ).

2.2 Specification of study screening criteria

We specified ( Table 2 ) the IC and EC at this stage to screen the studies found using pre-specified keywords.

2.3 Data extraction

We converted the final set of keywords ( Table 1 ) into search strings using * and Boolean logic, as well as the connectors “OR” and “AND”. We then executed the search strings on both databases to search for the title, abstract and author keywords. The search was conducted from January 1 to March 28, 2020. In Scopus, we found 550 journal articles in English, with 420 articles in Web of Science. We used the pre-specified IC and EC to select studies congruent with the area at hand. First, we screened duplicated articles using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. We identified articles with the same authors, title, volume, issue number and DOI. Subsequently, we removed 276 duplicated studies from the Web of Science list. After further screening of the joint pool of 694 studies, we excluded 350 studies from the pool.

For the next level of screening of the remaining 344 studies, three researchers with experience in food waste research reviewed the titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies based on the conceptual boundary and IC and EC. To ensure robust screening, the three researchers performed the task individually, after which they shared their shortlists with one another. The researchers discussed any variances in their respective shortlists to arrive at a consensus list that could be further analyzed. This process excluded 230 studies incongruent with the specific area and conceptual boundary of the current study. At the penultimate step of screening, 3 authors analyzed the full texts of the balance 114 articles to reconfirm their eligibility for inclusion in the review. By consensus, we removed 14 articles, as these dealt with issues not immediately relevant to the review, such as sustainability and food insecurity. In the final stage of the study screening process, two professors and a practitioner from the area of hospitality and food waste examined the 100 shortlisted studies and supplied feedback. Based on their observations, we eliminated 12 studies, making the final sample of 88 articles. Subsequent sections of this work will disclose the results of the research profiling and content analysis, which constituted the data execution process.

2.4 Data execution: research profiling

We present the research profile of the retrieved congruent studies concerning descriptive statistics, such as publication year, publication source, educational institution investigated, geographic scope of each study and theoretical framework. The year-wise publications ( Figure 1 ) indicate that there were few studies on food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions until 2012, after which the studies increased, reaching a peak of 15 articles in 2019. Furthermore, the studies were published in a variety of journals in nutrition and waste management ( Figure 2 ). Figure 3 presents the number of studies that focused on each type of educational institution (e.g. school versus university). Figure 4(a) and (b) presents the countries where the studies were conducted for schools and universities, respectively. Interestingly, the reviewed studies drew upon seminal theories to propose a hypothesis and/or discuss findings ( Table 3 ).

3. Thematic foci

The studies included in the review examined food waste from different perspectives and investigated distinct aspects of it. To synthesize such diverse studies systematically, we attempted to identify the common themes within the studies. The key themes in the selected studies were identified through content analysis, in consonance with the recently published SLR literature ( Seth et al. , 2020 ). To ensure that emergent themes would present an unbiased view of the literature, we followed a three-step process. First, three researchers performed the open coding. Later, the deductive and inductive methods of axial coding identified relationships among the open codes. Second, to ensure consensus and inter-rater reliability, the three researchers discussed the identified codes and aligned their thought processes. As food waste is a universally understood phenomenon, there were no disagreements except in the sequencing and presentation of the themes. Third, two professors from the hospitality and food waste areas commented on the identified themes. Finally, seven themes synthesized the existing literature. These were the drivers of food waste; quantitative assessment of food waste; assessment of the behavioural aspects of food waste; operational strategies for reducing food waste at the pre- and post-consumer levels; strategies and interventions for inducing behavioural changes to mitigate food waste; food diversion and food waste disposal processes; and the barriers to the implementation of food waste reduction strategies. A mind map of the emergent themes and the related subthemes is showcased in Figure 5 .

3.1 Drivers of food waste

Two perspectives can assess food waste at food service establishments in educational institutions: pre- and post-consumer waste ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ). “Pre-consumer waste” is kitchen waste arising at the time of storage, preparation and production, whereas “post-consumer waste” consists of leftovers or plate waste ( Burton et al. , 2016 ; Bean et al. , 2018b ; Zhao and Manning, 2019b ). Scholars have also used the term “serving waste” or “display waste” (especially regarding buffet meals) to represent waste at the point of consumption ( Abdelaal et al. , 2019 ). Prior scholars examining food waste at the pre-school, elementary and middle school levels have discussed uneaten meals, representing post-consumer waste, to a large extent ( Smith and Cunningham-Sabo, 2014 ; Adams et al. , 2016 ; Zhao et al. , 2019 ). Most studies focused on food waste measurement as a tool to assess the nutritional aspects of leftovers from meals consumed in schools ( Getts et al. , 2017 ).

Pre-consumer waste : It is generated based on various functional, behavioural and contextual factors, as presented in Table 4 . A key driver of food waste in school food service establishments at this stage is production waste, which can also increase because of various regulatory requirements and contractual obligations. For instance, food safety guidelines may prevent food service establishments from re-using the extra amount of food prepared for a particular meal ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ). As such, serving an agreed-upon variety of food offerings as per a contract may force kitchen staff to prepare and serve food that ultimately may not be consumed ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ).

Post-consumer waste : The drivers of post-consumer waste comprise behavioural, contextual and demographic factors, as Table 4 presents. Within post-consumer waste, the key drivers of wasted, edible food at both the school and university levels are taking a portion size larger than required as per one’s age and satiation level ( Thorsen et al. , 2015 ; Huang et al. , 2017 ; Zhao and Manning, 2019a ); and the time allowed for eating (i.e. recess; Cohn et al. , 2013 ; Abe and Akamatsu, 2015 ). Students’ dietary habits ( Liu et al. , 2016 ) also influence the amount of food waste generated in the school dining halls. Other factors that contribute to food waste at the university food services were incorrectly labelled food items (which led to the choice of wrong food items), differences in appetite and diet-related choices ( Wu et al. , 2019 ; Yui and Biltekoff, 2020 ).

Low self-efficacy in finishing one’s meal if it does not taste good is a significant predictor of plate waste only among boys ( Abe and Akamatsu, 2015 ).

Male students tended to waste staple food less compared to females ( Wu et al. , 2019 ).

Male consumers were more likely to finish their meal compared to females ( Zhao and Manning, 2019b ).

Young consumers tend to waste more food than adults on average ( Ellison et al. , 2019 ).

Within the student groups, younger students wasted more food than older ones ( Dillon and Lane, 1989 ; Huang et al. , 2017 ; Niaki et al. , 2017 ).

Individuals with more disposable incomes waste more food ( Wu et al. , 2019 ).

Middle-income students generated more food waste compared to students with poorer backgrounds ( Dillon and Lane, 1989 ).

3.2 Quantitative assessment of food waste

the type of waste quantified;

the unit of measurement used; and

the method used for quantification.

The key concerns covered by each of these aspects are described below.

Type of waste: Some studies have measured all waste, edible or avoidable as well as inedible or unavoidable ( Langley et al. , 2010 ; Costello et al. , 2015 ). In comparison, many studies quantified only edible or avoidable food waste ( Whitehair et al. , 2013 ; Thorsen et al. , 2015 ). The items considered edible or avoidable food wastes are meat protein, soy protein, fruits, rice, potatoes, bread, pies, juice, beverages, milk, vegetables and salads ( Langley et al. , 2010 ; Thiagarajah and Getty, 2013 ; Blondin et al. , 2017 , 2018 ; Eriksson et al. , 2018b ). Conversely, the inedible or unavoidable food wastes are fruit or vegetable peels and spines, eggshells, bones and skins and seeds ( Langley et al. , 2010 ; Whitehair et al. , 2013 ; Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ). The greatest amount of food waste is derived from vegetables, fruits, salads, main entrées and milk (Carmen et al. , 2014; Smith and Cunningham-Sabo, 2014 ; Blondin et al. , 2015 ; Silvennoinen et al. , 2015 ; Wu et al. , 2019 ).

Unit of measurement: In this regard, the reviewed studies collected wastes for quantification at different stages of food services. Accordingly, the serving waste, plate waste and production waste (prepared food left over after service) were quantified ( Gase et al. , 2014 ; Eriksson et al. , 2017 ; Boschini et al. , 2020 ). Hence, scientists measured the entire mass of food waste generated at every meal (Carmen et al. , 2014; Painter et al. , 2016 ); the aggregated discarded food at the pantry, kitchen, service station or plate level ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ); or the individually/aggregately weighed plate waste ( Chapman et al. , 2019 ). The most commonly used unit of food waste quantification is plate waste, which is the quantity/percentage of edible food served on a plate but left unconsumed ( Huang et al. , 2017 ). In schools, where the focus is nutrition, plate waste is the quantity of edible vegetables and fruits students did not consume during lunch ( Adams et al. , 2016 ; Capps et al. , 2016 ). In this context, studies have revealed that students waste 40% and 30%, respectively, of the fruits and vegetables they receive ( Templeton et al. , 2005 ; Carmen et al. , 2014). Most of the studies included in the review used plate waste as a unit of quantification of food waste ( Cohen et al. , 2013 ; Liz Martins et al. , 2016 ; Chapman et al. , 2017 ; Hudgens et al. , 2017 ).

Methods of quantification : There are multiple methods of quantifying and measuring plate waste, and one can observe method variations in the plate waste quantification approach that selected studies used, such as direct physical measurements and indirect visual observations ( Eriksson et al. , 2018b ). Plate waste can be weighed in grams per portion served ( Eriksson et al. , 2018a ) or as aggregate plate waste per meal ( Eriksson et al. , 2017 ). Although weighed plate waste is considered the gold standard for determining the quantity of plate waste, scientists have also applied visual assessment approaches such as the quarter-waste method, which is considered reliable ( Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ; Getts et al. , 2017 ; Niaki et al. , 2017 ). In fact, the three visual waste measurement methods (photograph, half-waste and quarter-waste) have been found to be as accurate as the plate weighing method ( Hanks et al. , 2014 ). Visual methods are appealing, as they offer advantages such as convenience, time savings and ease of using a larger sample size to monitor plate waste ( Liz Martins et al. , 2014 ). Within visual methods, many studies have used photography ( Smith and Cunningham-Sabo, 2014 ; Yoder et al. , 2015 ; Bean et al. , 2018a ; Katare et al. , 2019 ; Prescott et al. , 2019a ; Serebrennikov et al. , 2020 ). Moreover, scholars have discussed the use of rubbish analysis to quantify food waste ( Dresler-Hawke et al. , 2009 ; Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ).

Prior scholars have also tried to ascertain the efficacy of different methods of plate waste quantification. For instance, Bean et al. (2018a) compared a weighed and digital imagery-based assessment of plate waste and confirmed the accuracy of the digital imagery method in terms of plate waste estimation. However, Liz Martins et al. (2014) contended that the visual estimation method is not as accurate as the weighing method in assessing nonselective aggregated plate waste. Previous studies have used food waste audits to quantify the amount and type of food waste generated ( Wilkie et al. , 2015 ; Costello et al. , 2017 ; Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ; Derqui et al. , 2018 ; Schupp et al. , 2018 ; Prescott et al. , 2019a ). Figure 6 depicts an overview of the stages of waste generation, the types of waste quantified and the key methods of quantification.

3.3 Assessment of the behavioural aspects of food waste

key methods;

type of data collected; and

variety of respondents.

Key methods : The methods used for assessing food waste include direct observation ( Marshall et al. , 2019 ), field notes ( Yui and Biltekoff, 2020 ), cross-sectional questionnaire ( Abe and Akamatsu, 2015 ), semi-structured interviews ( Zhao et al. , 2019 ), non-structured interviews ( Falasconi et al. , 2015 ), structured interviews ( Burton et al. , 2016 ), focus group discussion ( Blondin et al. , 2015 ), experiments ( Kim and Morawski, 2013 ) including randomized controlled experiments ( Katare et al. , 2019 ), quasi-experiments ( Visschers et al. , 2020 ), longitudinal studies ( Lagorio et al. , 2018 ; Marshall et al. , 2019 ) and pre- and post-test-based intervention studies ( Kowalewska and Kołłajtis-Dołowy, 2018 ; Kropp et al. , 2018 ; Lorenz-Walther et al. , 2019 ; Visschers et al. ,2020 ). Figure 7 presents a snapshot of the methods.

Type of data collected : Scientists use self-reporting questionnaires quite frequently to identify the key factors influencing food waste, the reason for plate waste and preferences ( Thorsen et al. , 2015 ; Liu et al. , 2016 ; Huang et al. , 2017 ; Kowalewska and Kołłajtis-Dołowy, 2018 ; Derqui et al. , 2020 ). In addition, questionnaires gathered eating behaviour-related information and food preferences ( Baik and Lee, 2009 ). Notably, prior scholars have made limited qualitative attempts to assess consumer behaviour concerning food waste generation. For instance, Jagau and Vyrastekova (2017) conducted a study to observe the differences between the intention to prevent food waste and the actual waste that consumers generated. Similarly, researchers examined staff and students’ insinuated intentions related to food waste ( Zhao and Manning, 2019b ). A few studies have also analyzed the changes in behaviour with regard to food waste and its reduction ( Whitehair et al. , 2013 ; Pinto et al. , 2018 ; Boulet et al. , 2019 ; Visschers et al. , 2020 ). Along the same lines, fewer studies have focused on the ethnic background of students or other demographic factors. For example, only two studies using a mixed-method approach have undertaken ethnographic investigations ( Lazell, 2016 ; Izumi et al. , 2020 ). Similarly, a limited number of researchers ( Nicklas et al. , 2013 ) have used a demographic questionnaire (e.g. age, ethnicity). Langley et al. (2010) acknowledged the effect of gender-based differences in food consumption and waste; they selected dining areas for the study based on gender composition.

Regarding the variety of respondents, qualitative studies have taken place with many stakeholders, such as kitchen managers, nutrition service directors and sustainability staff ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ), professionals engaged in food recovery ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ), stakeholders along the supply chain ( Liu et al. , 2016 ), school head teachers ( Derqui et al. , 2020 ), managers and staff in schools and catering firms ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ), key informants about stakeholder accountability ( Cohn et al. , 2013 ), food service managers, catering personnel, students ( Marais et al. , 2017 ), teachers ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ) and parents ( Baik and Lee, 2009 ).

3.4 Operational strategies for reducing food waste

strategies to reduce food waste at the pre-consumer level; and

strategies to reduce food waste at the post-consumer level.

This work will explore both strategies in what follows.

Pre-consumer level : The reviewed studies discussed several operational strategies to reduce waste at the pre-consumer level. The main objective of these strategies was to reduce food waste at the kitchen level. Waste at this level occurs largely because of overproduction, mishandling, staff inefficiency and the quality of food prepared. Accordingly, strategies largely target these issues ( Table 5 ). Post-consumer level : The operational strategies to reduce waste at the post-consumer level largely relate to avoiding serving food that would not be consumed. With plate waste being the focus of waste quantification, many previous scholars have discussed strategies to reduce plate waste. Most of the suggestions relate to the serving portion size based on age, going trayless and making better food choices, as Table 5 illustrates.

3.5 Interventions for inducing behavioural changes to mitigate food waste

communication; and

financial and economic incentives.

Education and communication have been suggested to be the most effective approaches for behaviour change ( Whitehair et al. , 2013 ).

Education : Past studies have recommended a holistic approach to decrease food waste, which involves multiple stakeholders in society, including parents and catering staff ( Marais et al. , 2017 ; Wu et al. , 2019 ; Izumi et al. , 2020 ). Studies also have indicated the need to identify and increase the engagement levels of families that have the lowest level of engagement in food waste reduction behaviour ( Boulet et al. , 2019 ). Students can receive education, as an intervention, through lectures on morals, sustainability and related environmental issues, or through a hands-on experience such as visiting landfill sites or segregating their plate waste themselves by putting the leftovers in separate bins ( Wu et al. , 2019 ). Curricula should integrate student engagement and social norms related to eating without waste into food-waste-related discussions, along with nutrition education ( Izumi et al. , 2020 ). Table 6 presents the key educational interventions introduced at the pre- and post-consumer levels. Besides discussing the interventions, some prior studies also tested their efficacy. For instance, Kowalewska and Kołłajtis-Dołowy (2018) revealed that students’ exposure to film was more effective in reducing food waste among students than giving an informational leaflet to parents or guardians. Similarly, Whitehair et al. (2013) reported that a to-the-point prompt-type message effectively reduced food waste by 15%.

Communication : Interaction among varied stakeholders is essential to reducing food waste ( Cohn et al. , 2013 ; Marais et al. , 2017 ; Derqui et al. , 2018 ). Clear and continuous communication among kitchen managers, kitchen staff, students and school authorities boosts the success of food waste reduction efforts ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ; Zhao and Manning, 2019b ).

Financial and economic incentives : These incentives encourage consumers to finish their meals ( Sarjahani et al. , 2009 ). However, there is a challenge here. Providing financial incentives to motivate food waste reduction behaviour among students is effective. However, a non-intended adverse outcome of such incentives for finishing the food on one’s plate could be overeating and obesity. Therefore, any intervention related to food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions should be integrated with healthy eating policies ( Katare et al. , 2019 ).

3.6 Food diversion and food waste disposal processes

The processes related to the diversion and disposal of the daily waste of food service establishments in educational institutions are important aspects of food waste reduction and control efforts. The primary objective at this stage of handling food waste should be to divert it from landfills through recycling ( Wilkie et al. , 2015 ). Such diversion processes are a way of reducing food waste, as they decrease the actual amount of scraps destined to be buried in landfills ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ). The reviewed studies discussed the following approaches to handling food waste: reuse (e.g. staff meals), recycling (e.g. composting) and disposal ( Derqui and Fernandez, 2017 ).

the redistribution of edible, non-perishable and perishable food by donating it to food banks, shelters and other food-insecure groups ( Burton et al. , 2016 ); and

the recovery of food waste through anaerobic digestion and composting, which are the processes of converting leftovers into useful end products, such as nutrient-rich soil amendments and bio-energy ( Sarjahani et al. , 2009 ; Wilkie et al. , 2015 ; Burton et al. , 2016 ; Wu et al. , 2019 ).

The key disposal method discussed by the past studies is the landfill. The approaches discussed by the extant studies range from pulping waste for landfilling to lunchroom food-sharing programmes and leftover lunch service in the form of redistributing leftovers ( Babich and Sylvia, 2010 ; Laakso, 2017 ; Prescott et al. , 2019a ).

Although a limited number of studies have discussed the food diversion and disposal processes in detail, most seem to agree on the donation of edible recovered food as a feasible option to redistribute waste. For instance, Deavin et al. (2018) revealed the popularity of a novel breakfast programme based on donated food to increase food security. Schupp et al. (2018) discussed a “backpack programme” where food-insecure students were to carry temperature-controlled leftovers home. Many other studies have discussed food donation to reduce food waste but emphasized that it is possible only through the collaborative efforts of food service establishments and the beneficiaries of such donations ( Hackman and Oldham, 1974 ; Sarjahani et al. , 2009 ; Blondin et al. , 2015 ; Marais et al. , 2017 ; Balzaretti et al. , 2020 ; Derqui et al. , 2020 ). The results of our study indicate that much of the generated food waste is landfilled, even though landfilling represents a missed opportunity to recover food and promote sustainable behaviour ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ). Finally, prior studies have contended that the sustainability initiatives of diversion, recovery and redistribution can be made successful and effective through proper waste sorting and waste audits by food service establishments ( Prescott et al. , 2019a ).

3.7 Barriers impeding the implementation of food waste reduction strategies

pre-consumer;

operational;

post-consumer;

food waste tracking; and

food diversion and recovery levels.

a lack of willpower and a negligent attitude;

the pressure to quickly finish one’s work; and

less experienced and incompetent personnel.

Prescott et al. (2019b) revealed that limited storage capacity for dry/cold storage also acted as a barrier to success in reducing food waste by impacting the inventory management plans of kitchen managers.

short lunch breaks and too few kitchen staff to allow the adoption of the batch cooking approach as a waste mitigation strategy ( Prescott et al. , 2019b );

the increased breakage of meal utensils and the need to wipe dining tables more frequently, which made it challenging to use the strategy of going trayless to reduce waste ( Thiagarajah and Getty, 2013 );

parents scolding their children for bringing home leftovers and providing bins at school, which presents an easy way to dispose of unconsumed food through the reuse of leftovers ( Boulet et al. , 2019 ); and

the timing of recess ( Chapman et al. , 2017 ).

Post-consumer level : The behavioural and perceptual aspects at the post-consumer level also help impede efforts to reduce food waste. In this context, Zhao et al. (2019) cited the differences in satiation level and social influences as key barriers. Consumers tended to throw away food that they disliked but found it unacceptable to waste the food that they liked. Similarly, Prescott et al. (2019b) argued that factors such as weather, changing tastes and preferences, and seasonal changes also acted as barriers to the success of the efforts to reduce food waste. Other barriers to food waste reduction also stemmed from consumers’ intention−behaviour gap (Lazell, 2). In addition, unsupportive school policy in terms of not allowing students to share food they did not want with others or take leftovers home also hampered food waste reduction efforts ( Zhao et al. , 2019 ).

the time devoted to weighing and keeping a record of food waste;

difficulties in weighing certain items, such as soups;

the ongoing training required for the weighing of waste because of employee turnover; and

spatial constraints.

food safety concerns and food quality standards, which impose limits on the donation of edible leftovers for human and animal consumption;

the prohibitive cost of transportation, heat treatment of waste for making it safe for animal consumption and setting up onsite composting units compared with the low cost of landfilling waste, making redistribution a financially unviable solution;

adverse publicity for the effectiveness of nutrition programmes, highlighted by the waste generated and where legal liability also acts as a disincentive; and

the lack of a clear understanding of the kinds of recovery activity the law permits.

4. Research gaps and potential research questions

We critically assessed the emergent themes to identify the gaps in the literature on food waste reduction measures. We mapped the identified gaps onto the seven themes to present theme-based gaps. We also suggested potential research questions that future researchers can address to close these gaps. The multiple gaps in the literature concerned the seven themes. Table 7 demonstrates potential research questions.

5. Framework development

Based on our content analysis, we identified the key themes on which the extant research on food services in educational institutions focused. The learning emerging through these themes has helped us develop a deeper understanding of the area. Our review has revealed that the entire food service–food waste debate represents a complex ecosystem consisting of different stakeholders and processes that interact but are driven by diverse priorities, as some of the reviewed studies also have argued ( Prescott et al. , 2019b ). Consequently, we have built on this learning to apply the systems approach.

a repeated input–process–output–feedback cycle; and

the influence of the external environment.

We adopted the systems approach to develop a framework that presents various aspects of food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions as an open system that provides a holistic view of food waste in educational settings ( Figure 8 ). We call the framework developed by us the “food waste ecosystem (FWE)”. FWE consists of the following:

the internal and external environment;

transformative processes;

competing forces;

output; and

feedback loop.

FWE posits that food waste generation and mitigation in educational institutions depend on the interaction of various subsystems that are interdependent and integrated into an organized whole.

To begin with, the food waste system is conceptualized as an open system influenced not only by cues from the internal environment but also by cues and stimuli from the external environment. The internal environment represents the environment within the food service establishment in educational institutions and includes factors such as school policies and methods of food production. It impacts how transformative processes are executed. The external environment represents the environment outside the educational institution and includes factors such as government regulations, composting facilities and food banks.

Inputs are the first block in FWE. Inputs represent the first step in a systems model, and represent the decisions at the beginning of the process that finally result in waste generation. Typically, at this stage, they include decisions such as what is to be served per meal, the food service regime that mandated a particular type of meal to be served, dietary guidelines (particularly in the context of schools), the dining facility and the number of consumers. These decisions affect the amount and type of food prepared, the use of local produce, the storage facilities required, the beverages served, the use of temperature-controlled food items, the portion size, the method of service (self-serve, tray system or trayless system) and the ambiance of the dining area. The decisions at this stage set the tone for the extent to which food waste is generated in the next step in the systems model: the transformative process.

The four key transformative processes at this stage are food production, food service, food consumption and food diversion. Each of these processes presents a potential point of food waste generation. As discussed in the themes, food production is a part of the pre-consumer phase, where the kitchen staff’s role is important. Food service represents serving food for consumption. The food consumption stage is where consumers enter the picture. Food diversion is a process that takes place after the consumption phase is over.

These four activities are the subsystems of the transformative process that is a chaotic tradeoff of competing forces and conflicting priorities. FWE identifies seven broad competing forces based on the reviewed literature: functional issues, behavioural factors, demographic influences, contextual issues, interventions, waste tracking systems and supportive policies. For instance, the functional issues that can generate food waste are overproduction, a lack of trained staff, the mishandling of ingredients and the lack of awareness of the seriousness of food waste among the staff and consumers. Similarly, the size of the portion in staff-served meals, the amount of food added to serving dishes, meal presentation and spillage during handling can generate food waste. Functional issues associated with the donation of edible waste for human consumption, the treatment of waste for animal consumption, composting, anaerobic digestion or landfills also affect the amount of waste generated.

Regarding behavioural factors, the negligent attitude of a kitchen and service staff, the lack of willingness to prevent waste, food preferences, level of satiation, the influence of the social group and family, and the inherent intention–behaviour gap may lead to food waste. Demographic influences in terms of age, gender, household income and ethnic background also influence the amount of food consumed or left unconsumed, contributing to food waste. Contextual factors such as the quality and taste of meals, the unpleasant ambiance of the dining room, the extent of supervision (for younger consumers) and the eating duration can potentially increase food waste.

The four competing forces (functional, behavioural, demographic and contextual) represent the reasons behind the increased food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions. However, interventions, robust waste tracking systems and supportive policies can reduce food waste. The challenge is that most of the interventions require some expense and effort in terms of time and money. For instance, offering financial incentives may reduce food waste, but for food service establishments, such food waste savings will make economic sense only if the money saved from less food going to waste is more than or at least equal to the financial incentive. Similarly, interventions such as education campaigns may cost money, and whether they are worthwhile will depend on the money saved from less food going to waste. One way of compensating for costs is for a government’s support policy to make the expenses incurred for food waste mitigation efforts tax-deductible. In addition, the initiatives for food diversion, such as food donations, have an associated legal liability that suitable policy guidelines can reduce.

The supportive policy of educational institutions can help by granting permission to take home leftovers, share food, provide better dining areas and make provisions for adequate eating time between academic commitments. In the case of the food tracking system, the immense effort required for sorting, weighing and training the staff to operate such a system represents a cost that must be offset by balancing the savings in food costs. In this way, the food waste ecosystem is an interdependent mass of competing forces that interact to increase or decrease the quantity of food generated, and the food waste mitigation decisions at the micro level are a trade-off between costs and benefits. The output of the transformative process is the quantity of waste generated. The amount and composition of the waste provide feedback, which can help revise decisions at the input level.

6. Conclusion, implications, limitations and future research areas

6.1 conclusion.

This study presents the status of food wastage in food service establishments in educational institutions, as reflected in the extant literature. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no contemporary SLRs that have analyzed food wastage in the food service establishments in educational institutions as a separate vertical. The current study addresses this gap to offer insightful implications for theory and practice. First, it sets the conceptual boundary by including all food service establishments in schools and universities. We selected this subdomain because the focus of the studies has largely been school lunch, where researchers have mainly assessed food waste to compute nutritional loss. In comparison, studies focused on food waste as a central concern, and studies examining food waste in higher education are limited. This indicates a need to catalyze research in the area. Thereafter, the study rigorously follows the SLR method to identify, synthesize and critically evaluate the 88 studies on the topic to reveal their research profile and thematic foci. The seven themes we identified through content analysis are the drivers of food waste; quantitative assessment of food waste; assessment of behavioural aspects of food waste; operational strategies for reducing food waste; interventions for inducing behavioural changes to mitigate food waste; food diversion and food waste disposal processes; and barriers to the implementation of food waste reduction strategies. The review goes beyond presenting the state-of-the-art in the area to uncover the gaps in the extant investigations and to suggest potential research questions that could motivate future academic research from the hospitality perspective. In addition, we developed a framework based on the open-systems approach to depict the complexity of the area and the multiple factors that influence its decision-making.

For the novel contributions of this study, it is the first SLR to review food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no prior review study has systematically reviewed and evaluated the extant research on food waste in the education sector. The only other review study on food waste in the area was the review of the NSLP in the USA ( Byker Shanks et al. , 2017 ). This review focused on the methods of quantifying food waste and the respective results of each method in the NSLP context from 1978 to 2015. The current SLR goes beyond both quantification and NSLP. Another novel contribution of this study is that the gaps that we identified in the extant research are theme-oriented, paving the way for encouraging future academic research through tangible suggestions in the form of theme-based potential research questions. This study also presents a systems view of the dynamics of food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions by identifying the input decisions; the transformative processes; the influence of low-threshold interventions and barriers; and the output in terms of the quantity of food waste. Finally, the practical inferences offered by the study are actionable, useful, contextual and easily transferable across various food service establishments serving educational institutions.

6.2 Theoretical implications

SLR has four key theoretical implications. First, although several researchers have investigated food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions, most have skewed towards the nutritional implication of unconsumed food in the school lunch context, with the quantification of food waste merely serving as a basis to capture nutritional loss. The hospitality literature has yet to focus on the issue of food waste in institutional settings in spite of its strong implications for sustainability and direct association with food services, an inherent part of the hospitality sector. By presenting the key themes, we have provided a ready platform for hospitality researchers to expand the scope of their investigations to include food wastage in educational institutions.

Second, we identified theme-based gaps ( Table 7 ) in the extant research that need to be addressed through empirical investigations from a hospitality perspective. Besides identifying theme-based gaps, we also suggested potential research questions ( Table 7 ) in consonance with prior reviews ( Swani et al. , 2019 ), which can help set the future research agenda in the area. Furthermore, our study revealed that future studies need to focus on food waste as contributing to increased carbon footprints and food insecurity. Such studies will take the focus beyond the nutritional emphasis on ecological implications for the greater good.

Third, in addition to identifying the theme-based gaps and potential research questions, we conducted research profiling of the retrieved and screened literature to identify the scope of the future research concerning the need for theory-based examinations, geographies that need attention and the type of educational institutions that have remained neglected in food waste research. The need for theory-driven investigations, which are now quite deficient, is supported because “theory” alone can yield consistent conclusions from causal patterns in data ( Han,2015 ). The need to explore diverse geographies is justified, considering that food consumption and leaving food unconsumed may be rooted in culture ( Yoder et al. , 2015 ; Pinto et al. , 2018 ; Izumi et al. , 2020 ). The need to focus on hitherto under-explored subsectors in higher education is justified because more granular findings are required to help food service establishments, regulators and university authorities plan and execute sustainable food waste control strategies targeting a group that makes independent decisions. Finally, the FWE framework that we developed presents a systems approach to food waste management that provides researchers with a bird’s eye view of the key areas to investigate in a study examining food waste generation and mitigation in food service establishments in educational institutions.

6.3 Practical implications

SLR has six key practical implications. First, a systematic tracking system can help create awareness and motivate anti-food-waste behaviours at the pre-consumer level, as prior studies have discussed ( Burton et al. , 2016 ). Therefore, catering companies offering food services in educational institutions should implement software with a simple interface to capture food-waste-related data, forecast the number of meals, identify popular menu items and classify waste into edible and non-edible.

Second, the overemphasis on nutritional content and rigid food-serving guidelines can increase food waste, as school authorities may determine portion sizes accordingly. This could be counterproductive from both the nutritional and waste perspectives if the food served is not consumed. For instance, the larger portion sizes that the school determines may cause overnutrition and obesity ( Balzaretti et al. , 2020 ). Therefore, the dietary guidelines that the concerned authorities issue should be indicative so portion sizes are adjusted according to hunger level and personal preferences. Competitive foods that usually have higher fat and sugar contents ( Templeton et al. , 2005 ) can be removed or vended at other times to ensure that the served meals are consumed to satiate hunger.

Third, formal guidelines for quantifying food waste should be prepared and made available to the food service managers in the cafeterias. There also should be a board or display where the aggregate daily food waste at the pre- and post-consumer levels is displayed for everyone to see. This likely will increase food waste awareness and encourage kitchen staff and students to reduce food waste.

Fourth, as food waste is a critical issue, school and college authorities hiring catering services (including cooks and kitchen staff) can also adopt a more structured approach to discouraging food waste. For instance, an inefficiency index ( Falasconi et al. , 2015 ) can be calculated weekly as the percentage of food wasted at the pre-consumer and serving stages compared to the amount of food prepared. Such an index will highlight the deficiencies in the kitchen processes, the slackness of the staff and the inaccurate forecasting of the number of consumers.

Fifth, the proper sorting of food waste can reduce it in two ways: by increasing the chances of recovering edible leftovers for donation and by making concerned stakeholders aware of the waste they are generating. Therefore, regulators or administrative authorities at the educational institution level can make it compulsory for every dining hall to have separate bins with labels for the disposal of different types of waste, including liquid waste, according to Schupp et al. (2018) . Furthermore, consumers should be asked to throw their individual plate waste in the designated bins.

Finally, from a regulatory standpoint, the policy guidelines for food waste reduction should consider the cost of waste reduction processes and offer financial incentives such as tax rebates for initiatives to reduce waste through food diversion. The issue of the legal liability associated with donating food to non-profit organizations for charity is a great disincentive, preventing the giving away of food for charity. To overcome this impediment, donors can be freed of any such legal liability. This practice exists in countries such as Italy and the USA ( Derqui et al. , 2018 ). Furthermore, policymakers should promote an approach to menu design based on the inclusion of more low-carbon-emission food items and fewer high-carbon-emission food items. This is likely to provide food cost savings at the food service level and environmental cost savings at the societal level.

6.4 Limitations and future research areas

We conducted a deep analysis of the extant research on food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions to uncover key themes and gaps. This has made a significant contribution to theory and practice by presenting potential research questions and implementable practical suggestions. However, readers should evaluate the contributions of this study in the context of the following limitations. First, we used Scopus and Web of Science only to search congruent studies and did not juxtapose any other digital library or database. This could have resulted in the exclusion of studies not listed in these two databases. Second, we included articles published only in English and could have missed important regional findings in the local language. Third, like any other SLR study, we faced the challenge of executing extensive search and screening, complexities in synthesis and presentation of findings in a manner that would be palatable to a wide variety of readers. Accordingly, we could have missed information because of inadvertent human error. Fourth, although we followed a systematic approach to identify keywords for searching the congruent literature, the area of food waste is quite vast. We may have excluded keywords. However, we used a robust search and screening protocol to present rigorous analysis to serve as a reliable basis for guiding future research and practice. Future researchers can extend our work by including keywords such as “campus dining”, “food rescue”, “food scarcity on campus”, “food recycling”, “food waste tracking”, “meal plans”, “food supply chains” and “food clubs on campus”. Future work can advance this study by reviewing reports from governments and policies implemented to highlight the gaps between academic research and government initiatives or between evidenced-based and non-evidenced-based methods. In addition, researchers should examine food waste in schools/universities in developed and developing economies, because the extant literature primarily skews towards US-based educational institutions. In this regard, researchers can also focus on cross-cultural/national comparison to provide deeper and more generalizable insights. Food waste studies in educational institutions can also include employees who consume food in the school/university dining facility, as examined in the case of frontline employees working in various hospitality establishments (Luu, 2020). Furthermore, as the drivers and, ultimately, the remedial actions/strategies for handling the issue of food waste may differ between public and private educational institutions, future researchers can build on our findings by separately reviewing the sample of studies on public and private educational institutions. Finally, future studies can explore whether increasing organic food consumption ( Tandon et al. , 2020a , 2020b ; Tandon et al. , 2020c ) has impacted food waste behaviours in educational institutions.

Year-wise publications in food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions

Publications on food waste in the food service establishments in educational institutions, by journal

Food service establishments examined by the studies

Geographic scope of the studies

Thematic foci of studies on food waste in educational institutions

Methods of food waste quantification

Methods of data collection

Systems approach to food waste mitigation: The food waste ecosystem (FWE) framework

Keywords for the literature search

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

Theoretical framework used in food waste in food service establishments in educational institutions

Drivers of food waste in food service establishments

Operational strategies for food waste reduction

Interventions for food waste reduction

Theme-based gaps and related potential research questions

Abdelaal , A.H. , McKay , G. and Mackey , H.R. ( 2019 ), “ Food waste from a university campus in the Middle east: drivers, composition, and resource recovery potential ”, Waste Management , Vol. 98 , pp. 14 - 20 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.007 .

Abe , K. and Akamatsu , R. ( 2015 ), “ Japanese children and plate waste: contexts of low self-efficacy ”, Health Education Journal , Vol. 74 No. 1 , pp. 74 - 83 , doi: 10.1177/0017896913519429 .

Adams , M.A. , Bruening , M. , Ohri-Vachaspati , P. and Hurley , J.C. ( 2016 ), “ Location of school lunch salad bars and fruit and vegetable consumption in Middle schools: a cross-sectional plate waste study ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 116 No. 3 , pp. 407 - 416 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.10.011 .

Babich , R. and Sylvia , S. ( 2010 ), “ Cradle to grave’: an analysis of sustainable food systems in a university setting ”, Journal of Culinary Science and Technology , Vol. 8 No. 4 , pp. 180 - 190 , doi: 10.1080/15428052.2010.535747 .

Baik , J.Y. and Lee , H. ( 2009 ), “ Habitual plate-waste of 6- to 9-year-olds may not be associated with lower nutritional needs or taste acuity, but undesirable dietary factors ”, Nutrition Research , Vol. 29 No. 12 , pp. 831 - 838 , doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2009.10.009 .

Balzaretti , C.M. , Ventura , V. , Ratti , S. , Ferrazzi , G. , Spallina , A. , Carruba , M.O. and Castrica , M. ( 2020 ), “ Improving the overall sustainability of the school meal chain: the role of portion sizes ”, Eating and Weight Disorders – Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 107 - 116 , doi: 10.1007/s40519-018-0524-z .

Bavik , A. ( 2020 ), “ A systematic review of the servant leadership literature in management and hospitality ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 347 - 382 , doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2018-0788 .

Bean , M.K. , Raynor , H.A. , Thornton , L.M. , Sova , A. , Stewart , M.D. and Mazzeo , S.E. ( 2018a ), “ Reliability and validity of digital imagery methodology for measuring starting portions and plate waste from school salad bars ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 118 No. 8 , pp. 1482 - 1489 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2018.02.002 .

Bean , M.K. , Spalding , B.B. , Theriault , E. , Dransfield , K.B. , Sova , A. and Stewart , M.D. ( 2018b ), “ Salad bars increased selection and decreased consumption of fruits and vegetables 1 month after installation in title I elementary schools: a plate waste study ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 50 No. 6 , pp. 589 - 597 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2018.01.017.Salad .

Behera , R.K. , Bala , P.K. and Dhir , A. ( 2019 ), “ The emerging role of cognitive computing in healthcare: a systematic literature review ”, International Journal of Medical Informatics , Vol. 129 , pp. 154 - 166 , doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.04.024 .

Betz , A. , Buchli , J. , Göbel , C. and Müller , C. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste in the Swiss food service industry–magnitude and potential for reduction ”, Waste Management , Vol. 35 , pp. 218 - 226 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.015 .

Blondin , S.A. , Cash , S.B. , Goldberg , J.P. , Griffin , T.S. and Economos , C.D. ( 2017 ), “ Nutritional, economic, and environmental costs of milk waste in a classroom school breakfast program ”, American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 107 No. 4 , pp. 590 - 592 , doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303647 .

Blondin , S.A. , Djang , H.C. , Metayer , N. , Anzman-Frasca , S. and Economos , C.D. ( 2015 ), “ It’s just so much waste.’A qualitative investigation of food waste in a universal free school breakfast program ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 18 No. 9 , pp. 1565 - 1577 , doi: 10.1017/S1368980014002948 .

Blondin , S.A. , Goldberg , J.P. , Cash , S.B. , Griffin , T.S. and Economos , C.D. ( 2018 ), “ Factors influencing fluid milk waste in a breakfast in the classroom school breakfast program ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 50 No. 4 , pp. 349 - 356 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.12.006 .

Boschini , M. , Falasconi , L. , Cicatiello , C. and Franco , S. ( 2020 ), “ Why the waste? A large-scale study on the causes of food waste at school canteens ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 246 , p. 118994 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118994 .

Boulet , M. , Wright , B. , Williams , C. and Rickinson , M. ( 2019 ), “ Return to sender: a behavioural approach to reducing food waste in schools ”, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 328 - 346 , doi: 10.1080/14486563.2019.1672587 .

Burton , K. , Serrano , E. , Cox , H. , Budowle , R. and Dulys-Nusbaum , E. ( 2016 ), “ Benefits, barriers, and challenges to university-level food waste tracking ”, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition , Vol. 11 No. 3 , pp. 428 - 438 , doi: 10.1080/19320248.2015.1045676 .

Byker Shanks , C. , Banna , J. and Serrano , E.L. ( 2017 ), “ Food waste in the national school lunch program 1978-2015: a systematic review ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 117 No. 11 , pp. 1792 - 1807 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.06.008 .

Byker , C.J. , Farris , A.R. , Marcenelle , M. , Davis , G.C. and Serrano , E.L. ( 2014 ), “ Food waste in a school nutrition program after implementation of new lunch program guidelines ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 46 No. 5 , pp. 406 - 411 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2014.03.009.Made .

Capps , O. , Jr , Ishdorj , A. , Murano , P.S. and Storey , M. ( 2016 ), “ Examining vegetable plate waste in elementary schools by diversity and grade ”, Health Behavior and Policy Review , Vol. 3 No. 5 , pp. 419 - 428 , doi: 10.14485/hbpr.3.5.2 .

Chapman , L.E. , Cohen , J. , Canterberry , M. and Carton , T.W. ( 2017 ), “ Factors associated with school lunch consumption: reverse recess and school brunch ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 117 No. 9 , pp. 1413 - 1418 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.04.016 .

Chapman , L.E. , Richardson , S. , McLeod , L. , Rimm , E. and Cohen , J. ( 2019 ), “ Pilot evaluation of aggregate plate waste as a measure of students’ school lunch consumption ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 119 No. 12 , pp. 2093 - 2098 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2019.04.001 .

Cohen , J.F. , Richardson , S. , Austin , S.B. , Economos , C.D. and Rimm , E.B. ( 2013 ), “ School lunch waste among Middle school students: nutrients consumed and costs ”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 44 No. 2 , pp. 114 - 121 , doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.371 .

Cohn , D.J. , Pickering , R. and Chin , N.P. ( 2013 ), “ Is lunch still gross? A qualitative evaluation of a new school lunch program ”, Infant, Child, and Adolescent Nutrition , Vol. 5 No. 6 , pp. 383 - 392 , doi: 10.1177/1941406413502525 .

Costello , C. , Birisci , E. and McGarvey , R.G. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste in campus dining operations: Inventory of pre-and post-consumer mass by food category, and estimation of embodied greenhouse gas emissions ”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Vol. 31 No. 3 , pp. 191 - 201 , doi: 10.1017/S1742170515000071 .

Costello , C. , McGarvey , R.G. and Birisci , E. ( 2017 ), “ Achieving sustainability beyond zero waste: a case study from a college football stadium ”, Sustainability , Vol. 9 No. 7 , p. 1236 , doi: 10.3390/su9071236 .

Deavin , N. , McMahon , A.T. , Walton , K. and Charlton , K. ( 2018 ), “ Breaking barriers, breaking bread’: Pilot study to evaluate acceptability of a school breakfast program utilising donated food ”, Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 75 No. 5 , pp. 500 - 508 , doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12478 .

Derqui , B. and Fernandez , V. ( 2017 ), “ The opportunity of tracking food waste in school canteens: Guidelines for self-assessment ”, Waste Management , Vol. 69 , pp. 431 - 444 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.030 .

Derqui , B. , Fernandez , V. and Fayos , T. ( 2018 ), “ Towards more sustainable food systems. Addressing food waste at school canteens ”, Appetite , Vol. 129 , pp. 1 - 11 , doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.06.022 .

Derqui , B. , Grimaldi , D. and Fernandez , V. ( 2020 ), “ Building and managing sustainable schools: the case of food waste ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 243 , p. 118533 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118533 .

Dhir , A. , Talwar , S. , Kaur , P. and Malibari , A. ( 2020 ), “ Food waste in hospitality and food services: a systematic literature review and framework development approach ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 270 , p. 122861 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122861 .

Dillon , M. and Lane , H.J. ( 1989 ), “ Evaluation of the offer vs. serve option within self-serve, choice menu lunch program at the elementary school level ”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association , Vol. 89 No. 12 , p. 1780 , available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2592709 ( accessed 2 July 2020 ).

Dresler-Hawke , E. , Whitehead , D. and Coad , J. ( 2009 ), “ What are New Zealand children eating at school? A content analysis of “consumed versus unconsumed” food groups in a lunch-box survey ”, Health Education Journal , Vol. 68 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 13 , doi: 10.1177/0017896908100444 .

Ellison , B. , Savchenko , O. , Nikolaus , C.J. and Duff , B.R. ( 2019 ), “ Every plate counts: evaluation of a food waste reduction campaign in a university dining hall ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 144 , pp. 276 - 284 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.046 .

Eriksson , M. , Lindgren , S. and Persson Osowski , C. ( 2018a ), “ Mapping of food waste quantification methodologies in the food services of Swedish municipalities ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 137 , pp. 191 - 199 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.013 .

Eriksson , M. , Osowski , C.P. , Malefors , C. , Björkman , J. and Eriksson , E. ( 2017 ), “ Quantification of food waste in public catering services–a case study from a Swedish municipality ”, Waste Management , Vol. 61 , pp. 415 - 422 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.035 .

Eriksson , M. , Osowski , C.P. , Björkman , J. , Hansson , E. , Malefors , C. , Eriksson , E. and Ghosh , R. ( 2018b ), “ The tree structure—a general framework for food waste quantification in food services ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 130 , pp. 140 - 151 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.030 .

Falasconi , L. , Vittuari , M. , Politano , A. and Segrè , A. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste in school catering: an Italian case study ”, Sustainability , Vol. 7 No. 11 , pp. 14745 - 14760 , doi: 10.3390/su71114745 .

Gase , L.N. , McCarthy , W.J. , Robles , B. and Kuo , T. ( 2014 ), “ Student receptivity to new school meal offerings: assessing fruit and vegetable waste among Middle school students in the Los Angeles unified school district ”, Preventive Medicine , Vol. 67 , pp. S28 - S33 , doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.013 .

Getts , K.M. , Quinn , E.L. , Johnson , D.B. and Otten , J.J. ( 2017 ), “ Validity and interrater reliability of the visual quarter-waste method for assessing food waste in Middle school and high school cafeteria settings ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 117 No. 11 , pp. 1816 - 1821 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.05.004 .

Gomezelj , D.O. ( 2016 ), “ A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and tourism ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 516 - 558 , doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2014-0510 .

Gustavsson , J. ( 2011 ), “ Food and agriculture organization of the united nations ”, ASME/Pacific Rim Technical Conference and Exhibition on Integration and Packaging of MEMS, N., n.d. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention: Study Conducted for the International Congress “Save Food!” at Interpack, Düsseldorf , Germany .

Hackman , J.R. and Oldham , G.R. ( 1974 ), “ The job diagnostic survey: an instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects ”, Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology , Vol. 4 , pp. 148 - 149 .

Han , B. ( 2015 ), “ 심리정치: 신자유주의의 통치:술 [psychopolitik: Neoliberalismus und die neuen machttechniken] ”.

Hanks , A.S. , Wansink , B. and Just , D.R. ( 2014 ), “ Reliability and accuracy of real-time visualization techniques for measuring school cafeteria tray waste: Validating The Quarter-waste method ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 114 No. 3 , pp. 470 - 474 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2013.08.013 .

Huang , Z. , Gao , R. , Bawuerjiang , N. , Zhang , Y. , Huang , X. and Cai , M. ( 2017 ), “ Food and nutrients intake in the school lunch program among school children in shanghai, China ”, Nutrients , Vol. 9 No. 6 , pp. 582 , doi: 10.3390/nu9060582 .

Hudgens , M.E. , Barnes , A.S. , Lockhart , M.K. , Ellsworth , S.C. , Beckford , M. and Siegel , R.M. ( 2017 ), “ Small prizes improve food selection in a school cafeteria without increasing waste ”, Clinical Pediatrics , Vol. 56 No. 2 , pp. 123 - 126 , doi: 10.1177/0009922816677546 .

Ivert , L.K. , Dukovska-Popovska , I. , Kaipia , R. , Fredriksson , A. , Dreyer , H.C. , Johansson , M.I. , Chabada , L. , Damgaard , C.M. and Tuomikangas , N. ( 2015 ), “ Sales and operations planning: responding to the needs of industrial food producers ”, Production Planning and Control , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 280 - 295 , doi: 10.1080/09537287.2014.897769 .

Izumi , B.T. , Akamatsu , R. , Shanks , C.B. and Fujisaki , K. ( 2020 ), “ An ethnographic study exploring factors that minimize lunch waste in Tokyo elementary schools ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 23 No. 6 , pp. 1142 - 1151 , doi: 10.1017/S136898001900380X .

Jafari Navimipour , N. and Charband , Y. ( 2016 ), “ Knowledge sharing mechanisms and techniques in project teams: Literature review, classification, and current trends ”, Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 62 , pp. 730 - 742 , doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.003 .

Jagau , H.L. and Vyrastekova , J. ( 2017 ), “ Behavioral approach to food waste: an experiment ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 119 No. 4 , pp. 882 - 894 , doi: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2016-0213 .

Kallbekken , S. and Sælen , H. ( 2013 ), “ Nudging’hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure ”, Economics Letters , Vol. 119 No. 3 , pp. 325 - 327 , doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.03.019 .

Katajajuuri , J.M. , Silvennoinen , K. , Hartikainen , H. , Heikkilä , L. and Reinikainen , A. ( 2014 ), “ Food waste in the finnish food chain ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 73 , pp. 322 - 329 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.057 .

Katare , B. , Wetzstein , M. and Jovanovic , N. ( 2019 ), “ Can economic incentive help in reducing food waste: experimental evidence from a university dining hall ”, Applied Economics Letters , Vol. 26 No. 17 , pp. 1448 - 1451 , doi: 10.1080/13504851.2019.1578856 .

Katz , D. and Kahn , R. ( 1966 ), The Social Psychology of Organizations , Wiley . New York, NY .

Khadka , S. ( 2017 ), “ Reducing food waste vital for India's food security ”, downtoearth.org.in/blog/reducing-food-waste-vital-for-india-s-food-security57345 ).

Kim , K. and Morawski , S. ( 2013 ), “ Quantifying the impact of going Trayless in a university dining hall ”, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition , Vol. 7 No. 4 , pp. 482 - 486 , doi: 10.1080/19320248.2012.732918 .

Knezevic , B. , Kurnoga , N. and Anic , I.D. ( 2019 ), “ Typology of university students regarding attitudes towards food waste ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 121 No. 11 , pp. 2578 - 2591 , doi: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2018-0316 .

Kowalewska , M.T. and Kołłajtis-Dołowy , A. ( 2018 ), “ Food, nutrient, and energy waste among school students ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 120 No. 8 , pp. 1807 - 1831 , doi: 10.1108/BFJ-11-2017-0611 .

Kropp , J.D. , Abarca-Orozco , S.J. , Israel , G.D. , Diehl , D.C. , Galindo-Gonzalez , S. , Headrick , L.B. and Shelnutt , K.P. ( 2018 ), “ A plate waste evaluation of the farm to school program ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 50 No. 4 , pp. 332 - 339.e1 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.10.005 .

Kushwah , S. , ; Dhir , A. , ; Sagar , M. and Gupta , B. ( 2019 ), “ Determinants of organic food consumption. A systematic literature review on motives and barriers ”, Appetite , Vol. 143 , p. 104402 , doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104402 .

Laakso , S. ( 2017 ), “ Creating new food practices: a case study on leftover lunch service, food ”, Culture and Society , Vol. 20 No. 4 , pp. 631 - 650 , doi: 10.1080/15528014.2017.1324655 .

Lagorio , A. , Pinto , R. and Golini , R. ( 2018 ), “ Food waste reduction in school canteens: evidence from an Italian case ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 199 , pp. 77 - 84 , doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.077 .

Langley , J. , Yoxall , A. , Heppel , G. , Rodriguez , E.M. , Bradbury , S. , Lewis , R. , Luxmoore , J. , Hodzic , A. and Rowson , J. ( 2010 ), “ Food for thought? – a UK pilot study testing a methodology for compositional domestic food waste analysis ”, Waste Management and Research , Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 220 - 227 , doi: 10.1177/0734242X08095348 .

Law , R. , Sun , S. , Fong , D.K.C. , Fong , L.H.N. and Fu , H. ( 2016 ), “ A systematic review of china’s outbound tourism research ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 28 No. 12 , pp. 2654 - 2674 , doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2015-0323 .

Lazell , J. ( 2016 ), “ Perceived trustworthiness of online shops ”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour , Vol. 15 No. 5 , pp. 430 - 439 , doi: 10.1002/cb .

Liu , Y. , Cheng , S. , Liu , X. , Cao , X. , Xue , L. and Liu , G. ( 2016 ), “ Plate waste in school lunch programs in Beijing, China ”, Sustainability , Vol. 8 No. 12 , pp. 1 - 11 , doi: 10.3390/su8121288 .

Liz Martins , M. , Cunha , L.M. , Rodrigues , S.S. and Rocha , A. ( 2014 ), “ Determination of plate waste in primary school lunches by weighing and visual estimation methods: a validation study ”, Waste Management , Vol. 34 No. 8 , pp. 1362 - 1368 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.020 .

Lorenz-Walther , B.A. , Langen , N. , Göbel , C. , Engelmann , T. , Bienge , K. , Speck , M. and Teitscheid , P. ( 2019 ), “ What makes people leave LESS food? Testing effects of smaller portions and information in a behavioral model ”, Appetite , Vol. 139 , pp. 127 - 144 , doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.026 .

Marais , M.L. , Smit , Y. , Koen , N. and Lötze , E. ( 2017 ), “ Are the attitudes and practices of foodservice managers, catering personnel and students contributing to excessive food wastage at Stellenbosch university? ”, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition , Vol. 30 No. 3 , pp. 60 - 67 , doi: 10.1080/16070658.2017.1267348 .

Mariani , M. , Baggio , R. , Fuchs , M. and Höepken , W. ( 2018 ), “ Business intelligence and big data in hospitality and tourism: a systematic literature review ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , Vol. 30 No. 12 , pp. 3514 - 3554 , doi: 10.1108/IJCHM07 .

Marshall , A. , Bounds , G. , Patlovich , K. , Markham , C. , Farhat , A. , Cramer , N. , Oceguera , A. , Croom , T. , Carrillo , J. and Sharma , S. ( 2019 ), “ Study design and protocol to assess fruit and vegetable waste at school lunches ”, Behavioral Sciences , Vol. 9 No. 9 , p. 101 , doi: 10.3390/bs9090101 .

Martin-Rios , C. , Demen-Meier , C. , Gössling , S. and Cornuz , C. ( 2018 ), “ Food waste management innovations in the foodservice industry ”, Waste Management , Vol. 79 , pp. 196 - 206 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.033 .

Martins , M.L. , Rodrigues , S.S. , Cunha , L.M. and Rocha , A. ( 2016 ), “ Strategies to reduce plate waste in primary schools – Experimental evaluation ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 19 No. 8 , pp. 1517 - 1525 , doi: 10.1017/S1368980015002797 .

Mongeon , P. and Paul-Hus , A. ( 2016 ), “ The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis ”, Scientometrics , Vol. 106 No. 1 , pp. 213 - 228 , doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 .

Niaki , S.F. , Moore , C.E. , Chen , T.A. and Cullen , K.W. ( 2017 ), “ Younger elementary school students waste more school lunch foods than older elementary school students ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 117 No. 1 , pp. 95 - 101 .

Nicklas , T.A. , Liu , Y. , Stuff , J.E. , Fisher , J.O. , Mendoza , J.A. and O'Neil , C.E. ( 2013 ), “ Characterizing lunch meals served and consumed by preschool children in head start ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 16 No. 12 , pp. 2169 - 2177 , doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.371 .

Okumus , B. ( 2019 ), “ How do hotels manage food waste? Evidence from hotels in Orlando, Florida ”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management , Vol. 29 No. 3 , pp. 291 - 301 , doi: 10.1080/19368623.2019.1618775 .

Östergren , K. , Gustavsson , J. , Bos-Brouwers , H. , Timmermans , T. , Hansen , O.J. , Møller , H. , Anderson , G. , O’Connor , C. , Soethoudt , H. , Quested , T. and Easteal , S. ( 2014 ), “ FUSIONS definitional framework for food waste ”, Projekt FUSIONS (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies), Europäische , Union .

Painter , K. , Thondhlana , G. and Kua , H.W. ( 2016 ), “ Food waste generation and potential interventions at rhodes university, South Africa ”, Waste Management , Vol. 56 , pp. 491 - 497 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.07.013 .

Papargyropoulou , E. , Wright , N. , Lozano , R. , Steinberger , J. , Padfield , R. and Ujang , Z. ( 2016 ), “ Conceptual framework for the study of food waste generation and prevention in the hospitality sector ”, Waste Management , Vol. 49 , pp. 326 - 336 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.017 .

Parfitt , J. , Barthel , M. and Macnaughton , S. ( 2010 ), “ Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050 ”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , Vol. 365 No. 1554 , pp. 3065 - 3081 , doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0126 .

Pinto , R.S. , dos Santos Pinto , R.M. , Melo , F.F.S. , Campos , S.S. and Cordovil , C.M.D.S. ( 2018 ), “ A simple awareness campaign to promote food waste reduction in a university canteen ”, Waste Management , Vol. 76 , pp. 28 - 38 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.044 .

Prescott , M.P. , Herritt , C. , Bunning , M. and Cunningham-Sabo , L. ( 2019a ), “ Resources, barriers, and tradeoffs: a mixed methods analysis of school Pre-Consumer food waste ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 119 No. 8 , pp. 1270 - 1283.e2 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2019.03.008 .

Prescott , M.P. , Burg , X. , Metcalfe , J.J. , Lipka , A.E. , Herritt , C. and Cunningham-Sabo , L. ( 2019b ), “ Healthy planet, healthy youth: a food systems education and promotion intervention to improve adolescent diet quality and reduce food waste ”, Nutrients , Vol. 11 No. 8 , p. 1869 , doi: 10.3390/nu11081869 .

Ruparel , N. , Dhir , A. , Tandon , A. , Kaur , P. and Islam , J.U. ( 2020 ), “ The influence of online professional social media in human resource management: a systematic literature review ”, Technology in Society , Vol. 63 , p. 101335 , doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101335 .

Sahu , A.K. , Padhy , R.K. and Dhir , A. ( 2020 ), “ Envisioning the future of behavioral decision-making: a systematic literature review of behavioral reasoning theory ”, Australasian Marketing Journal (Amj)) , Vol. 28 No. 4 , doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.001 .

Sarjahani , A. , Serrano , E.L. and Johnson , R. ( 2009 ), “ Food and non-edible, compostable waste in a university dining facility ”, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition , Vol. 4 No. 1 , pp. 95 - 102 , doi: 10.1080/19320240802706874 .

Schupp , C. , Getts , K. and Otten , J. ( 2018 ), “ An evaluation of current lunchroom food waste and food rescue programs in a Washington state school district ”, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 20 , doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2018.081.013 .

Segrè , A. , Falasconi , L. , Politano , A. and Vittuari , M. ( 2014 ), “ Background paper on the economics of food loss and waste ”, working paper , FAO , Rome .

Serebrennikov , D. , Katare , B. , Kirkham , L. and Schmitt , S. ( 2020 ), “ Effect of classroom intervention on student food selection and plate waste: Evidence from a randomized control trial ”, PLoS One , Vol. 15 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 18 , doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226181 .

Seth , H. , Talwar , S. , Bhatia , A. , Saxena , A. and Dhir , A. ( 2020 ), “ Consumer resistance and inertia of retail investors: Development of the resistance adoption inertia continuance (RAIC) framework ”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , Vol. 55 , p. 102071 , doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102071 .

Silvennoinen , K. , Nisonen , S. and Pietiläinen , O. ( 2019 ), “ Food waste case study and monitoring developing in finnish food services ”, Waste Management , Vol. 97 , pp. 97 - 104 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.028 .

Silvennoinen , K. , Heikkilä , L. , Katajajuuri , J.M. and Reinikainen , A. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste volume and origin: Case studies in the finnish food service sector ”, Waste Management , Vol. 46 , pp. 140 - 145 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.010 .

Smith , S.L. and Cunningham-Sabo , L. ( 2014 ), “ Food choice, plate waste and nutrient intake of elementary-and Middle-school students participating in the US national school lunch program ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 17 No. 6 , pp. 1255 - 1263 , doi: 10.1017/S1368980013001894 .

Steen , H. , Malefors , C. , Röös , E. and Eriksson , M. ( 2018 ), “ Identification and modelling of risk factors for food waste generation in school and pre-school catering units ”, Waste Management , Vol. 77 , pp. 172 - 184 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.024 .

Swani , K. , Brown , B.P. and Mudambi , S.M. ( 2019 ), “ The untapped potential of B2B advertising: a literature review and future agenda ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 89 , doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.05.010 .

Tandon , A. , Dhir , A. , Kaur , P. , Kushwah , S. and Salo , J. ( 2020a ), “ Behavioral reasoning perspectives on organic food purchase ”, Appetite , Vol. 154 , p. 104786 , doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104786 .

Tandon , A. , Dhir , A. , Kaur , P. , Kushwah , S. and Salo , J. ( 2020b ), “ Why do people buy organic food? The moderating role of environmental concerns and trust ”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , Vol. 57 , p. 102247 , doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102247 .

Tandon , A. , Jabeen , F. , Talwar , S. , Sakashita , M. and Dhir , A. ( 2020c ), “ Facilitators and inhibitors of organic food buying behavior ”, Food Quality and Preference , Vol. 88 , p. 104077 , doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104077 .

Templeton , S.B. , Marlette , M.A. and Panemangalore , M. ( 2005 ), “ Competitive foods increase the intake of energy and decrease the intake of certain nutrients by adolescents consuming school lunch ”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association , Vol. 105 No. 2 , pp. 215 - 220 , doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.11.027 .

Thiagarajah , K. and Getty , V.M. ( 2013 ), “ Impact on plate waste of switching from a tray to a trayless delivery system in a university dining hall and employee response to the switch ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 113 No. 1 , pp. 141 - 145 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.07.004 .

Thorsen , A.V. , Lassen , A.D. , Andersen , E.W. , Christensen , L.M. , Biltoft-Jensen , A. , Andersen , R. , Damsgaard , C.T. , Michaelsen , K.F. and Tetens , I. ( 2015 ), “ Plate waste and intake of school lunch based on the new Nordic diet and on packed lunches: a randomised controlled trial in 8- to 11-year-old Danish children ”, Journal of Nutritional Science , Vol. 4 No. 9 , pp. 1 - 9 , doi: 10.1017/jns.2015.3 .

Visschers , V.H.M. , Gundlach , D. and Beretta , C. ( 2020 ), “ Smaller servings vs. information provision: Results of two interventions to reduce plate waste in two university canteens ”, Waste Management , Vol. 103 , pp. 323 - 333 , doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.12.046 .

Wang , L. , Xue , L. , Li , Y. , Liu , X. , Cheng , S. and Liu , G. ( 2018 ), “ Horeca food waste and its ecological footprint in Lhasa, Tibet, China ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 136 , pp. 1 - 8 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.001 .

Whitehair , K.J. , Shanklin , C.W. and Brannon , L.A. ( 2013 ), “ Written messages improve edible food waste behaviors in a university dining facility ”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics , Vol. 113 No. 1 , pp. 63 - 69 , doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.09.015 .

Wilkie , A.C. , Graunke , R.E. and Cornejo , C. ( 2015 ), “ Food waste auditing at three Florida schools ”, Sustainability , Vol. 7 No. 2 , pp. 1370 - 1387 , doi: 10.3390/su7021370 .

Wu , Y. , Tian , X. , Li , X. , Yuan , H. and Liu , G. ( 2019 ), “ Characteristics, influencing factors, and environmental effects of plate waste at university canteens in Beijing, China ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 149 , pp. 151 - 159 , doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.022 .

Yoder , A.B.B. , Foecke , L.L. and Schoeller , D.A. ( 2015 ), “ Factors affecting fruit and vegetable school lunch waste in Wisconsin elementary schools participating in farm to school programmes ”, Public Health Nutrition , Vol. 18 No. 15 , pp. 2855 - 2863 , doi: 10.1017/S1368980015000385 .

Yui , S. and Biltekoff , C. ( 2020 ), “ How food becomes waste: Students as “carriers of practice” in the UC davis dining commons ”, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition , pp. 1 - 22 , doi: 10.1080/19320248.2020.1721393 .

Zhao , X. and Manning , L. ( 2019 ), “ Food plate waste: factors influencing insinuated intention in a university food service setting ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 121 No. 7 , pp. 1536 - 1549 , doi: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2018-0481 .

Zhao , C. , Panizza , C. , Fox , K. , Boushey , C.J. , Shanks , C.B. , Ahmed , S. , Chen , S. , Serrano , E.L. , Zee , J. , Fialkowski , M.K. and Banna , J. ( 2019 ), “ Plate waste in school lunch: Barriers, motivators, and perspectives of SNAP-Eligible early adolescents in the US ”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior , Vol. 51 No. 8 , pp. 967 - 975 , doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2019.05.590 .

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University for the financial support under Nasher Track (Grant No. 186300).

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, analyzing the relationship between consumers’ and entrepreneurs’ food waste and sustainable development using a bibliometric approach.

• 1 Department of Economics and Sustainable Development, School of Environment, Geography and Applied Economics, Harokopio University of Athens, Kallithea, Greece
• 2 Department of Public and Community Health, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece

The present study investigates the relationship between food waste and sustainable development, aiming to reveal contextual insights and present novel findings regarding the pivotal importance of waste and environmental strategies toward a circular economy. This research represents an effort to delineate methodological and thematic contributions, thoroughly analyze key themes, examine co-citation patterns, assess collaboration among countries, and identify current knowledge gaps in the literature. As waste management takes precedence within the framework of sustainable development goals, policymakers, and academia will better understand how effective food waste management can contribute to environmental sustainability. Methodologically, we employ systematic review, employing the PRISMA approach, analyzing 761 final papers, and investigating the relationship between food waste and sustainable development. We delve deeper to reveal contextual insights and present empirical findings that underscore the critical role of food waste in the economy and environment. Furthermore, guided by the identified knowledge gaps, we illuminate potential future research avenues that hold immense promise for advancing our understanding of food waste and its impact on sustainable development.

1 Introduction

Sustainable Development Goals centered on food security, environmental preservation, and optimizing material and energy usage are significant motivators for effectively managing the overuse of food waste ( Kaur et al., 2021 ). Food waste is a pressing global issue that squanders valuable resources and exacerbates challenges related to food security, environmental sustainability, and economic efficiency. Food waste, as defined by the Waste and Resources Action Programme, 1 “ is any food and inedible parts sent to a specified list of food waste destinations, where “food” is defined as any substance that was at some point intended for human consumption.”

A critical issue facing our global food system is the enormous amounts of food wasted yearly, leaving millions hungry. In order to resolve this contradiction, it is essential to comprehend the complex relationship between food waste and consumption patterns. This comprehensive investigation explores the different ways that consuming habits, from meal preparation and disposal to planning and purchasing, contribute to the creation of food waste. By looking at these relationships, we hope to pinpoint important intervention areas and create plans to encourage ethical and sustainable food consumption habits, ultimately reducing waste and guaranteeing everyone fair access to wholesome food. Approximately one-third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste ( Schanes et al., 2018 ). This phenomenon leads to several environmental issues, such as soil erosion, deforestation, water and air pollution, and the release of greenhouse gases during various stages of food production ( Mourad, 2016 ). Thus, most developed countries have witnessed growing awareness and concern regarding the magnitude of food waste within their borders in recent years. Understanding food waste’s intricate parameters and dynamics becomes paramount as we strive to become more environmentally conscious and sustainable.

The current study broadly examines the available literature and discusses the interdisciplinary nature of food waste and its role in sustainable development ( Buczacki et al., 2021 ). Our investigation seeks to unravel the main findings of the current research on sustainable development and SDGs. In doing so, we aim to shed light on the extent of the problem, the societal, economic, and environmental repercussions, and the potential strategies and interventions that can be adopted to mitigate food waste. The world, characterized by its cultural diversity, varying consumption patterns, and dynamic economies, presents a unique and complex landscape for studying food waste. Our investigation extends academic discussion on the association between food waste and sustainability.

More specifically, this study highlights the countries, the authors, and the sources that decidedly investigate the relationship between food waste and sustainable development. By analyzing the successes and challenges faced in the region, we aim to provide valuable insights that can underline possible scientific gaps, inform policy development, and encourage cross-border collaboration in the fight against food waste. In conclusion, this research contributes to the growing knowledge surrounding food waste. By examining the shape of food waste dynamics, we hope to provide food of thought for a foundation for evidence-based policies and practices to minimize food waste’s detrimental impact on society, the environment, and the economy. Pursuing a more sustainable and food-secure future for Europe necessitates a deeper understanding of food waste, making this study an essential step toward that goal.

In sum, the main contribution of this systematic literature review is twofold. Firstly, it serves as a tool for pinpointing areas where scholarly evidence remains insufficient, highlighting the need for further research to expand our understanding of food waste behavior. Secondly, it establishes a knowledge repository that can offer valuable insights for evidence-based decision-making and policy formulation. This, in turn, can enhance the quality and efficacy of policy measures and technological innovations to reduce food waste. However, several objectives and research questions should be addressed and responded to achieve these goals. The main objectives are as follows:

• To investigate the relationship between food waste and sustainable development through a bibliometric analysis.

• To identify key themes, trends, and knowledge gaps in the existing research on food waste and its connection to sustainability within the framework of a circular economy and

• To provide valuable insights for policymakers, academics, and stakeholders working toward reducing food waste and achieving sustainable development goals.

After that, the research questions that are necessary to be addressed and be able to achieve the objectives of the current research are as follows:

• RQ1: What are the dominant themes and research trends in the literature on food waste and sustainable development within a circular economy framework, as revealed by a bibliometric analysis?

• RQ2: What key methodological approaches are employed in the existing research on food waste and sustainable development?

• RQ3: What are the prominent countries, institutions, and authors contributing to the field, and how do they collaborate on research related to food waste and sustainable development?

• RQ4: What are the critical knowledge gaps and potential future research avenues identified in the current body of literature on food waste and sustainable development?

By addressing these research questions, this study aims to offer a comprehensive and data-driven understanding of the current knowledge surrounding food waste and its connection to achieving sustainable development within a circular economy. This understanding can inform future research efforts and guide the development of effective strategies to address this pressing global challenge.

The remaining components are organized as follows: Section 2 summarizes the research methodology and data selection. Section 3 delves into the empirical findings, exploring their connections to the article’s conceptual, intellectual, and social framework. Section 4 presents the conclusion and implications for policy.

2 Scheme of the research and empirical methodology

2.1 bibliometric data.

The bibliometrics approach assesses information trends to emphasize the contributions of both individuals and research groups. We also utilize review processes to synthesize content and generate innovative policy recommendations concerning the relationship between food waste and sustainable development. For the subsequent procedures, we exclusively rely on the Scopus database, which is recognized as one of the most reliable and comprehensive sources. We used “ food waste ” and “ sustainable development ” to pinpoint publications. After that, we eliminated non-relevant publications to exclude irrelevant studies ( Shahbaz et al., 2021 ) following the PRISMA methodology ( Page et al., 2021 ).

In particular, a comprehensive search string in Scopus combined relevant keywords related to food waste and sustainable development. The exclusion criteria were as follows: duplicates were removed, non-English language articles were excluded, and conference materials, editorials, and letters to maintain focus on in-depth research were also removed. Following data extraction using a standardized form, we employed a multifaceted approach. Bibliometric software like VOSviewer and bibliometrix facilitated co-citation analysis, keyword clustering, and citation network visualization are also employed. Additionally, text analysis techniques complemented our understanding of key themes and emerging trends within the selected publications. This process narrows our selection to a final set of 761 studies from 214 sources for further examination.

A compilation of 1,480 research publications published between 2003 and 2023 is the outcome of our first search. We chose this time frame with significant consideration for the reasons listed below. First, we want to highlight some recent developments. There has been much advancement in food waste and its relationship to sustainable development in recent years. With an emphasis on studies released after 2003, we sought to encompass the most recent findings and patterns in this quickly developing subject. Second, it is critical to comprehend the most recent research findings and their implications for current policy and practice as the urgency of tackling food waste and reaching sustainable development goals increases.

2.2 Bibliometric analysis

Researchers can use quantitative and qualitative methodologies to identify gaps in the scientific literature by using the bibliometrics methodology to track trends in academic research ( Siddiqui et al., 2023 ). We have used bibliometric tools like VOSviewer, the R-package, and Biblioshiny to analyze publications about food waste ( Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017 ). The VOSviewer is a tool that uses a two-dimensional map to show the relationships between co-citation data, geographic locations, research journals, and keywords. Their proximity shows the degree of link or similarity between nodes in this visualization. More specifically, this software is excellent at producing two-dimensional maps showing the connections between various items in a dataset. The most popular keywords and how they gathered together are shown in the visualization, which sheds light on the recurring themes in food waste. In addition, VOSviewer assists us in recognizing significant research and schools of thinking that have shaped our current comprehension of food waste and its relationship to sustainability.

On the other hand, R-package and Biblioshiny utilize a diverse set of bibliometric tools that serve as visualization functions for conducting information analysis and generating scientific maps related to the intersection of food waste and sustainability ( da Silva Duarte et al., 2021 ; Srinivas, 2022 ). The package facilitates efficient data processing and transformation, ensuring the accuracy and consistency of the analysis. Biblioshiny provides advanced functions for constructing and analyzing bibliographic networks, allowing us to explore the intricate relationships between different entities within the food waste literature.

3 Empirical results

3.1 publication output and citation growth.

Figure 1 presents a per annum publication and citation growth trend since 2003, with an average of 75.6 citations per document. Notably, interdisciplinary research on food waste has received significant attention recently ( Dhir et al., 2020 ). There has been an exponential increase in publications in recent years, with 2023 having the highest number of publications (146 articles).

Figure 1 . Publication output.

Document-citation analysis was also performed using the “document” unit from the downloaded publications to create a table based on citation data by selecting the first ten documents as a threshold. For each of the ten documents, the number of citations and doi number are presented in the following Table 1 . For brevity, most citations reported by Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) (910 citations) have investigated the factors that increase food waste through several channels of the food supply chain and propose a framework for appropriately managing food waste. Guo et al. (2010) (636 citations) focused their interest on agricultural production and the degradation of the natural environment due to the energy crisis. Authors propose hydrogen as one of the most promising substitutes for fossil fuels. After that, a group of authors with around 300 citations consists of Notarnicola et al. (2017) , who has a total of 383 citations; Williams et al. (2012) , with 360 citations, and Xue et al. (2017) , who has 359 citations. Next, Alexander et al. (2017) , Mourad, Garrone et al. (2014) , Sharma P. et al. (2020) , and Sharma S. et al. (2020) papers have more than 200 citations, but less than 300 completed the first ten high-cited documents.

Table 1 . Top 10 most cited documents.

3.2 Countries’ collaboration networks

Next, Figures 2 , 3 visually represent global research collaboration among countries, displaying the collaboration network and the volume of publications contributed by each country.

Figure 2 . Country scientific production.

Figure 3 . Countries’ collaboration network.

In Figure 2 , the research output is presented with varying shades of color, wherein the darker colors represent the regions with the highest frequency of publications. Notably, China is the global leader in research publications, with an impressive count of 481, showcasing its substantial contribution to the academic landscape. Following closely behind are other key players in the research arena, with Italy contributing 442 publications, the United Kingdom with 246, India with 215, and the United States with 208, all demonstrating their significant presence in the global research community. Additionally, several other highly productive economies, such as Spain, Sweden, Germany, Malaysia, and Australia, are notable contributors, further enriching the global research output landscape.

Moving on to Figure 3 , it describes the collaborative aspect of research on a global scale, shedding light on the interconnections and partnerships between various countries in the pursuit of knowledge and academic advancement.

A compelling pattern emerges when examining collaborations between authors and countries in food waste. Notably, China, Italy, and the United Kingdom substantially collaborate. This outcome highlights their proactive stance in fostering international partnerships to tackle food waste and sustainability nexus. Following closely behind are the United States and Spain, both of which also participate actively in collaborative initiatives. These findings underscore the global significance of addressing food waste and the willingness of these nations to join forces in addressing this critical challenge.

3.3 Keywords, authors, and key countries framework

The upcoming section aims to reveal how researchers have documented various research streams across different countries. To achieve this, we employ the CAK framework to introduce innovative visualizations that portray the amalgamation of authors, research themes, and countries.

It is evident from Figure 4 that Italy, China, and the UK are the most prominent geographical locations. Likewise, the most dominant research themes are food waste, sustainable development, waste management, and waste disposal. It is worth noting that the smaller size of countries with limited contributions suggests that the current state of research is in its early stages. Additional research, mainly from European economies with substantial food demands, should shed light on recent research developments and explore new avenues of inquiry.

Figure 4 . CAK framework. Authors, keywords, countries.

Figure 5 , depicted as a tree diagram, visually represents the keywords extensively employed in the array of previously studied records. A closer examination of the results illuminates the prominent themes authors have chosen to emphasize in their works.

Figure 5 . Keywords tree-map.

Notably, “food waste” takes the lead, featuring in approximately 36% of the articles. This underscores the paramount significance of addressing food waste within the scope of the research, signifying its pervasive relevance in current academic discourse. Sustainability is another crucial focus in 18% of the articles, highlighting the shared commitment to promoting sustainable practices and environmental responsibility within food waste management. Furthermore, the concept of a “circular economy” garners notable attention, being employed as a keyword in 10% of the publications, reflecting the growing interest in developing circular and resource-efficient systems to combat food waste. The utilization of “life cycle assessment” as a keyword in 8% of the articles underscores the methodological approach many authors took, emphasizing the importance of assessing environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of food products. Finally, the notion of “sustainable development” is reflected in 7% of the works, signifying the broader context in which food waste mitigation is situated, emphasizing the pursuit of development that satisfies current requirements without jeopardizing those of coming generations. This breakdown of prevalent keywords offers valuable insights into the thematic and methodological orientations of the scholarly discourse surrounding food waste. It underscores the critical areas of focus within this research domain.

3.4 Co-citation analysis of authors – intellectual structure

Afterward, we utilize co-citation analysis to understand better how literature has evolved in recent decades. The extent to which studies reference one another indicates the interrelatedness within the scientific literature. Co-citation analysis is a constantly changing metric that aids in recognizing emerging paradigms within a selected body of academic literature ( Buczacki et al., 2021 ). In our present study, we refer to Figure 6 (co-citation analysis), where the number of citations is represented, and the relatedness of topics is indicated by the distance between these nodes, shedding light on academic discourse. The visualization in Figure 6 reveals two distinct clusters.

Figure 6 . Co-citations analysis of authors.

The first group of publications delves into the importance of food waste as a critical element in developing a sustainable food system ( Quested et al., 2011 ). They also attempt to identify the losses occurring along the entire food chain and identify the causes of food losses and possible ways of preventing them ( Quested et al., 2011 ; Falasconi et al., 2015 ; Eriksson et al., 2020 ). Conversely, a second cluster examines food issues in a more global scale analysis linked to sustainable development goals ( Liu et al., 2022 ) introducing, for instance, the effects of international food trade on the food system ( Wang et al., 2022 ). Smaller groups use a more quantitative analysis highlighting possible environmental and socio-economic impacts of food waste ( Albizzati et al., 2021 ) and policies at a micro level ( Lassen et al., 2019 ).

3.5 Conceptual structure of the publications

Recently, keyword co-occurrence networks have become increasingly popular in systematic review-based studies, offering a means to harness knowledge mapping and uncover associations among research themes in research management ( Bashir et al., 2021 ). This approach empowers researchers to comprehensively understand a specific field within the amassed knowledge, harnessing the associations between keywords to reveal insights in economic literature. In our current research, we utilize a keyword co-occurrence network approach, setting a threshold of at least five occurrences for a word to be included. Consequently, out of a total of 1,136 keywords, 113 satisfied this requirement (see Figures 7 , 8 ).

Figure 7 . Keywords co-occurrence network.

Figure 8 . Keywords co-occurrence network.

Notably, keywords like “food waste,” “sustainability,” “waste management,” “environmental impact,” and “waste disposable” are the most frequently occurring. Furthermore, as depicted in Figure 7 , three separate groups of keywords are evident (green, red, and blue). Looking at the blue cluster, the keywords “sustainability,” “food supply,” “food security,” “nutrition” and “supply chain” exhibit close associations. As far as the red cluster is concerned, the keywords “article,” “waste disposal,” “fertilizer,” “biogas,” and “nitrogen” indicate a group of research that investigates the concept of food waste from a different perspective. An interesting observation is that keywords (green cluster) such as “life cycle assessment,” “gas emissions,” “anaerobic digestion,” “municipal waste,” and “climate change” have small node sizes but remain interconnected in terms of links.

After that, we expanded the keywords’ co-occurrence network by exploring its time evolution. The connection between food waste and sustainability is relatively recent, with most publications emerging after 2019. Even more recently, authors have also incorporated into their analysis the “circular economy,” “sustainable development goals,” “waste management,” and “food supply.” These keywords provide more information on the trend already in process around the relationship between food waste management and sustainability in the future. A notable trend is observed, with most publications centered around food waste, sustainability, environmental impact assessment, food supply, and climate change.

We further employ Figure 9 to explore thematic mapping from the perspective of four distinct subdivisions, which aids in comprehending the diversity and significance of sub-components within the scientific literature ( Buczacki et al., 2021 ). We have established the maximum number of keywords at 119 and the minimum cluster frequency at 3.

Figure 9 . Thematic map.

The upper right section encompasses “motor themes,” representing research topics with the highest density and centrality, such as “food waste,” “sustainability,” “circular economy,” “life cycle assessment,” and “waste management.” In the lower-right quadrant, we find “food security” characterized by low density, discussing topics like “recycling,” “climate change,” “food waste management,” and “food supply chain.” These transversal themes hold significant importance in the research, contributing to discussions on various research directions. Lastly, “declining or emerging themes” and “niche themes” encompass research topics related to “household food waste” and “co-digestion.” In summary, Figure 9 serves as a valuable tool for understanding the current academic discourse and the potential role of food waste in future waste management policies.

4 Discussion

The present work aims to offer researchers and policymakers a toolbox of organized ideas to tackle food waste. Simultaneously, to achieve the objectives outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals, the target of reducing food waste and adopting a comprehensive strategy incorporating various measures is domineering. These efforts rectify informational gaps already highlighted by previous systematic literature review works ( Schanes et al., 2018 ).

Besides, similar to previous studies ( Principato et al., 2021 ) our research sheds light on the complex sides of the food waste phenomenon, highlighting the trend of research on this topic ( Zhang et al., 2018 ; Vásquez Neyra et al., 2022 ; D'Adamo et al., 2023 ). More specifically, our study provides an essential segment of information presenting the issues around food waste that are denoted as the motor themes with a critical role of food waste in future food waste management and policies, such as the concept of circular economy ( de Oliveira et al., 2021 ; Nikolaou and Tsagarakis, 2021 ; Santagata et al., 2021 ). In this direction, the European Food Safety Authority (2020) highlights that circular economy initiatives are increasing attention to food waste as a food and feed source.

Furthermore, our review, concentrating on strategies to reduce food waste and promote sustainability, dovetails with the Green Deal’s priorities, such as resource efficiency, waste reduction, and sustainable consumption. By positioning the study within the broader context of global sustainability challenges, it becomes evident that addressing food waste is integral to achieving the Green Deal’s ambitious targets. In this direction, according to FAO (2021) one of the ways toward more sustainable agriculture and food production is to manage food production systems sustainably through significant reductions in food loss and waste.

5 Concluding remarks and policy implications

The central objective of our research is to investigate the relationship between food waste and sustainability through a review of academic literature. Our study thoroughly examines all pertinent publications on the nexus between food waste and sustainable development. Given the pivotal role of food waste in the context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it becomes crucial for policymaking institutions to evaluate socio-economic and policy variables.

This evaluation is essential for harmonizing food consumption and environmental sustainability via several policy implications. For instance, policymakers should prioritize integrating food waste reduction strategies into the broader framework of SDGs. This approach ensures a more holistic and sustainable approach to addressing food waste while advancing the global sustainability agenda. Also, at a microeconomic level, governments must focus on socio-economic and policy factors that directly influence food waste. By designing policies that incentivize food waste reduction at the individual, household, and industrial levels, they can contribute to achieving both economic and environmental goals. On a more global-scale and macroeconomic level, collaboration among countries, mainly focusing on emerging economies, is essential to address the multifaceted challenges posed by food waste. Policymakers should explore international partnerships to facilitate knowledge sharing, best practices, and innovative strategies in mitigating food waste.

In a more specific and focused aspect, our analysis identifies key themes and research areas related to food waste and sustainability. European and national policy measures should emphasize the need to integrate specific food waste reduction strategies into national SDG goals such as Goal 2 (zero hunger) and Goal 12 (responsible consumption and production). Moreover, governments and policymakers can identify specific socio-economic and policy factors that significantly influence food waste at individual, household, and industrial levels. These policy interventions could include consumer awareness campaigns, incentivizing food waste reduction within entrepreneurs, exploring policies like tax breaks for businesses implementing waste reduction strategies, or introducing waste disposal fees based on waste generation. Financially, the public sector could also encourage policies that facilitate the redistribution of surplus food to those in need, reducing waste and promoting social welfare. That can be done by promoting the establishment of international funding mechanisms to support emerging economies in implementing effective food waste reduction strategies.

However, it is noteworthy that conducting country-specific analyses can offer valuable insights and potentially address limitations associated with quantitative data and analysis. Understanding the specific dynamics of food waste in different nations is crucial for tailoring effective policies and interventions. In addition, we urge future research to delve into the role of addressing food waste issues, particularly in emerging economies. Such research endeavors have the potential to yield diverse policy insights. By examining the unique challenges and opportunities food waste presents in these regions, policymakers can better understand the evolving issues in developing and developed nations. This knowledge is invaluable for shaping effective strategies to reduce food waste and promote sustainable practices worldwide.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

IK: Conceptualization, Investigation, Software, Visualization, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SP: Investigation, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GM: Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

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

Publisher’s note

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

1. ^ https://wrap.org.uk/

Albizzati, P. F., Tonini, D., and Astrup, T. F. (2021). High-value products from food waste: an environmental and socio-economic assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 755:142466. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142466

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., and Rounsevell, M. D. (2017). Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system. Agric. Syst. 153, 190–200. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.014

Aria, M., and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics , 11, 959–975. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bashir, M. F., Ma, B., Qin, Y., and Bashir, M. A. (2021). Evaluation of one belt one road publications: a bibliometric and literature review analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 37016–37030. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14621-y

Buczacki, A., Gładysz, B., and Palmer, E. (2021). HoReCa food waste and sustainable development goals—a systemic view. Sustain. For. 13:5510. doi: 10.3390/su13105510

D'Adamo, I., Desideri, S., Gastaldi, M., and Tsagarakis, K. P. (2023). Sustainable food waste management in supermarkets. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 43, 204–216. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2023.11.005

de Oliveira, M. M., Lago, A., and Dal’Magro, G. P. (2021). Food loss and waste in the context of the circular economy: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 294:126284. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126284

da Silva Duarte, K. S., Lima, T. A. C., Alves, L. R., Rios, P. A. P., and Motta, W. H. (2021). The circular economy approach for reducing food waste: a systematic review. Revista Produção e desenvolvimento 7. doi: 10.32358/rpd.2021.v7.572

Dhir, A., Talwar, S., Kaur, P., and Malibari, A. (2020). Food waste in hospitality and food services: A systematic literature review and framework development approach. Journal of Cleaner Production , 270, 122861. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122861

Eriksson, M., Malefors, C., Bergström, P., Eriksson, E., and Persson Osowski, C. (2020). Quantities and quantification methodologies of food waste in Swedish hospitals. Sustain. For. 12:3116. doi: 10.3390/su12083116

European Food Safety AuthorityMaggiore, A., Afonso, A., Barrucci, F., and Sanctis, G. D. (2020). Climate change as a driver of emerging risks for food and feed safety, plant, animal health and nutritional quality. EFSA Support. Publ. 17:1881E. doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1881

Falasconi, L., Vittuari, M., Politano, A., and Segrè, A. (2015). Food waste in school catering: an Italian case study. Sustain. For. 7, 14745–14760. doi: 10.3390/su71114745

FAO. (2021) In Brief to The State of Food and Agriculture “ Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses .” Rome, FAO.

Google Scholar

Garrone, P., Melacini, M., and Perego, A. (2014). Opening the black box of food waste reduction. Food Policy 46, 129–139. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.014

Guo, X. M., Trably, E., Latrille, E., Carrère, H., and Steyer, J. (2010). Hydrogen production from agricultural waste by dark fermentation: a review. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 35, 10660–10673. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.03.008

Kaur, G., Lasaridi, K., and Wong, J. (2021). “Sustainable food waste management: an introduction” in Current developments in biotechnology and bioengineering (Elsevier), 1–10.

Lassen, A. D., Christensen, L. M., Spooner, M. P., and Trolle, E. (2019). Characteristics of canteens at elementary schools, upper secondary schools and workplaces that comply with food service guidelines and have a greater focus on food waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:1115. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071115

Liu, Y., Tan, Q., Chen, J., Pan, T., Penuelas, J., Zhang, J., et al. (2022). Dietary transition determining the tradeoff between global food security and sustainable development goals varied in regions. Earth's Future 10:e2021EF002354 doi: 10.1029/2021EF002354

Mourad, M. (2016). Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 461–477. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.084

Nikolaou, I. E., and Tsagarakis, K. P. (2021). An introduction to circular economy and sustainability: some existing lessons and future directions. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 28, 600–609. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.017

Notarnicola, B., Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S. J., Saouter, E., and Sonesson, U. (2017). The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable Agri-food systems: a review of the challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 399–409. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.071

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 134, 178–89. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33789819

Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., and bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 106–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020

Principato, L., Mattia, G., Di Leo, A., and Pratesi, C. A. (2021). The household wasteful behaviour framework: a systematic review of consumer food waste. Ind. Mark. Manag. 93, 641–649. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.010

Quested, T. E., Parry, A. D., Easteal, S., and Swannell, R. (2011). Food and drink waste from households in the UK , vol. 36, 460–467.

Santagata, R., Ripa, M., Genovese, A., and Ulgiati, S. (2021). Food waste recovery pathways: challenges and opportunities for an emerging bio-based circular economy. A systematic review and an assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 286:125490 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125490

Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., and Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters-a systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 978–991. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030

Siddiqui, A., Altekar, S., Kautish, P., Fulzele, S., Kulkarni, N., Siddiqui, M., et al. (2023). Review of measurement of sustainable development goals: A comprehensive bibliometric and visualized analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 30, 91761–91779. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-28887-x

Shahbaz, M., Bashir, M. F., Bashir, M. A., and Shahzad, L. (2021). A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review of tourism-environmental degradation nexus. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 58241–58257. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14798-2

Sharma, S., Basu, S., Shetti, N. P., and Aminabhavi, T. M. (2020). Waste-to-energy nexus for circular economy and environmental protection: recent trends in hydrogen energy. Sci. Total Environ. 713:136633. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136633

Sharma, P., Gaur, V. K., Kim, S., and Pandey, A. (2020). Microbial strategies for bio-transforming food waste into resources. Bioresour. Technol. 299:122580. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122580

Srinivas, H. (2022). “Nexus in green economics for Asian countries” in Progress in green economics , 1–16.

Vásquez Neyra, J. M., Cequea, M. M., Gomes Haensel Schmitt, V., and Ferasso, M. (2022). Food consumption and food waste behaviour in households in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Br. Food J. 124, 4477–4495. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-07-2021-0798

Wang, J. M., Liu, Q., Hou, Y., Qin, W., Bai, Z. H., Zhang, F. S., et al. (2022). Impacts of international food and feed trade on nitrogen balances and nitrogen use efficiencies of food systems. Sci. Total Environ. 838:156151. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156151

Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., and Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 24, 141–148. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044

Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Van Herpen, E., Stenmarck, Å., et al. (2017). Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 6618–6633. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00401

Zhang, M., Gao, M., Yue, S., Zheng, T., Gao, Z., Ma, X., et al. (2018). Global trends and future prospects of food waste research: a bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 24600–24610. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-2598-6

Keywords: food waste, sustainability, behavior, bibliometric analysis, VOSviewer, bibliometrix

Citation: Kostakis I, Papadaki S and Malindretos G (2024) Analyzing the relationship between consumers’ and entrepreneurs’ food waste and sustainable development using a bibliometric approach. Front. Sustain . 5:1373802. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2024.1373802

Received: 20 January 2024; Accepted: 15 March 2024; Published: 04 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

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

*Correspondence: Ioannis Kostakis, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Innovation in Sustainable Food

Development of Leftover food management system using efficient hunger search techniques

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Explore our brand new website! We hope you like the improvements we've made. We'd love to hear your feedback and please let us know if you find something that requires our attention – Website feedback .

Food & Beverage Systems Management

B Trimester

TOMG206, TOMG216

This paper focuses on food & beverage systems management. It will provide students with an understanding of production efficiencies, financial resources, meal experience, food safety & hygiene to acquire sustained profits.

Teaching Periods and Locations

If your paper outline is not linked below, try the previous year's version of this paper .

Timetabled lectures and tutorials

Indicative fees.

You will be sent an enrolment agreement which will confirm your fees. Tuition fees shown are indicative only and may change. There are additional fees and charges related to enrolment - please see the  Table of Fees and Charges for more information.

Available subjects

Tourism and hospitality management, additional information.

Subject regulations

• Paper details current as of 27 Jan 2024 23:47pm
• Indicative fees current as of 9 Apr 2024 01:30am

You’re viewing this website as a domestic student

You’re currently viewing the website as a domestic student, you might want to change to international.

You're a domestic student if you are:

• A citizen of New Zealand or Australia
• A New Zealand permanent resident

You're an International student if you are:

• Intending to study on a student visa
• Not a citizen of New Zealand or Australia

• Washington State University
• Go to wsu twitter
• Go to wsu facebook
• Go to wsu linkedin

Environmental and social benefits from diversified agriculture found in global study

Food security and biodiversity are both helped by diversified farming techniques, with little negative impact, according to a new paper that includes research from two Washington State University professors.

The study, published in the journal Science , involved 58 co-authors located at institutions on five continents.

“The results are overwhelmingly strong for all diversification strategies,” said David Crowder, a professor in WSU’s Department of Entomology. “The working theory is that diversity is good in agriculture, but I was surprised that the benefits were so strong.”

Crowder and his colleague Jeb Owen, an WSU associate professor in entomology, both contributed data to the paper, which was a meta-analysis of 28 global studies. In fact, neither Owen nor Crowder knew the other was involved in the paper until it was nearly published.

Owen’s contribution centered on wild birds and their impact on organic farms. His lab conducted surveys at 30 different locations in four states, including Washington, to look at costs and benefits from wild birds as well as each farm’s crop diversification.

“We found that the more complex and diverse a farm, the wider the diversity of wild birds it supported, and that the birds were a net positive for the farms,” Owen said.

Owen’s former graduate student, Olivia Smith, led his wild bird research and was another co-author on the new paper.

Wild, native birds fed on insect pests that damage crops, decreasing the need for pest-control measures, while not increasing pathogen spread or destroying crops, he said.

Crowder’s contribution included his lab’s research on canola and different tillage processes used by growers.

“There’s a lot of research at WSU looking at diversified farming and ways we can improve the sustainability of farms,” Crowder said. “This paper shows that WSU is plugged into global issues, and I hope we see more of this out of the university.”

Laura Vang Rasmussen of the University of Copenhagen is lead author on the new study and worked for nearly four years to coordinate and synthesize data from around the world.

“Our results from this comprehensive study are surprisingly clear,” Vang Rasmussen said. “While we see very few negative effects from agricultural diversification, there are many significant benefits. This is particularly the case when two, three, or more measures are combined. The more, the better, especially when it comes to biodiversity and food security.”

The researchers saw the greatest positive effects on food security, followed closely by biodiversity. Furthermore, social outcomes in the form of well-being also improved significantly.

Among the many strategies adopted, livestock diversification and soil conservation had the most positive outcomes.

Yields not hampered — with clearly improved food security

According to the researchers, previous studies investigated either the socioeconomic or environmental effects of agricultural diversification. This study investigates effects across the board, with surprisingly positive results.

“Agricultural diversification has been accused of perhaps being good for biodiversity, but having a few negative aspects too — especially with regards to not being able to achieve sufficiently high yields,” said Ingo Grass of the University of Hohenheim. “What we actually see is that there is no reduction in yield from diversified agriculture — not even when we include data from large-scale European agriculture.”

In fact, the figures demonstrate that in the case of small farms and farms surrounded by lots of cultivated land, more diversified agriculture can significantly promote food security. This, according to the researchers, could be due to a number of factors.

“One example is fruit trees planted in maize fields in Malawi, which can help farming families improve their food security through improved diet and nutrition,” Vang Rasmussen said. “Partly because they eat the fruits themselves, and also because the trees generate extra income when their fruits are sold at market — income that provides small-scale farmers with purchasing power for other foods.”.

All 58 of the study’s authors participated actively in its design to attempt a robust and credible interweaving of the many data sets spread across the world — from maize production in Malawi, to rubber trees in Indonesia, to silvopastoral cattle farming in Colombia and winter wheat in Germany.

“The study unites many different situations from the many data sets that we used,” Vang Rasmussen said. “In Malawi, we have data on food security expressed, for example, in the number of hungry months for small-scale farmers where they have been short of food. Such metrics are not used for, for example, large European farms, where we have yield data instead, such as winter-wheat yields in Germany.

“But the point is that when we look across all data sets, our results show that applying more diversification strategies improved both biodiversity and food security, and didn’t have a negative effect on yields,” she added.

The researchers also investigated which diversification strategies result in “pairs” of favorable “win-win” outcomes. Their data showed that strategies beneficial for biodiversity also improved food security.

They also witnessed win-wins for biodiversity and people’s well-being.

“It’s a simple message to be able to pass on to different types of farms — whether it is small farms in South America or Africa or advanced European agriculture, there are lots of positive effects to be gained by introducing these various strategies — and very little to fear,” Grass said. “It is very positive that so many different things can be addressed, and that, in general, positive biodiversity outcomes seem to go hand in hand with well-being and food security.”

WSU Global Campus Esports secures spot in national championship tournament

Recent news.

Office of Research launches Working Group on Arts and Humanities

Former Defense Secretary Mattis being honored with Foley Institute award Tuesday evening in Spokane

Contingency Management is gaining favor for treating addiction

Growth mindset messages can close grade gap for first-generation students

Help name WSU’s new apple in online contest

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Emerald Publishing Open Access

The impact of food preservation on food waste

Wayne martindale.

1 National Centre for Food Manufacturing, Food Insights and Sustainability Service, University of Lincoln, Holbeach, UK

Walter Schiebel

2 Institute for Marketing and Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the relationship between food preservation and reducing consumer waste is of value in developing sustainable meal options. The research reports insights into Austrian marketplace for frozen and fresh foods that have been obtained from a consumer survey.

Design/methodology/approach

The consumer survey methodologies indicate how preservation can change meal planning and lower food waste across frozen and fresh and ambient food purchases using freezing preservation methods.

The results show food waste can be reduced by six-fold when frozen foods are compared with fresh foods.

Research limitations/implications

This study highlights the requirement for a greater understanding of the probability that specific foods will be wasted with respect to the frequency of purchase. This is a limitation of the current study that has been investigated by other researchers.

Practical implications

This research has enabled the identification of different food waste amounts for different food product categories. The data presented could be used to guide food product development so that less consumer waste is produced.

Social implications

The research suggests a decision matrix approach can be used to can guide new product development and a model of this matrix is presented so that it may provide fit-for-purpose food preservation options for consumers.

Originality/value

This paper will continue to highlight the overlooked value of food preservation during processing and manufacturing of foods and their preparation in households.

Introduction

Consumers produce the greatest amount of food waste and loss in the food supply chains of developing and developed economies ( Gustavsson et al. , 2011 ). A recent pan-European food waste programme has identified consumer food waste as a major challenge (COST Action TD1203, EUBIS). The COST Network, EU network on food waste valorisation has given attention to solving the amount of consumer food waste produced through technological and policy interventions ( Morone et al. , 2017 ; Privett et al. , 2016 ). Reducing all food losses will result in a more secure global food system and it is important for us to show how consumers can reduce food waste in households. This is where food preservation has an important role in facilitating this waste reducing action because it improves the utilisation of food. It has also been identified that understanding why food is wasted by consumers during meal occasions develops of waste reduction strategies that can be used for different foods and preservation methods ( Martindale, 2014 ).

Previous food waste reduction initiatives have typically focussed outside of this consumer arena and they have focussed on manufacturing and retail food losses. They have been successful at designing out food waste using the right-weighting of food products (portion control) and light-weighting of packaging (material resource efficiency). Their success has been made possible through cooperative actions across the food industry that have developed joint responsibility for food waste. It is essential that these initiatives now act to reduce the food that consumers purchase but do not eat ( Mena et al. , 2011 ). Furthermore, FAO reported Food Balance statistics show supply chain losses for food groups such as meat, fruit and vegetables to be below 5 per cent of production or domestic supply quantities ( Martindale, 2017 ). While these food losses remain incredibly important it is reported by national agencies and government departments that consumers’ food waste regularly reaches 20 per cent or more of food purchased ( Defra, 2017 ).

There has been an emergence of re-distribution schemes and community focussed actions that have been successful at removing food waste from supply chains. Redistribution of foods that are close to shelf-life limits and schemes that facilitate providing food to consumers such as “community fridges” have an exceptionally important role to play in waste reduction particularly where communities experience limited accessibility and affordability of foods. The redistribution of foods from retailers and manufacturers that are close to shelf life limits or charitable donations has also seen the impact of using on-line communication technologies that connect providers with consumers of redistributed foods ( Aschemann-Witzel et al. , 2017 ; Aschemann-Witzel et al. , 2015 ). What has become evident in this arena is the reduction of food wastes from the food supply chain to the point of consumer sale is dependent on the application of many actions. That is, there is no single solution here and many actions that redistribute, involve communities and use on-line technologies will help to reduce food waste and create awareness of responsible use of foods. The study reported here highlights the value of preservation technologies and the need for food category models that take account of differing shelf life and quality considerations because these will help to guide food policy. Previous studies of fresh and frozen shelf life of foods have shown a reduction in household waste associated with frozen food use ( Martindale, 2014 ). A more recent study in the Netherlands has developed a stochastic model to show the influence of ambient, frozen and fresh preservation on household food waste ( Janssen et al. , 2017 ). This study is critically important because it shows how food preservation methods that extend shelf life of foods in the home can reduce food waste over annual time periods. These studies also suggest that knowledge of food preparation and the best use of foods in households are critical in waste reduction.

Schemes that engage and redistribute resources to reduce food waste do not fully address the issue of food and drink products being wasted by consumers because they are not designed to reduce food waste. They redistribute food that would otherwise be waste; the study reported here focusses on reducing the wastage of food that is purchased with the intention of using it. The preservation of foods and types of food preservation methods available to consumers can facilitate this because it reduces food degradation and improves the utilisation of food in the domestic environment. This is a principle that has remained largely unconsidered even though the production of food waste increases greenhouse gas emissions or the carbon footprint of food consumption ( Garnett, 2013 ; O’Rourke, 2014 ). It is crucial to consider food waste reduction as an outcome of using preserved foods because research carried out previously demonstrated it can help us to define the sustainability of meals that consumers prepare ( Martindale, 2017 ).

In this study, it is demonstrated how frozen preservation can provide greater utilisation of food by consumers and reduce household food waste. It is not intended to show frozen is the only option for reducing consumer food waste. It is hoped that the research will highlight the use of preservation methods in reducing consumer food waste and that there are several factors that must work together in food waste reduction is to be successful. Previous research carried out in the UK market compared fresh and frozen food use in households and the amount of consumer food waste was dependent on food preservation method. The study showed a 47 per cent reduction in household food waste for frozen products compared to fresh products ( Martindale, 2014 ).

Frozen food in this study is defined by all food that is frozen via quick freezing; this ensures the cell intactness and preserves the nutritional value of the food. The process of freezing food in this household focussed study is defined as non-frozen food which gets frozen via a standard freezer (at home), as such this is slow freezing where cell structure is not maintained and it is less beneficial than quick freezing but adds to shelf life significantly. The definition of fresh food in this study is all non-frozen and non-freezing food.

Working with frozen foods not only gives us an opportunity to consider the value of food preservation in households but we must also consider manufacturing factories providing efficient use of resources and continual availability ( Tukker, 2015 ). This provides us with the opportunity to develop models of food preservation that identify control points in the supply chain that can maximise food waste reduction. Frozen and freezing foods define this requirement more effectively than many other food supply chains that do not preserve foods. The consideration of frozen or freezing foods in this study has provided an opportunity to investigate these wider impacts on food resource use by consumers. For example, freezing foods provides availability of out-of-season produce which can be included in the sustainability assessments of frozen and fresh produce ( Foster et al. , 2014 ). While these benefits of food preservation are important it is the impact on consumer food waste that is investigated here. The value of localising food supply is important in the sustainability arena if it can provide what consumers demand and increased resilience. There are studies that show localising food supply can achieve this, particularly where there are strong regional food identities and a cultural preference of using food service ( Caputo et al. , 2017 ). Localisation and the value of it to the food system are not within the scope of this current study even though it is important to consider food preservation has enabled the supply of foods that are out of season to consumers. Indeed, this was why preservation of fruits and vegetables using pickling and osmotic preserving emerged traditionally ( Martindale, 2017 ).

Frozen foods have played a pivotal role in enabling the global food supply chain to evolve and without that food losses would be increased in agriculture and processing. Many of the food supply chain issues highlighted in current food loss and food waste research do not exist with frozen foods because quick freezing leads to the extended shelf life gains that many waste reduction initiatives seek ( Parfitt et al. , 2010 ). Furthermore, freezing keeps within the conditions of “clean label” labelled trends and often provides greater portion control in the home ( Shove and Southerton, 2000 ). The “clean label” trend is now clearly identified in retail environments where there are demands for ingredient labelling that clarifies ingredients and communicates any potential allergens introduced in processing and manufacturing ( Asioli et al. , 2017 ).

The Austrian market research reported in this paper allows us to extend current understanding of the utilisation of frozen foods. It also leads us to consider the broader issue of what incentivises consumers to eat a more sustainable diet. Austrian households currently produce around 369,000 tons of packed and unpacked food waste each year and there is over 23.4 million tonnes of food waste produced by households across the EC member nations ( Bräutigam et al. , 2014 ; Stenmarck et al. , 2016 ). A sustainable diet must eliminate this food waste, the Austrian food waste volume is equivalent to 300€ of food thrown away per household year ( Lebersorger and Schneider, 2011 ; Penker and Wytrzens, 2005 ). The data presented here shows both frozen food purchases and household freezing decrease food waste significantly and this has important implications for providing sustainable meals and diets.

Research method

The Austrian market data was collected via an online survey carried out by the Institute of Marketing & Innovation, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU) and Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung (GfK SE) during July 2015 ( GfK, 2016 ). The survey questionnaire obtained data from 2,800 participants on the frequency of their food purchases for fresh and frozen foods.

The survey participants were selected to represent the typical Austrian population with regard to age and educational level. The selection made for geographic distribution across the Federal States was proportional to the population in each Federal State. The selection to the panel of 2,800 was made using the GfK market survey methods used for market research. GfK are a commercial and international company that provided the survey panel of 2,800 households. GfK’s services are routinely used by the food sector by manufacturers and retailers to develop business activities and identify food and drink trends. The participants used in this survey bought food and drink for their household and were asked how much food they wasted across six food groups as a percentage of the total amount of the food they purchased. The six food groups were selected because they were important food categories in Austria that have both frozen and fresh options. Notably this included bread where the offer and purchasing of frozen bread rolls is typical for Austrian consumers.

The participants of the survey were asked to consider their household food waste in a week from the food they purchased, partly utilised food, leftovers (plate waste) and preparation residues. The core questions of the survey that asked participants to report their proportion of food purchased that was wasted as a percentage were as follows:

• What percentage of fresh food from your household purchases do you throw away?
• What percentage of the frozen food from your household purchases do you throw away?
• What percentage of fresh food from your household purchases do you throw away per following product groups?
• What percentage of frozen food from your household purchases do you throw away per following product groups?

The food groups were fruit; vegetables (including specific questions for potatoes and spinach); bread (fresh only); pasta; meat; and, fish (fish sticks also known as fish fingers for frozen foods). The core questions were developed in terms of what food product groups were wasted in households. The survey also collected demographic information so that the 2,800 participants reflected a typical sample of the Austrian population and this was determined using GfK’s demographic methods.

Research results

The amount of food waste produced in the sample of 2,800 Austrian households is shown in Figure 1 . The data show that participants reported wasted 9.3 per cent of total fresh food purchased and 1.6 per cent of total frozen food purchased. Thus, the amount of reported food waste derived from the fresh foods is 5.8-fold greater than that of frozen foods in the 2,800 households assessed. This means that the six fresh food groups have a reported food waste that is 5.8-fold greater than comparable frozen food groups (see, Figure 1 ).

The amount of food waste associated with the total purchases of fresh and frozen foods in Austrian households

Figure 2 , shows the food waste for fresh and comparable frozen food groups assessed in the Austrian study of 2,800 households. The food groups are fruits, vegetables, bread, pasta, meat and fish. Data obtained for the vegetable group were also specifically obtained for potatoes and spinach because of the importance of these products in the frozen categories. A similar approach was taken for fish products where fish sticks (also known as fish fingers) are an important frozen product category.

The percentage of food purchases wasted for the fresh and frozen food product categories assessed

Figure 2 , shows the amount of food waste derived from fresh food purchases is greater than frozen food purchases across the six food groups assessed apart from fish which is assessed as “other fish” in the reported frozen products here. These data are summarised in Table I where the ratio of fresh to frozen food waste is provided.

The ratio of fresh to frozen food group waste for 2,800 Austrian households for the food product groups assessed

Research analysis

The goal of the research reported is to show how food waste behaviours connect many sustainability issues across the complex food choices consumers make when meals are prepared. Our research shows food manufacturers and food retailers occupy critical points in supply that can determine how these food consumption behaviours can be transformed into more sustainable ones. An important way of achieving this is through reducing the food waste associated with every meal.

Figure 1 , shows fresh foods purchased have a reported 5.8-fold greater food waste compared to frozen food purchases in a survey of 2,800 Austrian households. The assessment of waste from different food groups provides important insights into how households utilise fresh and frozen foods ( Figure 2 ). Table I , shows the ratio of fresh to frozen food waste across the food groups shown in Figure 2 . It can be seen that fresh food is wasted in greater amounts than frozen food in every category except fish where fresh food waste is 0.9 of frozen food waste. The ratios show that the greatest differences between fresh and frozen food groups are seen for fruit where fresh is 10.3-fold greater than frozen and potatoes where fresh is 7.8-fold greater than frozen.

Notably, the fresh to frozen ratio of specific food products ( Figure 2 ), include fresh vegetables and frozen spinach which is 13.8; and, for fresh fish and frozen fish sticks (also known as fish fingers) it is 2.0 in Austrian households. Spinach and fish sticks are specifically tested here because they are extremely popular for meal purchases in the Austrian and other European marketplaces. The 13.8-fold greater fresh vegetable waste than frozen spinach waste; and 2.0-fold greater fresh fish waste than fish stick waste is important because these products are developed to be directly placed into meals. They emphasise the impact of food product development when it is aligned to the portioning of food in meal preparation and if this is made to be optimal there is less food waste. This relationship between method of food preservation and portioning is also apparent with other food groups such as potatoes and pasta ( Table I ).

The reduction of food waste and correct meal portioning of specific food products are important because when they align and work together they can reduce food waste. This means data collected from consumers regarding what they consider to be the correct portion size in a meal is exceptionally valuable in waste reduction actions and it is rarely done. Obtaining such data is a challenge future research into food waste will need to address so that it can be transferred to food product development operations for maximum impact. The data collected here does not consider correct portion size data specifically but it does indicate its importance. The Austrian research reported here has shown that the fresh food thrown away per household per person for this sample was 37.48 kg each year while the frozen food thrown away per household per person was 6.46 kg and per year. The nutritional losses associated with food waste have yet to be fully characterised but they are an important component of food waste projections ( Halloran et al. , 2014 ).

While we can determine the environmental impact of consuming foods in terms of their carbon footprint, it is the impact of wasting foods as an outcome of consumption that concerns us here. This is important because assessment of the environmental value of foods requires considerable investment of finance, knowledge and skills. It seems futile to make this investment if the assessed foods are wasted downstream in the food supply chain as they are prepared and consumed. New supply chain models are required to promote the value of reducing food waste and guide processes such as freezing that can reduce food waste. The data presented in Figure 1 , clearly demonstrate a means to reduce the environmental impact of the food we choose to eat by reducing waste if frozen and freezing options are considered. The difficulty is that consumers choose foods based on what they like and this frequently changes, the choices made will rarely consider the impact of high level issues such as climate change but food waste reduction will be considered. This is because there is a very clear financial benefit to eliminating household food waste.

Current carbon footprinting methods show us that agri-production and global distribution can be the least of our problems because food wastage can be up to 20 per cent of food purchases and food losses across the supply chain can be far greater than this ( Foster et al. , 2014 ). It is difficult to communicate such sustainability trade-offs in consumer arenas because debates are too complex to be made at the point of purchase. This is partly because carbon footprinting results are extremely variable due to the diversity of different food production systems and this has been tackled by developing certifications that target many sustainability goals. These have changed consumption of food by highlighting specific issues so that more ethical purchases are made such as those concerned with sustainable fishing, rainforest produce and so on. But it is day-to-day food waste at home and in supply chains that can make any diet unsustainable regardless of food certification used. Different preservation formats can reduce food waste and in the case of frozen food we know it can be reduced with respect to fresh foods because less of it is thrown away. There is no evidence that the nutritional values of frozen foods are any different to fresh foods if robust quality standards are in place from farm to fork. The nutritional losses resulting from food waste are significant and it is important to develop a food supply chain that is not losing these resources through wastage. There is not currently a certification that shows food produced with less waste or the use of food products that result in less waste and it is evident that there is a requirement to at least highlight the value of reducing consumer food waste. Food certification schemes that take household food waste reduction into account must be a future consideration in food and drink fast-moving consumer goods.

These ideas lead us to summarise the research presented here as a decision matrix model ( Table II ). The decision matrix highlights the major themes of consumer food waste reduction using frozen foods or freezing foods in households. It is proposed that such a matrix can be used to help food technologists guide the development of products with respect to preservation format and household food waste reduction. What is evident from the decision matrix analysis is a requirement to highlight the value of food preservation in reducing household food waste in the consumer space. This can be achieved by communicating through food companies’ Corporate Social Responsibility programmes as well as interventions that improve culinary knowledge in households. There are several emerging methods for achieving these interventions including digital applications that aim to reduce food waste and social media communications by creating consumer interest movements. It is important that food waste reduction initiatives integrate with these communication methods that consumers use ( Martindale, 2017 ).

The decision matrix used to define the use of food preservation to reduce consumer food waste

Research conclusion

The research reported here shows purchased fresh foods have a six-fold greater food waste compared to purchased frozen food in a survey of 2,800 Austrian households. The research supports previous research conducted in the UK where a 47 per cent food waste reduction was demonstrated for frozen foods compared to fresh foods. This relationship shows maximal resource use is achieved for frozen food products that are manufactured for the convenience of being included in meals. The conclusion is that food manufacturers, food retailers and policy makers must consider the role of food preservation in delivering a sustainable diet. The decision matrix approach here provides initial guidance in new product development a basis for doing this and it is supported by data sets that have now been obtained in the Austrian and UK markets.

Acknowledgments

The APC has been sponsored by MPC Research Ltd.

Biographies

Dr Wayne Martindale is a Project Director for the Food Insights and Sustainability Service at the National Centre for Food Manufacturing, University of Lincoln. He is CSIRO McMaster and OECD Fellow directing a diverse folio of consumer focussed research in food and drink.

Professor Walter Schiebel is a University Professor of Agricultural Marketing and Nutritional Economics with extensive experience in International Academic and Consulting Projects in Western and Eastern Europe.

• Aschemann-Witzel J., De Hooge I.E., Rohm H., Normann A., Bossle M.B., Grønhøj A. and Oostindjer M. (2017), “ Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste – a multiple case study ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 155 No. 2 , pp. 33-45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aschemann-Witzel J., de Hooge I., Amani P., Bech-Larsen T. and Oostindjer M. (2015), “ Consumer-related food waste: causes and potential for action ”, Sustainability , Vol. 7 No. 6 , pp. 6457-6477. [ Google Scholar ]
• Asioli D., Aschemann-Witzel J., Caputo V., Vecchio R., Annunziata A., Næs T. and Varela P. (2017), “ Making sense of the ‘clean label’ trends: a review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications ”, Food Research International , Vol. 99 No. 1 , pp. 58-71. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bräutigam K.-R., Jörissen J. and Priefer C. (2014), “ The extent of food waste generation across EU-27: different calculation methods and the reliability of their results ”, Waste Management & Research , Vol. 32 No. 8 , pp. 683-694. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caputo P., Clementi M., Ducoli C., Corsi S. and Scudo G. (2017), “ Food chain evaluator, a tool for analyzing the impacts and designing scenarios for the institutional catering in Lombardy (Italy) ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 140 No. 2 , pp. 1014-1026. [ Google Scholar ]
• Defra (2017), “ Food statistics pocketbook: office of national statistics ”, available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/553390/foodpocketbook-2016report-rev-15sep16.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).
• Foster C., Guében C., Holmes M., Wiltshire J. and Wynn S. (2014), “ The environmental effects of seasonal food purchase: a raspberry case study ”, in van der Werf H.M.G., Garnett T., Corson M.S., Hayashi K. and Cederberg C. (Eds), Towards Eco-Efficient Agriculture and Food Systems: Selected Papers from the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Food Conference, 2012 , Vol. 73 , Saint Malo, pp. 269-274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garnett T. (2013), “ Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions ”, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Vol. 72 No. 1 , pp. 29-39. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• GfK (2016), “ We are GfK ”, available at: www.gfk.com/de-at/ (accessed 24 February 2017).
• Gustavsson J., Cederberg C., Sonesson U., Van Otterdijk R. and Meybeck A. (2011), Global Food Losses and Food Waste , Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halloran A., Clement J., Kornum N., Bucatariu C. and Magid J. (2014), “ Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark ”, Food Policy , Vol. 49 , pp. 294-301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janssen A.M., Nijenhuis-de Vries M.A., Boer E.P. and Kremer S. (2017), “Fresh, frozen, or ambient food equivalents and their impact on food waste generation in Dutch households”, Waste Management , Vol. 67 , New York, NY, pp. 298-307. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lebersorger S. and Schneider F. (2011), “ Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies ”, Waste Management , Vol. 31 No. 9 , pp. 1924-1933. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martindale W. (2014), “ Using consumer surveys to determine food sustainability ”, British Food Journal , Vol. 116 No. 7 , pp. 1194-1204, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2013-0242 [ Google Scholar ]
• Martindale W. (2017), “ The potential of food preservation to reduce food waste ”, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Vol. 76 No. 1 , pp. 28-33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mena C., Adenso-Diaz B. and Yurt O. (2011), “ The causes of food waste in the supplier – retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain ”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling , Vol. 55 No. 6 , pp. 648-658. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morone P., Papendiek F. and Tartiu V.E. (2017), Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation: Sustainability Assessment and Policy Analysis , Springer International Publishing AG. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Rourke D. (2014), “ The science of sustainable supply chains ”, Science , Vol. 344 No. 6188 , pp. 1124-1127. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parfitt J., Barthel M. and Macnaughton S. (2010), “ Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050 ”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , Vol. 365 No. 1554 , pp. 3065-3081. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Penker M. and Wytrzens H.K. (2005), “ Scenarios for the Austrian food chain in 2020 and its landscape impacts ”, Landscape and Urban Planning , Vol. 71 No. 2 , pp. 175-189. [ Google Scholar ]
• Privett K., Clark J.H., Arshadi M., Koutinas A., Gathergood N., Morone P. and Luque R. (2016), “ Food supply chain waste: emerging opportunities ”, Chemicals and Fuels from Bio-based Building Blocks , pp. 667-680. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shove E. and Southerton D. (2000), “ Defrosting the freezer: from novelty to convenience a narrative of normalization ”, Journal of Material Culture , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 301-319. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stenmarck A., Jensen C., Quested T., Moates G., Buksti M., Cseh B. and Redlingshofer B. (2016), “Estimates of European Food Waste Levels”, IVL, Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm.
• Tukker A. (2015), “ Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy – a review ”, in Vezzoli C., Ceschin F., Diehl J.C. and Kohtala C. (Eds), Why have Sustainable Product-Service Systems’ not been Widely Implemented? , Vol. 97 , pp. 76-91. [ Google Scholar ]

After being insulted, writing down your feelings on paper then getting rid of it reduces anger

A research group in Japan has discovered that writing down one's reaction to a negative incident on a piece of paper and then shredding it or throwing it away reduces feelings of anger.

"We expected that our method would suppress anger to some extent," lead researcher Nobuyuki Kawai said. "However, we were amazed that anger was eliminated almost entirely."

This research is important because controlling anger at home and in the workplace can reduce negative consequences in our jobs and personal lives. Unfortunately, many anger management techniques proposed by specialists lack empirical research support. They can also be difficult to recall when angry.

The results of this study, published in Scientific Reports , are the culmination of years of previous research on the association between the written word and anger reduction. It builds on work showing how interactions with physical objects can control a person's mood.

For their project, Kawai and his graduate student Yuta Kanaya, both at the Graduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, asked participants to write brief opinions about important social problems, such as whether smoking in public should be outlawed. They then told them that a doctoral student at Nagoya University would evaluate their writing.

However, the doctoral students doing the evaluation were plants. Regardless of what the participants wrote, the evaluators scored them low on intelligence, interest, friendliness, logic, and rationality. To really drive home the point, the doctoral students also wrote the same insulting comment: "I cannot believe an educated person would think like this. I hope this person learns something while at the university."

After handing out these negative comments, the researchers asked the participants to write their thoughts on the feedback, focusing on what triggered their emotions. Finally, one group of participants was told to either dispose of the paper they wrote in a trash can or keep it in a file on their desk. A second group was told to destroy the document in a shredder or put it in a plastic box.

The students were then asked to rate their anger after the insult and after either disposing of or keeping the paper. As expected, all participants reported a higher level of anger after receiving insulting comments. However, the anger levels of the individuals who discarded their paper in the trash can or shredded it returned to their initial state after disposing of the paper. Meanwhile, the participants who held on to a hard copy of the insult experienced only a small decrease in their overall anger.

Kawai imagines using his research to help businesspeople who find themselves in stressful situations. "This technique could be applied in the moment by writing down the source of anger as if taking a memo and then throwing it away when one feels angry in a business situation," he explained.

Along with its practical benefits, this discovery may shed light on the origins of the Japanese cultural tradition known as hakidashisara ( hakidashi refers to the purging or spitting out of something, and sara refers to a dish or plate) at the Hiyoshi shrine in Kiyosu, Aichi Prefecture, just outside of Nagoya. Hakidashisara is an annual festival where people smash small discs representing things that make them angry. Their findings may explain the feeling of relief that participants report after leaving the festival.

• Anger Management
• Social Psychology
• Disorders and Syndromes
• Educational Psychology
• Consumer Behavior
• Anger management
• Social psychology
• Cognitive dissonance
• Self-awareness
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder
• Collaboration

Story Source:

Materials provided by Nagoya University . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Yuta Kanaya, Nobuyuki Kawai. Anger is eliminated with the disposal of a paper written because of provocation . Scientific Reports , 2024; 14 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-57916-z

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Feeling Insulted? How to Rid Yourself of Anger
• Pregnancy Accelerates Biological Aging
• Tiny Plastic Particles Are Found Everywhere
• What's Quieter Than a Fish? A School of Them
• Do Odd Bones Belong to Gigantic Ichthyosaurs?
• Big-Eyed Marine Worm: Secret Language?
• Unprecedented Behavior from Nearby Magnetar
• Soft, Flexible 'Skeletons' for 'Muscular' Robots
• Toothed Whale Echolocation and Jaw Muscles
• Friendly Pat On the Back: Free Throws

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.