Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Waste Systems

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-waste-systems

Critical success factors for food waste reduction

Margaret Thorsena, Trixie Croada, Tessa Vincentb, Miranda Mirosaa,
⁎ ]]
]]]]]]
]]

a
Department of Food Science, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
b
UNFCCC Climate Champions, Race to Zero, 1 St Katharine’s Way, London E1W1UN, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Organizations can invest significant time, energy, and resources initiating food waste reduction practices.
Food supply chain Addressing the critical success factors for a new initiative or change in practice is vital. This research aimed to
Food waste reduction identify the overarching critical success factors for food waste reduction practices across the food supply chain.
Critical success factor Semi-structured interviews were held with 41 participants representing organizations from farm to fork in
Sustainability
Aotearoa New Zealand. Eighteen critical success factors, grouped into five overarching themes emerged: (1)
communication and collaboration, (2) motivation and engagement, (3) robust data, (4) sustainable management
systems, and (5) external influences. Of the success factors identified, the majority aligned with success factors
identified for the health promotion and ‘green’ business sectors. Comparisons suggest that organizations should
initially focus their planning process on collaboration with other agencies, robust data collection, engagement
throughout the organization, and determining a positive cost-benefit analysis. The general alignment of critical
success factors across disciplines enables the food waste sector to move quickly to support successful food waste
reduction practices, with corresponding environmental, social, and economic benefits. (173 words)

1. Introduction
The benefits of food waste reduction are multifaceted, including
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, preservation of resources, and
the redirection of food surpluses for human consumption which helps
improve food security. Amongst the many targets documented in the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specific food
loss and waste reduction targets have provided a uniting focus for food
waste reduction (United Nations, 2019). Since the adoption of the SDGs
in 2015, significant research and resources have been invested to re-
duce the quantity of food lost from the food supply chain from farm to
fork. Proactive food waste reduction initiatives have been implemented
from small start-up entrepreneurial businesses to national retailers to
global producers. The academic literature has quantified the impact of
different food waste reduction practices (Reynolds, 2019; De Laurentiis
et al., 2020) and helped identify the specific qualities of initiatives that
support food waste reduction (Lim, 2017; Neubig, 2020; de Souza,
2021).
Given the urgency to reduce food waste from an environmental and
societal perspective, and the resources invested in establishing food
waste initiatives, it is advantageous to ensure the success of effective
food waste reduction initiatives. To the best of our knowledge, there is
only a small body of research exploring the critical success factors
(CSFs) for successful food waste reduction. Previous studies have fo-
cused on the CSFs for one sector of the food supply chain only i.e., the
food processing industry (Rösler et al., 2021); are limited to the fresh
produce sector in India (Gokarn and Choudhary, 2021); analyzed the
impact of a single CSF (namely collaboration) (Dora, 2019), and ana-
lyzed consumer-related food waste initiatives (Aschemann-Witzel,
2017), or were conducted from a behavior change perspective (Xu,
2016; Aramyan, 2021). It is acknowledged that each sector of the food
supply chain has unique contributing factors for food waste creation,
and therefore, solutions tailored to each sector are required. For ex-
ample, the NZ Food Waste Champions 12.3 food waste reduction
roadmap outlines sector-specific solutions to reduce food waste in Ao-
tearoa New Zealand (Vincent and Croad, 2021). However, to the au-
thors’ knowledge, there is no research exploring the overarching CSFs
for implementing food waste reduction practices that may be applicable
irrespective of an organization’s role within the food supply chain.
Critical success factor theory was established over 40 years ago, and
since then, it has become embedded in business, information systems,
and project management practices. The initial definition, presented by
Rockart (Rockart, 1979), states that CSFs are "the limited number of
areas in which results if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful
competitive performance for the organization" (Rockart, 1979). Pinto
and Slevin (Pinto and Slevin, 1987) presented an alternative definition

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: miranda.mirosa@otago.ac.nz (M. Mirosa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2022.100059
Received 5 September 2022; Received in revised form 10 November 2022; Accepted 21 November 2022
2772-9125/© 2022 University of Otago. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al.
with CSFs regarded as “factors which, if addressed, significantly im-
prove project implementation chances” (Pinto and Slevin, 1987).
Therefore, it is advantageous for organizations to clearly understand
the critical success factors that support the successful implementation
and longer-term sustainability of food waste reduction practices.
This study aims to identify the CSFs for food waste reduction
practices by interviewing organizations from the producer to consumer
stages of the New Zealand food supply chain that have implemented
and maintained successful food waste reduction practices. With a clear
understanding of the CSFs for food waste reduction practices, organi-
zations can integrate these factors into their planning and im-
plementation processes, thus enhancing an initiative’s potential for
success. In doing so, the time, energy, and resources invested in es-
tablishing food waste reduction practices are more likely to create po-
sitive environmental, societal, and economic benefits.
2. Background
Due to the limited body of research relating to the factors enabling
successful food waste reduction initiatives, there may be the opportu-
nity to learn from research conducted by other disciplines that are
endeavoring to effect positive environmental or societal outcomes.
Furthermore, researchers may gain insights into creating program
sustainability by drawing knowledge from disciplines with comparable
processes (Scheirer and Dearing, 2011). The health promotion and
‘green’ business sectors are two disciplines with similar underlying
change management processes to the food waste sector. Both sectors
engage, empower and support individuals to enact change, whether at a
personal health level or to implement systemic change within an or-
ganization (Kumar and Preetha, 2012; Yang, 2021).
An extensive body of research explores the CSFs for health promo-
tion programs (Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone, 1998; Pluye et al., 2004;
Simpson, 2011; Wiltsey Stirman, 2012; Schell, 2013; Bodkin and
Hakimi, 2020), with frameworks for program sustainability proposed
for practitioners (Simpson, 2011; Schell, 2013; Bodkin and Hakimi,
2020). Notably, Schell et al. (Schell, 2013) presented a framework for
program sustainability based on a comprehensive literature review,
input from an expert panel, and concept mapping (Schell, 2013) Nine
core domains were identified, including internal factors such as orga-
nizational capacity, program adaptation, program evaluation, commu-
nications, strategic planning, and external influences including public
health impacts, funding stability, political support, and partnerships.
The framework also formed the basis for a validated Program Sustain-
ability Assessment Tool for the public health sector (Luke, 2014). Lit-
erature focusing on the CSFs for ‘green’ businesses is also developing
with some guidance for best practices (Grimm et al., 2014; Doskocil and
Lacko, 2018; Long et al., 2018; Luthra, 2018; Moktadir, 2020;
Purcidonio et al., 2020; Barros Rodrigues and Gohr, 2021; Donner,
2021; Fleith de Medeiros, 2022; Goyal et al., 2022). Predominantly,
research has been qualitative in nature with semi-structured interviews
(Doskocil and Lacko, 2018; Long et al., 2018; Purcidonio et al., 2020;
Donner, 2021), and in one publication, a year-long field study (Grimm
et al., 2014). Other research has been based on comprehensive litera-
ture reviews (Luthra, 2018; Moktadir, 2020; Barros Rodrigues and
Gohr, 2021; Fleith de Medeiros, 2022; Goyal et al., 2022), with some
researchers cross-referencing identified CSFs with industry experts
(Luthra, 2018; Moktadir, 2020; Goyal et al., 2022). A summation of the
emerging themes from the literature relating to the food waste reduc-
tion initiatives, the health promotion sector, and ‘green’ businesses will
be presented in turn, including partnerships, collaboration, constructive
communication, support from regulatory and government agencies, and
internal motivators.
Partnerships, collaboration, and constructive communication have
been highlighted as key factors contributing to the longevity of health
promotion programs (Wiltsey Stirman, 2012; Bodkin and Hakimi,
2020) and ‘green’ businesses (Long et al., 2018; Luthra, 2018; Fleith de
2
Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059
Medeiros, 2022). Partnerships and collaboration with a wide variety of
stakeholders such as government, sector representatives, and staff
support the establishment and continuation of a program, initiative, or
innovative business model by providing additional resources, skills, and
knowledge (Long et al., 2018; Luthra, 2018; Ghinoi et al., 2020a; Fleith
de Medeiros, 2022). Broad and engaging communication with stake-
holders supports sharing experiences and problem-solving during the
implementation stage and has been associated with enhanced program
sustainability (Bodkin and Hakimi, 2020). Similarly, collaboration and
cooperation between supply chain actors are consistent themes for
successful food waste reduction in much of the literature (Gadde and
Amani, 2016; Garrone, 2016; Xu, 2016; Niesten, 2017; Cao et al., 2020;
Ghinoi et al., 2020b; Aramyan, 2021; Gokarn and Choudhary, 2021;
Rösler et al., 2021). Through collaboration, organizations can facilitate
the sharing of information and resources as well as establish mutually
beneficial food waste reduction projects (Dora, 2019). Collaboration
was key to establishing and maintaining successful consumer-related
food waste reduction initiatives (Aschemann-Witzel, 2017). Coopera-
tion and communication about customer demand and shelf life data
between food processors or retailers and primary producers help fa-
cilitate cultivation or production planning which can help minimize
food waste (Kaipia et al., 2013; Gokarn and Choudhary, 2021; Rösler
et al., 2021).
External support, particularly from the government, ensures legis-
lative frameworks complement sustainability efforts (Luthra, 2018;
Moktadir, 2020; Aramyan, 2021; Carino, 2021) and is influential in
securing funding and access to resources (Bodkin and Hakimi, 2020;
Moktadir, 2020). Legislation and political support can create an en-
vironment that incentivizes positive behavioral change for consumers
and businesses, helping ensure the viability of a venture (Aramyan,
2021). Conversely, the lack of government support and imperfect leg-
islation were highlighted as barriers to the adoption of ‘green’ business
practices and food waste reduction (Long et al., 2018; Filimonau et al.,
2019). The high initial cost of innovative technologies, emphasized the
need for joint public-private partnerships and investment in research
and development (Moktadir, 2020), particularly when converting
agricultural waste into higher-value products (Donner, 2021). Other
factors influencing successful food waste reduction of fresh produce
included external financial grants, expert advice, and access to in-
formation and services (Gokarn and Choudhary, 2021).
Internal motivation and support, especially the presence of a pro-
gram champion, have been repeatedly highlighted as a CSF in the
sustainability of new programs in the healthcare setting (Pluye et al.,
2004; Simpson, 2011; Wiltsey Stirman, 2012; Bodkin and Hakimi,
2020). Supportive leadership (Luthra, 2018; Moktadir, 2020; Carino,
2021) and a highly motivated workforce have also been noted as keys
to success (Long et al., 2018; Goyal et al., 2022). However, only two
food waste-related studies mentioned the positive impact of a food
waste reduction champion who can drive change and motivate others to
effect change (Aramyan, 2021; Carino, 2021). Conversely, in one food
waste reduction study, having a 'motivation to make a difference' was
not considered a key quality for success but was deemed a general
feature for supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food
waste (Aschemann-Witzel, 2017).
A range of other themes also emerged from the current literature for
health promotion, ‘green’ businesses, and food waste reduction. Many
themes were consistent across the literature, including the importance
of organizational capacity (i.e., having the resources needed, including
staff and leaders) and capacity building (i.e., the training and devel-
opment of staff) (Aschemann-Witzel, 2017; Filimonau et al., 2019;
Bodkin and Hakimi, 2020; Aramyan, 2021; Rösler et al., 2021; Fleith de
Medeiros, 2022). Business responsiveness (i.e., program adaptation and
flexibility) (Wiltsey Stirman, 2012; Schell, 2013; Bodkin and Hakimi,
2020; Purcidonio et al., 2020), and the presence of performance mon-
itoring (Garrone, 2016; Bodkin and Hakimi, 2020; Gokarn and
Choudhary, 2021), have also been consistently associated with program
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al.
success. However, the literature indicates that some factors impacting
the outcome of an organization's food waste reduction initiative may be
more applicable to supply chain management. Examples include com-
munication of customer demand back up the supply chain, ‘market
infrastructure’ (i.e., continuity of cold storage along the food supply
chain), and logistics management (Kaipia et al., 2013; Gokarn and
Choudhary, 2021).
Critical success factor literature relating to health promotion, 'green'
businesses, and the small body of research from the food waste sector
suggest several potential success factors for food waste reduction in-
itiatives or practices. Given the role that CSF knowledge can play in the
outcome of an initiative or change in practice, having a clear under-
standing of the relevant CSFs will be essential for organizations in-
itiating a food waste reduction practice.
3. Material and methods
Given the small body of evidence relating to CSFs for food waste
reduction practices and the exploratory nature of this research, semi-
structured, qualitative interviews were selected to gain insights into the
CSFs for successful food waste reduction practices. Interviews were held
with key individuals working for organizations leading New Zealand
food waste reduction efforts across all aspects of the food supply chain:
namely, primary production. food producers, retailers, hospitality, and
household consumers. Ethical approval was obtained for this project
(#D20/319).
3.1. Participant recruitment and interview procedure
All 12 'New Zealand Food Waste Champions' from the organization
New Zealand Food Waste Champions 12.3 were invited to participate in
this study. New Zealand Food Waste Champions 12.3 is a coalition of
representatives from across the food supply chain, championing
Aotearoa New Zealand’s progress towards halving food waste by 2030
(New Zealand Food Network), modeled on the same principles as the
international organization Champions 12.3 (Champions 12.3). The New
Zealand Food Waste Champions also provided potential contacts for
food supply chain representatives that had been recognized within the
industry for actively supporting food waste reduction or having adopted
food waste reduction practices. Snowball sampling was used to recruit
additional participants (Braun and Clarke, 2013). Participant recruit-
ment stopped when there was a relatively even spread of re-
presentatives for each stage of the food supply chain, and a saturation
point was reached, whereby no new CSFs emerged from the interview
analysis. All potential participants were emailed information sheets and
signed consent forms before being interviewed.
A semi-structured interview guide was developed to establish an
understanding of an organization's practices to reduce food waste,
factors that positively and negatively impacted food waste reduction
practices, and the participant’s perceptions of the opportunities and
barriers for food waste reduction. The interview guide is presented in
Fig. 1. A team of two interviewers conducted the interviews with either
one or both interviewers present at each interview. When both
1. Tell us about your organization and your role within it.
2. Tell us what your organization is doing to address food waste.
3. What would you say is successful about the initiative(s)? Why?
4. How do you measure its success?
5. What external factors have impacted your operations?
6. Are there any unsuccessful aspects? Why?
7. What do you think are the barriers to addressing food waste?
8. What do you think are the opportunities for addressing food waste?
9. What role could the government have in assisting your food waste initiative?
10. Any other comments?
Fig. 1. Critical success factor interview guide.
3
Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059
interviewers were present, one interviewer led the questioning, while
the second interviewer recorded notes. When just one interviewer was
present, this person questioned and took notes simultaneously. Both
interviewers asked additional questions throughout the interview to
explore areas of relevance as they arose.
3.2. Data collection and analysis
In total, 41 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were held with
individuals representing organizations spread throughout the food
supply chain, including primary production (n = 11), processing
(n = 9), retail (n = 8), hospitality (n = 6), and households (n = 7).
Table 1 profiles which stage of the food supply chain participants re-
presented; participants’ core business practices; and years of operation.
All interviews took place via Zoom and typically ran for 40 min. The
recorded interviews were auto-transcribed by the speech-to-text appli-
cation, Otter.ai., after which each interview was checked and corrected
non-verbatim. Unique identification numbers, ranging from Int. 1 to
Int. 41, were used to replace participants' names, thus ensuring anon-
ymity, although consent to use organization names if relevant to the
discussion was obtained. The final transcriptions were analyzed by a
third member of the research team, using inductive thematic analysis to
identify the CSFs for food waste reduction, following the six-phase
process outlined in Braun and Clarke (Braun, 2019). This process in-
volved the familiarisation of data by repeatedly listening to the inter-
views and reading the transcriptions to generate initial codes from the
data. Themes and subthemes were constructed, then revised in part-
nership with two others in the research team. Definitions for all sub-
themes were constructed to reflect the essence of each grouping before
the final presentation of results. The qualitative analysis software pro-
gram NVivo Version 12 Pro (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia)
was used to assist in the process of identifying and categorizing themes
and subthemes. Transcriptions were uploaded, then classified and
color-coded according to the relevant sector of the food supply chain.
Interview extracts were transferred to nodes that were constructed to
reflect the emerging themes and subthemes. Colour coding embedded
within each node enabled the researchers to identify any correlations
between themes and different sectors of the supply chain.
4. Results
4.1. Measures of success for food waste reduction
Food waste data collection practices for participant organizations
varied from those that reported collecting no formal data to those that
made food waste reduction outcomes publicly available (Kaibosh Food
Rescue; New Zealand Food Network). Similarly, organizations' defini-
tions of success varied considerably. Organizations that collected food
waste reduction-related data reported using a range of objective (data-
driven) measures of success, such as the increasing number of meals
donated to food rescue organizations, achieving set targets for the
percentage of high-quality nutritious foods rescued or percentage of
food waste diverted from landfill. Funding providers typically required
objective measures of success to help secure future funding which
varied depending on the nature of the project. However, less measur-
able, subjective (experience-driven) definitions of success were also
used by participants. One Māori community-based organization per-
ceived a successful intervention as one that empowered the community
they supported.
“I think fundamentally, for me, what success looks like, is anytime that
an individual, that a whanau (family), that a marae (community
meeting ground), that a hapū (community), that they have felt empow-
ered as a result of doing something or learning something” (Int. 35).
Other participants used the social connections established to de-
termine the success of their food waste practices. A food rescue
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al. Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059

Table 1
Type and duration of food waste practice.

Stage of Food Supply Chain Business Practices Years of operating

Int.1 Production National food rescue distribution center 1

Int. 2 Production Farmer advocacy group 70
Int. 3 Production Grower advocacy group 16
Int. 4 Production Chicken farmer and distributor 1
Int. 5 Production Farmer food donation platform 1.5
Int. 6 Production Vegetable grower 35
Int. 7 Production Fishing and aquaculture business > 100
Int. 8 Production Grower donation platform 1
Int. 9 Production Fruit grower and fruit grower association 17
Int. 10 Production Food manufacturer 34
Int. 11 Production Sustainable crop-focused innovation business 6
Int. 12 Processing Sustainable business mentoring program Approx. 4
Int. 13 Processing Innovation and research center 7
Int. 14 Processing Food-focused research facility 94
Int. 15 Processing Food-focused research facility 94
Int. 16 Processing A food innovation network 10
Int. 17 Processing Sustainability-focused business collaboration 1
Int. 18 Processing Food manufacturer 29
Int. 19 Processing Upcycled food research facility 1
Int. 20 Processing Facilitation of funding and research to add value to biological byproducts 8
Int. 21 Retail Food retailer 99
Int. 22 Retail Food rescue organization 12
Int. 23 Retail Local retailer platform 10
Int. 24 Retail Food retailer 20
Int. 25 Retail Food retailer > 100
Int. 26 Retail Meal kit delivery service 10
Int. 27 Retail Farmers market 18
Int. 28 Retail Retailer 39
Int. 29 Hospitality Community pay-as-you-feel restaurant 2
Int. 30 Hospitality Hospitality association 62
Int. 31 Hospitality Cross-sector food association 6
Int. 32 Hospitality Baker ?
Int. 33 Hospitality Composting service 11
Int. 34 Hospitality Hospitality consultancy service Approx. 3
Int. 35 Household Community-focused zero-waste organization 11
Int. 36 Household City council > 100
Int. 37 Household City council 33
Int. 38 Household Composting service 8
Int. 39 Household Composting education service Approx. 6
Int. 40 Household Composting service 26
Int. 41 Household Animal feed, composting, and biogas services > 10

organization touched on the importance of volunteer engagement with
the food rescue organization, and one food retailer perceived the suc-
cess of their involvement through the positive relationships established
with food rescue organizations.
“We measure success based on the partnerships that we create. So the
relationships that we create, and that's how I really measure success.
Do we have relationships where our food rescue partners feel like
they can pick up the phone and call us and ask for what they need?”
(Int. 21).
4.2. Critical success factors supporting successful food waste reduction
Five overarching CSFs for food waste reduction practices emerged
from interviews with food supply chain representatives: namely,
‘communication and collaboration’; ‘motivation and engagement’;
‘robust data’; ‘sustainable management systems’; and finally, ‘ex-
ternal influences’. The overarching themes were subdivided into a
total of 18 subthemes to provide depth and detail to support orga-
nizations endeavoring to establish successful food waste reduction
practices. Reference to the subthemes was spread across all sectors of
the food supply chain, with no individual CSF presented as more
influential than others for any particular sector. Evidence for each of
these CSFs is outlined in detail below and a visual representation of
these CSFs is presented in Fig. 2. Table 2 outlines the definitions for
each CSF.
4.2.1 Group 1: communication and collaboration
Communication and collaboration were divided into four sub-
themes: ‘working together’, ‘storytelling and information sharing’,
‘connecting directly with end users’, and ‘changing the dialogue around
food waste’. 'Working together' may take the form of open commu-
nication, collective action, or shared resources between organizations
throughout the food supply chain and the food waste community.
Better resource utilization was achieved when different organizations
throughout the food supply chain worked collaboratively. For example,
fruit and vegetable market growers shared surplus produce with local
bakers. “At the farmer’s market, we're next door to an orchardist, and we've
inherited kgs of fruit that he can no longer sell, that we've taken on board
and used in our products” (Int. 32). Alternatively, organizations with a
shared vision could pull together resources such as funding or achieve
critical volumes of food waste to achieve an outcome or solution that
may not be realistic on an individual level. A waste management re-
presentative for a city council highlighted ‘working together’ as being
critical within their regional waste management and minimization plan
(WMMP).
“[The City Council] doing something on their own might not be feasible
because of the scale, because we’re such a small population. So that's why
we have that regional action plan to investigate options to work together
regionally to create one … facility somewhere, then food waste is col-
lected throughout the region and processed there. So we have the source,
but we also have the ability to provide a service to collect or to process the
food waste.” (Int. 36).

4
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al. Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059

farmers to acknowledge the contributions made and to encourage on-

Fig. 2. Critical success factors (CSF) for food waste reduction practices. Semi-
structured qualitative interviews with representatives throughout the food
supply chain from farm to fork identified five overarching CSFs, namely
‘communication and collaboration’; ‘motivation and engagement’; ‘robust data’;
‘sustainable management systems’; and ‘external influences’. The overarching
CSFs were subdivided into a total of 18 CSFs that supported the successful es-
tablishment of food waste reduction practices.
‘Storytelling and information sharing’ can support the initiation and
maintenance of food waste reduction action. For example, Int. 5 was
inspired to share data about the number of meals donated with their
going food donations through the established program. Participants
also described how storytelling helped engage communities to enact
positive change by supporting the visualization of collective impact and
understanding the importance of reducing food waste. Storytelling
around food also has important cultural dimensions for indigenous
Māori in New Zealand:
“We start with individual stories and allow people to share their experiences
of waste they might be producing, or what wastes are coming out of their
households. And then we do the same thing with marae (community meeting
ground) as well. So … our role, as kaiwhakahaere (facilitators), is to be that
bridge between individual action and collective impact.” (Int. 35).
Food waste reduction practices were more successful when organi-
zations ‘connected directly with end users’. The term ‘end user’ was
interpreted as either household consumers or other organizations
within the food supply chain. Mobile abattoirs, fishers, or fresh produce
growers were more successful in reducing food waste when selling di-
rectly to end users due to the relationships created and information
shared. “I do think that people probably, for the most part, value food they
buy from the farmers market more because they’ve got that relationship with
the person that's grown it and know how it's been grown” (Int. 27).
Community-supported agriculture, whereby end users subscribe to
purchase the fresh produce from one farm, or a group of farms, was also
more successful at food waste minimization through targeted har-
vesting practices. “So in virtually any other direct eater model, like a
farmers market, or something like that, you have to harvest what you think
you're going to sell. You don't know for sure. But with community-supported
agriculture, … people don't get a choice around what ends up in a box, it's
what is due to be harvested that week” (Int. 31). Although outside the
scope of the current study, further investigation into the impact of
community-supported agriculture models on food waste reduction is
warranted. Food waste can also be reduced when end users or re-
presentatives from other organizations within the food supply chain,

Table 2
Themes, sub-themes, and definitions for the critical success factors for food waste reduction practices.

Theme Sub-theme Definition

Group 1: Communication and
Collaboration.
Group 2: Motivation and Engagement.
Group 3: Robust Data.
Group 4: Sustainable Management
Systems.
Group 5: External Influences.
Working together.
Storytelling and information
sharing.
Connecting with end users.
Changing the dialogue around
food waste.
People engaged throughout the
system.
Champions to drive change.
Organizational vision and goals.
Understanding the issue.
Individualized solutions.
Highlight progress and success.
Positive cost benefit.
Being adaptable.
Having the necessary resources.
Research and innovation.
Making change easy.
External infrastructure.
System disruptors and incidental
events.
National/local government
support.
Collaboration between stakeholders with different capacities and capabilities makes
the process less onerous for one party.
Creating context and a way for participants to relate to the processes or changes to
inspire their engagement with food waste reduction.
Shortening supply chains using models such as community-supported agriculture.
Defining food waste more constructively, such as a resource or a surplus to remove
negative or blame-based connotations.
All stakeholders involved throughout the reduction process invested in the goals of
food waste reduction.
Key motivated individuals within an organization help initiate and drive food waste
reduction.
Organizations with food waste reduction-related vision and goals.
Robust data enables an organization to understand the food waste issue and respond
accordingly.
Goals and solutions which reflect the nuances and uniqueness of the community/
organization.
Robust evaluation enables an organization to highlight progress and success in
reducing food waste which can motivate further action.
A positive cost benefit for food waste reduction incentivizes engagement in food waste
reduction.
Agile businesses that can adjust production levels and operational systems.
Sufficient resources including enough people, funding, and appropriate infrastructure.
Investigating both the problems and the potential solutions thoroughly to find
nuanced solutions that work.
Removing barriers to change so that change is feasible and requires as little effort and
investment as reasonable.
Infrastructure such as existing avenues for redistribution or repurposing food surplus
or by-products.
Events or occurrences are not necessarily directly related to food waste but have an
impact either directly on the level of food waste, or the visibility of the issues.
Legislative or financial support from national/local government to incentivize and/or
facilitate food waste reduction.

5
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al.
such as food processors or retailers, could communicate directly with
producers about their specific requirements. Int. 11 shared an example
of the positive impact of clear communication about specific environ-
mental requirements between a soba noodle producer and a buckwheat
grower. After four farm site visits by the noodle producer, the grower
changed several on-farm practices to meet the producer's expectations,
resulting in 100 % of the grain being procured for export to Japan,
ensuring zero food waste for the grower.
‘Changing the dialogue’ around food waste enables organizations to
consider uses for food waste, other than disposal in a landfill. A re-
emphasis on the retained nutritional and financial value of food
waste can promote an increase in donating food surpluses, upcycling
byproducts, and altering marketing and sales strategies. Int. 1 ex-
plained that they use the term food surplus instead of food waste so
that organizations can become more open to the concept of food
donation rather than hiding their food waste. “Surplus sounds like,
‘Oh, I've got so much I can give it away’. Whereas food waste gives the
connotation that I've done something really negative and I've got some-
thing negative here, and I have to do something with it” (Int. 1).
Upcycling food is another example of still recognizing the inherent
nutritional and financial value in food waste or ‘food that is unable
to be sold’. “The thing that I really like about [upcycled food] is that it
goes quite a long way to shifting that value proposition of what waste is
and is it waste, no, it's not waste, it's a resource” (Int. 21). Other par-
ticipants acknowledged the limitations associated with solely fo-
cusing on the term food waste and on the endpoint of reducing food
waste rather than working to achieve the best use of resources.
“What would be interesting is how to deal with the definition of food
waste. If I looked at [our organization], I could say that "we don't waste
anything", but there's still huge opportunity to move it up that [food
waste] hierarchy (Papargyropoulou, 2014)” (Int. 7). Consumer
awareness campaigns are another important technique to change
the dialogue around food waste. For example, Int. 37 talked about
the Love Food Hate Waste campaign, which encourages consumers
to ‘love their leftovers’ and freeze food items to lengthen their life.
Int. 28 talked about the ‘Odd Bunch’ supermarket campaign, which
changes the dialogue around ugly vegetables to make them ap-
pealing to shoppers. Underpinning these awareness campaigns is a
new dialogue around food waste becoming ‘food not to be wasted’.
4.2.2 Group 2: motivation and engagement
The three subthemes associated with motivation and engagement
were ‘people engaged throughout the organization’, ‘champions to
drive change’, and ‘organizational vision and goals’.
When participants discussed the importance of having ‘people en-
gaged throughout the organization’ as critical to the success of a food
waste reduction practice, emphasis was placed on having senior man-
agement or leadership buy-in for the concept of food waste reduction.
“One of the game-changing shifts I've seen in that space … is buy-in from a
senior leadership level. … Every time our CEO does a speech, he talks about
our food rescue partnerships, and the food we're able to provide to com-
munities” (Int. 21). However, buy-in from all individuals throughout the
organization was essential because “it’s the people that make it happen”
(Int. 22). From a food rescue perspective, maintaining engagement with
key individuals within donor organization represented a challenge,
especially when staff turnover was high.
"The store person or the project manager in those stores is such a key
person. If they're not engaged, or they move on, we would lose all the
engagement with them, and that can be a constant struggle. How do we
keep these people engaged? How do we make sure they want to help us
and do good? And while it may be mandated by the manager, by the
corporate office, it actually requires that person to say, Oh, look, I'm
going to put this fruit and vegetables in this box for food rescue, rather
than just chucking it in the pig box, which is often easier” (Int. 22).
6
Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059
‘Champions to drive change’ relate to people championing food
waste reduction, either within an organization or at a regional or na-
tional level. Having a ‘champion’ for food waste practices helped drive
a concept forward and created motivation and enthusiasm for the
project within an organization. “If you have a champion for your cause, in
an organization, it just makes it so much easier to get buy-in and open doors
and get collaborations going” (Int. 1). Similarly, having food waste
champions throughout the food supply chain helped facilitate wider
food waste reduction. “There's a couple of individuals within those big
retail chains that are key. … They're actually really important individuals
that have been facilitating [buy-in from the retail sector].” (Int. 22). The
interviews for this study were themselves spurred by champions across
New Zealand’s food supply chain, demonstrating their value in raising
awareness and driving change.
‘Organizational vision and goals’ relate to an organization setting a
vision and goals or targets specific to food waste reduction. For example,
‘he taonga te kai (food is a treasure) is the vision adopted by New
Zealand Food Waste Champions 12.3, to reflect the value of food (New
Zealand Food Network). Other organizations interviewed subscribed to
the Sustainable Development Goal Target 12.3, to halve global food
waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along
production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses, by 2030
(United Nations). Others talked about zero food waste to landfill targets,
which are similarly being explored by the New Zealand Government
(Ministry for the Environment, 2022). Int. 26 noted that food waste re-
duction was one aspect of their operation that they could get right from
the onset of their business, so they have adopted a continual improve-
ment focus on reducing food waste. “We want to make sure we are as close
to a zero food waste company as possible” (Int. 26).
4.2.3 Group 3: robust data
Robust data supported food waste reduction through four sub-
themes: namely, ‘understanding the issue’; establishing ‘individualized
solutions’; ‘highlighting progress and success’; and providing data for,
ideally, a ‘positive cost-benefit analysis’.
‘Understanding the issue’ was appropriately summed up by Int. 4.,
“the first thing for solving a problem is measuring it”. Similarly, another
participant emphasized the potential to influence change by sharing
food waste data. “Here is the data. It's not just anecdotal. I can actually
show you that it is happening” (Int. 1). Therefore, the initial food waste
data collection was recognized as an important first step in establishing
an effective and successful food waste practice because of its ability to
identify an issue and potentially the contributing factors for food waste
creation.
Robust data also supported the establishment of targeted, ‘in-
dividualized solutions’ for effective food waste reduction. Accurately
determining the quantity and causes of an organization’s food waste
will enable the implementation of targeted strategies or solutions for
food waste reduction. Successful food waste reduction solutions for one
organization may not be applicable or address the issues of another
organization. Therefore, having individualized solutions for food waste
reduction is a critical success factor. As articulated by Int 35., “Solutions
to food waste for Māori communities will be and should be as diverse as
Māori communities are themselves. What might work over here might not
work over there” (Int. 35). Regional curbside waste audits were dis-
cussed as an example of data collection that helped city councils in-
dividualize waste minimization planning.
“One of our major data collection exercises is a curbside audit we do
every three years. That helps to inform our waste minimization and
management planning as well. But it allows us to sort through all the
waste streams at curbside, identify opportunities for diversion, and that
is, typically, where we get the most insight into the composition of our
curbside waste.” (Int. 37).
Once food waste reduction targets have been established, robust
data ensures organizations can ‘highlight progress and successes’. “We
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al.
are aiming to send zero food waste to landfill by 2025. So, part of the work
that I've been doing is to be able to measure that and track towards that”
(Int. 21). One participant outlined a range of reasons for collecting
credible and robust data. “We collect data, one to tell our story, two to
influence, and three … to show that we are reaching our KPIs. And also
there are opportunities out there because of this data” (Int. 1). Addressing
food package labeling errors was identified as an opportunity to reduce
food waste through data collection. Half of the labeling errors recorded
by the food rescue organization resulted from food manufacturers’
failure to comply with mandatory ‘net weight’ food labeling require-
ments (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment), opening up
the opportunity for changes to labeling legislation as a mechanism to
reduce food waste.
Having a ‘positive cost-benefit analysis’ or an incentive for change
was a CSF frequently mentioned by study participants. Robust data is
needed to accurately assess the costs and benefits of a change in prac-
tice. The hospitality sector may be incentivized to adopt food waste
reduction practices as a cost-saving measure. “I think restaurants are
incentivized not to waste food because wasting food is money” (Int. 5).
Without a positive cost-benefit, a food waste reduction practice was far
less likely to be established or maintained over time. In particular,
transport costs were recognized as a financial barrier to making food
donations, resulting in surplus produce being sent to landfill or being
used for purposes lower down the food waste hierarchy. “The main
challenge for donating fresh produce in the first place is that the cost of
transport means it’s not worth it, so it's cheaper to dump it or send it to
compost” (Int. 8). There are often hidden expenses to reducing food
waste that need consideration before final decisions could be made
about a potential solution. “There's also the cost of collecting and handling
food waste. For example, if you're taking fish waste off a trawler processing
at sea, it needs to be kept in a certain way to ensure the bioactive properties
are retained” (Int. 16). Nevertheless, a financial benefit is not the only
form of incentive for change, or positive cost-benefit an organization
can gain by reducing food waste. For example, Int. 1 emphasized the
moral, ethical, and sustainability-focused benefits for organizations
donating surplus produce to food rescue organizations.
"What's in it for me?" So, let's start with the easy ones. Morally, it's the
right thing to do. Ethically, it's the right thing to do. From a sustainability
point, it's the right thing to do. From a food waste pyramid, it's the right
thing to do. Let's feed people first before we feed animals, or we compost,
or we biogas it. … And then we talk about financial.” (Int. 1).
Furthermore, as public awareness grows about the food waste issue,
organizations may incur negative publicity if they are caught sending
edible food to landfill. Therefore, implementing positive food waste
reduction practices may be advantageous for an organization despite a
degree of associated financial loss.
4.2.4 Group 4: sustainable management systems
There were four subthemes recognized as supporting sustainable
management systems for food waste reduction practices: namely, ‘being
adaptable’; ‘having the necessary resources’; ‘research and innovation’;
and finally, ‘making change easy’.
‘Being adaptable’ relates to dealing with fluctuations in production
levels (i.e., weather changes affecting crop production) and operational
changes (i.e., a broken machine or canceled delivery). Employing in-
novative operating systems allowed organizations to be flexible to
changing demands and helped minimize food waste production. One of
the participants, from a meal kit delivery service, described the aspects
of their business model that facilitated flexibility within the system to
reduce food waste. “We get to pre-portion everything prior to acquiring
customers, which not only significantly reduces food waste at their end in
households because they're not getting more than what they need. But also, it
allows us to very accurately control what's coming in at our end” (Int. 26).
‘Having the necessary resources’ such as staffing levels and skill
base, adequate funding, and hardware was highlighted as a CSF for food
7
Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059
waste reduction practices. One study participant highlighted several
advantages they have gained after securing government funding which
enabled their organization to fit out large warehouses with chillers,
freezers, and purpose-specific machinery to receive and sort large
quantities of donated food. A second participant emphasized the im-
portance of having the right resources to safely lift food surplus or
waste up the food waste hierarchy.
“When we send something to fish meal / fish oil, you don't need to be as
sensitive about maintaining the quality and the storage conditions for
that product. If we send the heads to donation, we need to be much more
careful about how they are stored and the storage conditions, which can
be challenging when you have a temperature and time-sensitive product.
That is probably the biggest challenge in terms of lifting the resource up
the hierarchy of consumption” (Int. 7).
Investment in food waste reduction-related ‘research and innova-
tion’ was recognized as key to ensuring the sustainable long-term suc-
cess of food waste reduction. “As our sector output grows there is a need to
have a scalable process to deal with waste and to invest in technology for
minimizing loss in the distribution chain” (Int. 9). Several organizations
support food waste research and innovation (University of Otago, 2020;
Ministry of Primary Industry; Plant & Food Research) in Aotearoa New
Zealand. The benefit of government funding for the Bioresource Pro-
cessing Alliance (BPA) (Bioresource Processing Alliance) was specifi-
cally mentioned by one participant. “Government funding for the BPA has
been really useful. It de-risks the R&D investment for the companies in-
volved. They only have to put a little bit of cash in” (Int. 14). Upcycled food
was a specific example of systems innovation. It helped engage staff
members that have not previously been interested in food waste miti-
gation and has the potential to have an even bigger impact on food
waste reduction than actions taken to date.
“I think it's like, ‘keep pushing the boundary’. Don't always just do the
same things that you've already done. The upcycled food space has
created so many opportunities for us. And I think we'll position our ability
to impact food waste reduction a lot further ahead, compared to if we
just kept going down the ‘segregating our waste streams’ pathway. So
yeah, I think it's about looking for those big game-changing ideas and
going for it” (Int. 21).
‘Making change easy’ refers to the ease with which changes in an
operation or process can be adopted by the individuals or organizations
involved. System changes that were easy to operate or comply with
were easier to engage with and therefore became more sustainable. “So
for us, that was a really big change in mindset. When [the food rescue or-
ganization] first came to us, we thought, "how hard is this going to be?" But
when she said, I'll just come and pick up [the food donations] every day it
suddenly became really, easy and really, really doable. So it was one thing
that, as business owners, we don't have to think about it anymore. Whereas,
back in those early days, we had to say, 'Okay, it's Monday, and it's quarter
to four, and nobody's here yet? Who do I have to call?' It became really,
really quite challenging" (Int. 32). Conversely, when repurposing un-
marketable produce is difficult, the marketable produce is more likely
to become food waste. Int. 9., highlighted the barrier of organizing
transport when endeavoring to repurpose produce.
“Getting half a ton of fruit waste from [where we are based] to where
people want to do a trial, the value is not there in doing that for anybody.
The challenges are in the value of the product and then the logistics of
distributing it to where it's needed. … It's great if someone wants half a ton,
but by the time you find the transport it almost gets too hard” (Int. 9).
4.2.5 Group 5: external influences
There were three different forms of external influences identified as
CSFs for food waste reduction practices: ‘external infrastructure’,
‘system disruptors and incidental events’, and ‘national and regional
government support’ (i.e., funding or supporting policies).
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al.
‘External infrastructure’ refers to the producers and recipients of
surplus produce or food waste and the facilities available to process or
manage food waste. Access to external infrastructure that supports food
waste reduction or enables food waste to move up the food waste
hierarchy was key to successful food waste reduction practices. Recent
changes in the available services for New Zealand animal butchery have
enabled farmers to better recover the whole animal when butchered.
“We can see that mobile abattoirs are starting to become part of our land-
scape again, and that's really exciting because what that looks like is full
resource utilization” (Int. 31). Int. 29., discussed the ability to move
restaurant food waste up the food waste hierarchy when the external
composting infrastructure was available. “In my restaurant in Russell, we
don't ever compost. We have pig bins because we were in a rural community
where we have access to pig farmers. But you know, when you're in the
middle of Auckland City, there's not pig farmers just floating around in Utes
(utility vehicles) coming and picking up pig bins” (Int. 29).
‘System disruptors and incidental events’ were discussed as CSFs
that influenced the initiation of a food waste reduction practice or af-
fected the ongoing viability of an established practice. ‘System dis-
ruptors’ could be considered events that exacerbate the strengths and
weaknesses of the food supply chain, while ‘incidental events’ were less
significant, unplanned events that helped initiate or inhibited food
waste reduction practices. The most significant ‘system disruptor’ dis-
cussed by study participants was the Covid-19 pandemic which affected
food waste levels throughout the food supply chain, especially in the
hospitality sector. “Businesses’ risk aversion to holding food has completely
changed as a result of Covid-19. Groups like quick service restaurants do not
want to be left with food waste, so [we] received heaps of returns” (Int. 4). A
participant from the hospitality sector also discussed the wider impact
of Covid-19. At the start of 2020, the hospitality sector implemented a
sustainability policy. “Unfortunately, sustainability got pushed to the back
burner because of Covid-19. [The policy] was new and not core business at
that point for a lot of our guys” (Int. 30). Similarly, Int. 4 discussed the
impact of the infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) type 1 after it was
identified in Aotearoa New Zealand poultry. Exports to countries re-
quiring IBDV type 1 free certification were stopped, creating an over-
supply of chicken on the national market.
While, on the whole, ‘system disruptors and incidental events’ such as
the Covid-19 pandemic were associated with increased food waste levels,
the pandemic did lead to funding opportunities for a novel distribution-
style food rescue organization. “COVID was an enabler for us to start with.
Because we were in lockdown. The government said, flesh out your idea” (Int.
1). Food waste reduction practices at a household level were also posi-
tively influenced by Covid-19. “During COVID, it was really interesting to
see the increase in interest around food waste. … People were nervous about
going to supermarkets and wanted to prolong those visits, making the food go
further” (Int. 37). Int. 21 emphasized the advantages gained by smaller
‘incidental events’ such as a published list of US top food trends. With
this evidence, Int. 21 was better placed to secure funding to trial up-
cycled food-related initiatives as a means of reducing food waste.
Finally, ‘national and regional government support’ such as policies
or funding that support food waste reduction practices were recognized
as instrumental for success. Clear government policy can shape orga-
nizational goals such as zero food waste to landfill targets or SDG 12.3.
Many participants noted the Good Samaritan Clause in the New Zealand
Food Act 2014 as a government intervention that reduced barriers to
food donation (Parliamentary Council Office, 2021). The Good Sa-
maritan Clause protects businesses donating food from civil and crim-
inal liability so long as the food is safe and suitable at the time of do-
nation. “I think the Food Act 2014 is what allowed us to exist. In terms of
what it's done for food rescue, I think that's a huge factor, and everything's
snowballed from there” (Int. 29). The potential impact of changes to
legislation such as mandatory reporting for businesses on sustainability
actions and the banning of food waste sent to landfills were described as
“a game-changer” and “a key driver”. Int 36 also emphasized the sup-
porting role government legislation could play. “I don't think it's naive to
8
Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059
think that education is going to solve everything, but I do think it won't do it
alone. We definitely need some form of regulation”. Participants, particu-
larly in the food rescue sector, noted the role government incentives
may play in reducing food waste, such as the suggestion to, “create some
sort of tax incentive that values the food as a donation rather than just they
have to write it off as a loss” (Int. 1). Government funding has also been
instrumental for food waste reduction, with Int. 1 emphasizing the
fundamental role it played when establishing a national food waste
distribution network.
“We're fortunate that the government funded us. We're talking millions of
dollars here, something a food rescue could never try and raise. And so it
had to be government funded in retrospect. When I was trying to get
individuals to fund it, or foundations to fund it, I was very naive, thinking
that anybody would come up with several million dollars to do this. So it
really had to be government-funded.” (Int. 1).
Government funding gave the organization the security it needed to
lease warehouse space that was large enough to accommodate the
needs of the network. The warehouses were able to be fitted with
chillers, freezers, and other mechanisms that enabled food to be sorted
and packed efficiently.
5. Discussion
This research provides an overarching big-picture view of the CSFs
supporting successful food waste reduction practices in Aotearoa New
Zealand, and potentially in an international context. The 18 CSFs
identified span five groups and provide initial, practical guidance to the
food waste sector whereby organizations can work to embed these CSFs
into their program planning process to enhance the potential success of
a food waste reduction practice. Given the breadth of interviews across
the food supply chain, results can broadly apply to any organization,
irrespective of the focus of the intervention or their role within the food
supply chain.
Many of the CSFs reported in participant interviews are similar to
factors associated with program sustainability determined in the well-
established health promotion literature and emergent literature related
to ‘green’ business practices. This cross-disciplinary consistency adds
weight to our findings. Fourteen of the CSFs identified in this research
aligned with the nine core domains identified in Schell’s framework for
program sustainability (Schell, 2013). The aligned CSFs included;
gathering robust data (program evaluation) that helped clarify food
waste-related issues, leading to the development of individualized so-
lutions, goals, and vision (strategic planning); having sufficient re-
sources (funding stability and operational capacity); people engaged
throughout the organization, including a program champion, em-
ployees (organizational capacity) and the leadership team (political
support); having supportive external infrastructure, working together
and sharing information (partnerships); national and regional govern-
ment support (political support) connecting with customers (commu-
nication and partnerships); highlighting progress and success (program
evaluation); as well as being adaptable and highlighting the importance
of research and innovation (program adaptation). Four CSFs in this
study differed from Schell's framework, including a ‘positive cost-ben-
efit analysis’, ‘system disruptors and incidental events’, ‘making change
easy’, and ‘changing the dialogue around food waste’. In 2018, Long
et al., echoed similar results to this study in their research identifying
the CSFs for the transition to sustainable business models in the food
and beverage industry (Long et al., 2018). Critical success factors in-
cluded the importance of collaboration throughout the supply chain,
continual innovation, the concept of sustainability feeding through to
all employees and aspects of the business and having a clear narrative
and vision to motivate individuals throughout the organization to
create successful partnerships and engage customers.
Collaboration and external partnerships are consistent themes in the
CSF literature as they help facilitate access to appropriate resources
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al.
(Long et al., 2018; Baraldi, 2019) and can enhance an organization’s
planning process (Kaipia et al., 2013; Aramyan, 2021; Fleith de
Medeiros, 2022). Håkansson and Snehota (Håkansson and Snehota,
1995) argues that no firm exists in a void but needs relationships to
initiate, develop and sustain its business (Håkansson and Snehota,
1995), while network embedding has also been proposed as funda-
mental for start-up organizations such as those operating in the food
waste sector (Baraldi, 2019). Therefore, effort needs to be directed to
establishing and embedding networks with external stakeholders, col-
leagues within the food waste sector, and the wider community. New
Zealand Food Waste Champions 12.3 (New Zealand Food Network;
New Zealand Food Waste Champions 12.3) and the Aotearoa Food
Rescue Alliance (Aotearoa Food Rescue Alliance, 2021) are good ex-
amples of these networks. But further government support and re-
sources would enhance collaboration across the food supply chain.
Close partnerships with external parties and stakeholders support the
exchange of ideas, knowledge, and resources during program planning
and implementation, and enhance the initial success and longer-term
program sustainability (Bodkin and Hakimi, 2020).
Long et al. (Long et al., 2018) also highlighted CSFs that were not
identified in the health promotion setting but may be more applicable
to businesses implementing or conducting food waste practices. Prof-
itability was determined as a CSF for sustainable business models, as
unprofitable businesses are unable to survive (Long et al., 2018).
Profitability can be especially challenging in the initial years for start-
up businesses. The concept of profitability aligns with the need for a
positive cost-benefit analysis identified in this research. Evidence of a
positive outcome from a food waste reduction practice, particularly a
financial return, is more likely to secure leadership support for an initial
change in practice, and change is more likely to be maintained long-
term. Research commissioned by the global Champions 12.3 showed
that most companies achieved a positive return on investment when
introducing food waste reduction practices, with half seeing a 14-fold
or greater return (Hanson and Mitchell, 2017). Nevertheless, gathering
further data specific to an individual organization may be more likely to
engage the senior leadership team.
Long et. al. (2018) also identified external events as a CSF and a
potential barrier to the successful transformation to a sustainable
business model (Long et al., 2018). External, often serendipitous, events
can potentially positively influence market regulation or customer
trends or conversely, can negatively affect the market or customer de-
mand. External CSFs, such as incidental events or political support for
their program, can be more challenging to influence than internal ones.
The CSF ‘being adaptable’ acknowledges the changeable environment
in that organizations are operating. Participants tended to focus on
having adaptable operational practices and production capacity. How-
ever, being adaptable also allows organizations to modify aspects of
their food waste reduction practices to meet changing political prio-
rities, or allow for changes in the broader environment, while still
achieving food waste reduction. As articulated by Int. 21, “One of the
things I have learned is to just focus on the areas you can create change in.
And that's just what I try and do. And then a door is not always closed. You
know, you can always push on it again later." Entrepreneurship, continual
innovation, and flexibility have been recognized as CSFs for 'green'
businesses (Long et al., 2018; Donner, 2021). By being adaptable, or-
ganizations can also be more open to opportunities available with
changes to consumer appetite for variable quality standards in fresh
produce (Makhal, 2020; Qi, 2022) or upcycled food products (Coderoni
and Perito, 2021; Donner, 2021; Goodman-Smith, 2021).
It is acknowledged that all participants for this research were based
in Aotearoa New Zealand, and therefore the CSFs identified may not be
applicable in all cultural contexts. Nevertheless, due to the identified
overlap with the majority of CSFs from other existing bodies of litera-
ture, for the most part, the results can be generalized to an international
audience. Some CSFs, such as the role of storytelling in engaging
community action and the acceptability of terms to define food waste
9
Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059
within different settings, warrant further exploration. Aotearoa New
Zealand is in the infancy of its food waste reduction journey, with few
organizations having adopted the recommended “Target, Measure, Act”
approach for food waste reduction (Champions 12.3, 2020). In No-
vember 2022, NZ Food Waste Champions 12.3 officially launched a
voluntary agreement (called the ‘Kai Commitment’) with six initial
leading food sector businesses designed to reduce Aotearoa New Zeal-
and’s commercial food waste levels (New Zealand Food Waste
Champions 12.3, 2022). As more organizations sign up for the ‘Kai
Commitment’, there will be wider adoption of the ‘Target, Measure, Act’
approach and more standardized targets for food waste reduction. Fu-
ture research will be better placed to capture food waste data and use
this to determine the successfulness of initiatives and actions, against
objective measures of success, for example, a set of formalized food
waste reduction and prevention targets.
While there were 18 distinct CSFs identified, and grouped under five
overarching headings, individual success factors are interrelated and
influence one another. For example, having the data to conduct a cost-
benefit analysis for a proposed change in practice and ensuring any
potential change is easy to understand and implement are two factors
that are fundamental in engaging leadership support and motivating
individuals throughout an organization. The 'diffusion of innovation'
theory illustrates the impact of these two initial CSFs (a 'positive cost-
benefit analysis' and 'making change easy') in securing the critical
support of leadership and motivating staff members (Rogers, 2003).
The ‘diffusion of innovation’ theory states that a new practice is more
likely to be adopted if it is considered significantly better than what is
currently in place (relative advantage), aligns with an organization’s
values, and needs (compatibility), is easy to understand and use (sim-
plicity), can be tested before adopting the change (trialability), and
provides tangible results (observability).
The impact of different CSFs on the successful implementation of
sustainable supply chain initiatives, and for businesses adopting cir-
cular economy practices. have been modeled using the ‘decision-
making trial and evaluation laboratory’ (DEMATEL) and Grey-
DEMATEL methodologies (Luthra, 2018; Moktadir, 2020). Results
suggest that government legislation (Luthra, 2018), and ‘leadership
and total management commitment’ (Moktadir, 2020), were the most
influential factors supporting the successful transition to a sustainable
business model. Critical success factors in a health promotion context
have also been ranked based on their potential impact (Bodkin and
Hakimi, 2020). Tier 1 success factors such as organizational capacity,
partnerships, and strategic planning are considered the most influ-
ential for program sustainability. The changing importance of CSFs at
different stages of a program's lifecycle has also been highlighted.
Collaboration and networks were identified as CSFs regardless of the
stage of a program’s lifecycle (Aschemann-Witzel, 2017; Baraldi,
2019). In addition, at the establishment stage employing personnel
with the right competencies, funding, and program timing were
considered CSFs (Aschemann-Witzel, 2017). Managing attention,
particularly on social media, operating on a large scale, and knowl-
edge accumulation was associated with successful development and
maintenance stages of a program’s lifecycle. Considering the potential
influence of individual CSFs or determining their relevance at dif-
ferent stages of implementation for a food waste reduction initiative
may further enhance success. An organization can focus on the most
relevant success factors only rather than paying equal attention to all
success factors at all times. For example, gathering data to understand
the extent and drivers of a food waste issue is critical when in-
troducing food waste reduction practices. This knowledge will sup-
port the development of ‘individualized solutions’, identification of
the ‘necessary resources’ and skill sets, and help establish partner-
ships that will support change. However, focusing on ‘highlighting
successes’ and longer-term ‘research and innovation’ may not be a
priority in the earlier stages of establishing a food waste reduction
practice. Measuring the impact or influence of individual CSFs at
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al.
different stages of implementing a food reduction practice was out-
side of the scope of this exploratory research but does provide a focus
for future research.
By discussing the results from the current research within the body
of literature for CSFs relating to the health promotion and ‘green’
business sectors, the theoretical body of CSF knowledge for the food
waste sector has been expanded. The health promotion and ‘green’
business sectors operate within similar frameworks to create positive
societal or environmental change. Many of the CSFs reported in par-
ticipant interviews are similar to factors associated with program
sustainability determined in the well-established health promotion
literature and emergent literature related to ‘green’ business practices.
Nevertheless, some CSFs identified may be more relevant to aspects of
the food waste sector. Potential factors include changing the dialogue
around food waste and focusing on food waste reduction impacts, as
opposed to the public health impact stated in health promotion-fo-
cused literature (Schell, 2013; Bodkin and Hakimi, 2020). Critical
success factors determined from this research and CSFs outlined for
comparable disciplines can be used to establish a potential CSF fra-
mework for successful food waste reduction practices. Future research
will require potential frameworks to be critiqued by sector specialists.
Appropriate modifications and additions may accommodate the un-
ique requirements of the food waste sector and determine whether
different stages of the food supply chain require individualized CSFs.
In the meantime, based on existing CSF literature (Simpson, 2011;
Schell, 2013; Aschemann-Witzel, 2017; Long et al., 2018; Dora, 2019;
Bodkin and Hakimi, 2020; Moktadir, 2020; Purcidonio et al., 2020;
Aramyan, 2021; Fleith de Medeiros, 2022; Goyal et al., 2022), it
would be logical to suggest that organizations focus on establishing
networks and partnerships with others working in the food waste
sector to support the planning and implementation of food waste re-
duction practices. Early in the planning process, data collection will
capture baseline data which may highlight opportunities for change
and help profile a positive cost-benefit analysis. Baseline data will
support future data collection to profile successes and changes in
outcomes over time. A positive cost-benefit for food waste reduction
may engage senior management support for a change in practice.
Engaging people throughout the organization to support food waste
reduction practices, ideally including at least one food waste reduc-
tion champion will help provide momentum for change. Finally, en-
gaging national and local governmental support on food waste re-
duction may help ensure the longer-term viability of food waste
reduction practices across the food supply chain.
6. Conclusion
This research provides practical guidance to the food waste sector
by outlining 18 CSFs for an organization to integrate into their planning
process for food waste reduction practices. Of the CSFs discussed by
participants, several resonate with research evidence from other dis-
ciplines: namely, collaboration with other agencies; robust data col-
lection; and engaged people, including a ‘champion’ for change and
senior management buy-in. More specific to the business sector, a po-
sitive cost-benefit analysis helps secure organizational buy-in for a
change in practice although the positive benefits do not only have to be
profit-related. This research also adds theoretical knowledge to the
body of research relating to CSF theory. Critical success factors for food
waste reduction practices are similar to those for the health promotion
and 'green' business sectors. The food waste sector does not have to
reinvent the wheel when it comes to CSF frameworks and can initially
glean from the body of evidence gathered by other disciplines. In doing
so, the food waste sector is well placed to move quickly to support
organizations striving to implement successful food waste reduction
practices, thus ensuring the best environmental, social, and economic
outcomes.
10
Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059
Conflict of Interest
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the NZ Food Waste Champions of
12.3, many of whom were interviewed for this project and assisted in
connecting the researchers with other potential participants.
Furthermore, we would like to extend our appreciation to all the par-
ticipants who generously contributed their time and shared their
knowledge and thoughts for this project. This research was funded, in
part, by a grant from the Agricultural and Marketing Research and
Development Trust (AGMARDT): Grant Number A21003.
References
Aotearoa Food Rescue Alliance (2021) About Us. Available at: 〈https://afra.org.nz/
about-us/〉 (Accessed: 11 August 2022).
Aramyan, L.H., et al., 2021. ‘Moving from niche to norm: lessons from food waste in-
itiatives’ (Available at). Sustainability 13 (14), 7667. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13147667
Aschemann-Witzel, J., et al., 2017. ‘Key characteristics and success factors of supply
chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste – a multiple case study’
(Available at). J. Clean. Prod. 155, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.
11.173
Baraldi, E., et al., 2019. ‘Start-ups and networks: interactive perspectives and a research
agenda’ (Available at). Ind. Mark. Manag. 80, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2018.02.002
Barros Rodrigues, B., Gohr, C., 2021. ‘Dynamic capabilities and critical factors for
boosting sustainability-oriented innovation: systematic literature review and a fra-
mework proposal’ (Available at). Eng. Manag. J. 13 (20), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10429247.2021.1960124
Bioresource Processing Alliance (date unknown) Bioresource Processing Alliance, NZ:
BPA. Available at: 〈https://bioresourceprocessing.co.nz/〉 (Accessed: 16 October
2020).
Bodkin, A., Hakimi, S., 2020. ‘Sustainable by design: a systematic review of factors for
health promotion program sustainability’ (Available at). BMC Public Health 20 (1),
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09091-9
Braun, V., et al., 2019. ‘Thematic analysis’. In: Liamputtong, P. (Ed.), Handbook of re-
search methods in health social sciences. Springer, Singapore, pp. 843–860. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A practical guide for be-
ginners, 1st ed..,. SAGE Publications,, London, UK.
Cao, G., Shah, P., Ramanathan, U., 2020. Reducing edible food waste in the UK food
manufacturing supply chain through collaboration. In: Ramanathan, U.,
Ramanathan, R. (Eds.), Sustainable Supply Chains: Strategies, Issues, and Models.
Springer, pp. 291–311. (Available at). 〈http://hdl.handle.net/10547/624256〉.
Carino, S., et al., 2021. ‘The drivers of environmentally sustainable hospital foodservices’
(Available at). Front. Nutr. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.740376
Champions 12.3 (2020) Call to global action on food loss and waste. Available at:
〈https://champions123.org/publication/call-global-action-food-loss-and-waste〉
(Accessed: 31 October 2022).
Champions 12.3 (date unknown) Champions 12.3: Inspiring ambition and mobilizing
action to reduce food loss and waste globally. Available at: 〈https://champions123.
org/〉 (Accessed: 27 May 2022).
Coderoni, S., Perito, M.A., 2021. ‘Approaches for reducing wastes in the agricultural
sector. An analysis of Millennials’ willingness to buy food with upcycled ingredients’
(Available at). Waste Manag. 126, 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2021.03.018
De Laurentiis, V., Caldeira, C., Sala, S., 2020. ‘No time to waste: assessing the perfor-
mance of food waste prevention actions’ (Available at). Resour., Conserv. Recycl.
161, 104946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104946
Donner, M., et al., 2021. ‘Critical success and risk factors for circular business models
valorising agricultural waste and by-products’ (Available at). Resour., Conserv.
Recycl. 165, 105236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105236
Dora, M., 2019. ‘Collaboration in a circular economy: learning from the farmers to reduce
food waste’. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 33 (4), 769–789. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-
02-2019-0062
Doskocil, R., Lacko, B., 2018. ‘Risk management and knowledge management as critical
success factors of sustainability projects’ (Available at). Sustainability 10 (5), 1438.
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU10051438
Filimonau, V., Krivcova, M., Pettit, F., 2019. ‘An exploratory study of managerial ap-
proaches to food waste mitigation in coffee shops’ (Available at). Int. J. Hosp. Manag.,
76(Part A) 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.010
Fleith de Medeiros, J., et al., 2022. ‘Success factors for environmentally sustainable
product innovation: an updated review’ (Available at). J. Clean. Prod. 345, 131039.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131039
Gadde, L.-E., Amani, P., 2016. ‘Food supply in a network context - an alternative framing
and managerial consequences in efforts to prevent food waste’ (Available at). Br.
Food J. 118 (6), 1407–1421. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2015-0401
M. Thorsen, T. Croad, T. Vincent et al.
Garrone, P., et al., 2016. ‘Reducing food waste in food manufacturing companies’
(Available at). J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1076–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2016.07.145
Ghinoi, S., Silvestri, F., Steiner, B., 2020a. ‘The role of local stakeholders in disseminating
knowledge for supporting the circular economy: a network analysis approach’
(Available at). Ecol. Econ. 169, 106446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.
106446
Ghinoi, S., Silvestri, F., Steiner, B., 2020b. ‘Toward the creation of novel food waste
management systems: a network approach’ (Available at). J. Clean. Prod. 246,
118987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118987
Gokarn, S., Choudhary, A., 2021. ‘Modeling the key factors influencing the reduction of
food loss and waste in fresh produce supply chains’ (Available at). J. Environ. Manag.
294, 113063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113063
Goodman-Smith, F., et al., 2021. ‘Retail potential for upcycled foods: evidence from New
Zealand’ (Available at). Sustainability 13 (5), 2624. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13052624
Goyal, S., Garg, D., Luthra, S., 2022. ‘Analyzing critical success factors to adopt sus-
tainable consumption and production linked with circular economy’ (Available at).
Environ., Dev. Sustain. 24 (4), 5195–5224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-
01655-y
Grimm, J.H., Hofstetter, J.S., Sarkis, J., 2014. ‘Critical factors for sub-supplier manage-
ment: A sustainable food supply chains perspective’ (Available at). Int. J. Prod. Econ.
152, 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.011
Håkansson, H., Snehota, I., 1995. Developing Relationships In Business Networks.
Routledge, London (Available at). 〈https://www.impgroup.org/uploads/books/0-
415-11570-1.pdf〉.
Hanson, C. and Mitchell, P. (2017) The business case for reducing food loss and waste. A
report on behalf of Champions 12.3. NL: Champions 12.3, p. 24. Available at:
〈https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2020–08/business-case-for-reducing-
food-loss-and-waste.pdf〉 (Accessed: 3 August 2020).
Kaibosh Food Rescue (date unknown) Kaibosh Food Rescue. Available at: 〈https://www.
kaibosh.org.nz/〉 (Accessed: 16 October 2020).
Kaipia, R., Dukovska‐Popovska, I., Loikkanen, L., 2013. ‘Creating sustainable fresh food
supply chains through waste reduction’ (Available at). Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. 43 (3), 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2011-0200
Kumar, S., Preetha, G., 2012. ‘Health promotion: an effective tool for global health’
(Available at). Indian J. Community Med.: Off. Publ. Indian Assoc. Prev. Soc. Med. 37
(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.94009
Lim, V., et al., 2017. ‘Designing for action: An evaluation of Social Recipes in reducing
food waste’ (Available at). Int. J. Hum. -Comput. Stud. 100, 18–32. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.12.005
Long, T.B., Looijen, A., Blok, V., 2018. ‘Critical success factors for the transition to
business models for sustainability in the food and beverage industry in the
Netherlands’ (Available at). J. Clean. Prod. 175, 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.11.067
Luke, D.A., et al., 2014. ‘The program sustainability assessment tool: a new instrument for
public health programs’ (Available at). Prev. Chronic Dis. 11. https://doi.org/10.
5888/pcd11.130184
Luthra, S., et al., 2018. ‘Modelling critical success factors for sustainability initiatives in
supply chains in Indian context using Grey-DEMA℡’ (Available at). Prod. Plan.
Control 29 (9), 705–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1448126
Makhal, A., et al., 2020. “I don’t like wonky carrots”- an exploration of children’s per-
ceptions of suboptimal fruits and vegetables’ (Available at). J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
54, 101945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101945
Ministry for the Environment (2022) Te hau mārohi ki anamata. Towards a productive,
sustainable and inclusive economy: Aotearoa New Zealand’s first emissions reduction
plan. ME 1639. NZ: NZ Government, p. 348. Available at: 〈https://environment.govt.
nz/publications/aotearoa-new-zealands-first-emissions-reduction-plan/〉 (Accessed:
18 July 2022).
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (date unknown) Food quantity label-
ling requirements and exemptions. Available at: 〈https://trademeasurement.
tradingstandards.govt.nz/for-business/packaging-andor-selling-goods-by-quantity/
food-quantity-labelling-requirements-and-exemptions/〉 (Accessed: 27 October
2022).
Ministry of Primary Industry (date unknown) Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures.
Available at: 〈https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-rural-support/sustainable-food-
fibre-futures/〉 (Accessed: 18 July 2022).
Moktadir, Md.A., et al., 2020. ‘Critical success factors for a circular economy: Implications
for business strategy and the environment’ (Available at). Bus. Strategy Environ. 29
(8), 3611–3635. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2600
Neubig, C.M., et al., 2020. ‘Action-related information trumps system information:
Influencing consumers’ intention to reduce food waste’ (Available at). J. Clean. Prod.
261, 121126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121126
New Zealand Food Network (date unknown) New Zealand Food Network. Available at:
〈https://www.nzfoodnetwork.org.nz/s/?language=en_US〉 (Accessed: 31 October
2022).
New Zealand Food Waste Champions 12.3 (2022) Kai Commitment: An agreement be-
tween leading food businesses to reduce food waste and related emissions across
11
Cleaner Waste Systems 3 (2022) 100059
Aotearoa New Zealand’s food value chain. Available at: 〈https://kaicommitment.org.
nz/〉 (Accessed: 7 November 2022).
New Zealand Food Waste Champions 12.3 (date unknown) NZ Food Waste Champions 12.
3: He taonga te kai – an Aotearoa where food is valued, not wasted. Available at:
〈https://www.nzchampions123.org〉 (Accessed: 14 February 2022).
Niesten, E., et al., 2017. Sustainable collaboration: the impact of governance and in-
stitutions on sustainable performance. J. Clean. Prod. 155 (Part 2), 1–6 Available at:
https://doi.ohttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.085rg/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2016.12.085https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.085.
Papargyropoulou, E., et al., 2014. ‘The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the
management of food surplus and food waste’ (Available at). J. Clean. Prod. 76,
106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020
Parliamentary Council Office (2021) Food Act 2014 version as at 28 October 2021.
Available at: 〈https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0032/latest/whole.
html〉 (Accessed: 23 June 2022).
Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P., 1987. ‘Critical factors in successful project implementation’
(Available at). IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., EM- 34 (1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TEM.1987.6498856
Plant & Food Research (date unknown) A smart green future. Together. Available at:
〈https://www.plantandfood.com/en-nz/〉 (Accessed: 18 July 2022).
Pluye, P., Potvin, L., Denis, J.-L., 2004. ‘Making public health programs last: con-
ceptualizing sustainability’ (Available at). Eval. Program Plan. 27 (2), 121–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.01.001
Purcidonio, P., Grillo, N., Alarcão, V., 2020. ‘Critical success factors in integrating sus-
tainability with quality: The case of a food and beverage company’. Braz. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag. 17 (2). https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2020.019
Qi, D., et al., 2022. ‘Winning ugly: Profit maximizing marketing strategies for ugly foods’
(Available at). J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 64, 102834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2021.102834
Reynolds, C., et al., 2019. ‘Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions
– what works and how to design better interventions’ (Availableat). Food Policy 83,
7–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.01.009
Rockart, J., 1979. ‘Chief executives define their own data needs’. Harv. Bus. Rev. 57 (2),
81–93.
Rogers, E., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed..,. The Free Press,, New York.
Rösler, F., Kreyenschmidt, J., Ritter, G., 2021. ‘Recommendation of good practice in the
food-processing industry for preventing and handling food loss and waste’ (Available
at). Sustainability 13 (17), 9569. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179569
Scheirer, M.A., Dearing, J.W., 2011. ‘An agenda for research on the sustainability of
public health programs’ (Available at). Am. J. Public Health 101 (11), 2059–2067.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300193
Schell, S.F., et al., 2013. ‘Public health program capacity for sustainability: a new fra-
mework’ (Available at). Implement. Sci. 8 (1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-
5908-8-15
Shediac-Rizkallah, M.C., Bone, L.R., 1998. ‘Planning for the sustainability of community-
based health programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research,
practice and policy’ (Available at). Health Educ. Res. 13 (1), 87–108. https://doi.org/
10.1093/her/13.1.87
Simpson, D.D., 2011. ‘A framework for implementing sustainable oral health promotion
interventions’ (Available at). J. Public Health Dent. 71 (s1), S84–S94. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00234.x
de Souza, M., et al., 2021. ‘A digitally enabled circular economy for mitigating food
waste: Understanding innovative marketing strategies in the context of an emerging
economy’ (Available at). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 173, 121062. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121062
United Nations (2019) Sustainable development goals. The sustainable development
agenda. Available at: 〈https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-
agenda/〉 (Accessed: 10 June 2019).
United Nations (date unknown) Sustainable development goals. Goal 12: Ensure sus-
tainable consumption and production patterns. Available at: 〈https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/〉 (Accessed: 27 June
2022).
University of Otago (2020) Food waste innovation – Auahatanga parakai. Available at:
〈https://www.otago.ac.nz/food-science/research/food-waste.html〉 (Accessed: 30
November 2020).
Vincent, T., Croad, T., 2021. Food waste reduction roadmap: mapping out solutions for
food waste reduction at each stage of the food supply chain. NZ: NZ Champions 12.3,
61. (Available at). 〈https://www.nzchampions123.org/_files/ugd/d3213e_
e626bfcedbae44c5b081a90651a6d427.pdf〉.
Wiltsey Stirman, S., et al., 2012. ‘The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a
review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research’
(Available at). Implement. Sci. 7 (1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-17
Xu, D.Y., et al., 2016. ‘Perceived key elements of a successful residential food waste
sorting program in urban apartments: stakeholder views’ (Available at). J. Clean.
Prod. 134, 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.107
Yang, N.-H.N., et al., 2021. ‘The “3CE2CE” framework—change management towards a
circular economy: Opportunities for agribusiness’ (Available at). Circ. Econ. Sustain.
1 (2), 697–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00057-6