See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284435589

The use of web-based technology as an emerging option for food waste

reduction

Conference Paper · November 2015

DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-820-9_15

CITATIONS READS
17 1,153

2 authors:

Chiara Corbo Fabio Fraticelli

Politecnico di Milano Università Politecnica delle Marche
19 PUBLICATIONS 192 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CIVITAS - Urbino's Palazzo Ducale project View project

content marketing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chiara Corbo on 22 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The use of web-based technology as an emerging option
for food waste reduction

C. Corbo1 and F. Fraticelli2. 1Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli, 1, 20123
Milano. 2Università Politecnica delle Marche, Piazzale R. Martelli 8, 60121 Ancona (Italy) and
Università della Svizzera Italiana, Via Giuseppe Buffi 13, 6900 Lugano (Switzerland).
Corresponding email: f.fraticelli@univpm.it

Abstract
In recent years web technologies have been enabling new ways for reducing the food waste by
enhancing unexplored connections between donors and beneficiaries of food commodities. In this
context, the aim of this paper is to introduce a framework that can serve as a basis for identifying
best technology practices for food waste management. As an explorative example, the framework
is applied to 8 Italian IT platforms. This paper fosters the understanding of the implication of
technology in pushing for emerging models in the food chain organizations, in terms of roles and
policies.

Keywords
innovation, food chain, food banks, web platforms, efficiency of food chains

Introduction
Every year, whilst about four billion metric tonnes of food per annum is produced, about 30%-
50% of this is lost along the overall food supply chain (Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
2013), from the production to the consumption stage. In addition, significant quantities of
resources (as land, water, energy, soil and organic matter) are lost in the production of food that
will be never consumed, as well as the huge amount of economic resources invested in food
production (estimated in USD 1 trillion each year, FAO 2014, Beretta et al, 2013) and
consumption (Buzby et al., 2012). Food losses have significant environmental burden also
because of landfill disposal and consequent greenhouse gases emissions (Adhikari et al., 2006).
Food poverty and food waste are symbols of inequalities and inefficiencies of our contemporary
food systems (Midgley, 2014): with the world’s population anticipated to reach 8 billion people
by 2025, this quantity of wastage is unacceptable for moral, ethical, health, environmental, social
and economic reasons (Williams et al., 2015).
Generally, the term "food loss" refers to a decrease in mass or nutrition value of food that was
originally intended for human consumption (Grolleaud, 2002). Food losses can occur at different
point in the Food Supply Chain (FSC), from the raw materials production to household
consumption (Figure 1). Food losses occurring at the end of the food chain are rather call "food
waste": they are related to retailers’ and consumers’ behaviours (Parfitt et al., 2010; Gustavsson
et al., 2011). Although food losses in industrialized countries are as high as in developing
countries, in developing countries food losses occur mainly at post-harvest and processing levels
(due to lack of proper technologies for food storage and logistic in the developing countries, often
in combination with extreme climatic conditions), while in industrialized countries, more than
40% of the food losses occur at retail and consumer levels (Gustavvson et al., 2011).
How food waste can be reduced? According to the “food waste hierarchy” (Papargyroupoulou et
al., 2014), the first strategy to reduce food waste should be obviously the prevention of food
surplus creation (for example, improving the demand planning and retailing, using price
promotions for foods slightly damaged or nearing expiry). Once food surplus has been created, it
can be managed in several ways: it can be re-used for human consumption and, when it is no
more possible to recover it for this purpose, it can be used to feed animals or in industrial
processing or composting. Finally, food products that are not recovered must be disposed of as
waste (incineration of in landfills) (Garrone et al., 2013).
The re-using for human consumption is the preferred option: this generally is done collecting
surplus food from the fields, from manufacturing companies, from food service providers for
distribution to the needy, through redistribution network and “food banks” (Garrone et al., 2013).
Particularly, Food Banks are considered as a key frontline response to the growing problem of
food poverty in first world societies through food redistribution. Even before “organizations”, the
Food Banks are a redistribution model of surplus food. In fact, Food Banks have basically a
“matching” role within the food chain: they reduce food waste by linking charitable organizations
to other players of the food chain. A part from donation to food banks, however, few studies
provide a quantitative representation of different alternatives to re-use food for human
consumption. Some authors (e.g.: Beretta et al., 2013) suggest, for example, donations between
consumers when an excessive quantity of food has been bought or prepared.
In recent years, technology has been enabling new ways for reducing the food waste by
enhancing a peer-to-peer connection between givers and beneficiaries of food. Social networks,
mobile apps, websites, etc. can be used as an efficient way to reduce waste and fight hunger. And
they actually are: in the last three years, both in Europe and abroad, it has been increasing the
number of technology solutions for food donation, exchange or selling between consumers,
farmers and retailers. Smartphone applications as LeftoverSwap, online communities as
CropMobster and websites as foodsharing.de are increasingly connecting consumers, farmers,
shops, restaurants and consumers to share, exchange or buy (at a special price) surplus food, with
the main goal to reduce food waste and, in some cases, to fight hunger. Also in Italy this
emerging trend can be recognised, with several mobile apps and websites allowing or facilitating
food sharing, food donation and, in some cases, the sale of products close to the expiry date.
Figure 1 - Food chain steps and players

Adapted from Beretta et al., 2013; Lipinski et al., 2013; Garrone et al., 2014

Since this phenomenon is still at an emerging phase, we decided to use an explorative

methodology to address the topic and figure out the main occurring trends.

Method
This study is based on the analysis of web and mobile platforms for food waste reduction
currently operating in the Italian market.
Following the principle of theoretical sampling (Mayan, 2009; Santos & Eisenhardt, 2005), we
have selected a portion of the full set of Italian platforms that, according to our analysis, represent
the "best" examples in technology for food waste reduction.
The sample was builded by using a snowball approach (Goodman, L. A. 1961; Noy, C., 2008).
Since technology for food waste reduction is a recent and innovative topic, we started to build our
sample by analysing the start-ups listed in "WHOISWHO" registry holded by ItaliaStartup
Association (http://www.italiastartup.it/whoiswho/), a permanent observatory on the Italian
innovation ecosystem sustained by the Italian Ministry of Economic Development.
At the time of the analysis (May, 6th, 2015), the total number of listed start-ups was 3481. Among
these, 664 were involved in IT services and had an operating website suitable to be used in order
to gather valuable information for our research. Since none of these start-ups resulted to be
involved into the development of web or mobile platforms for food waste reduction, we used a
search engine to obtain a list of popular technology currently recognized as valuable for our
research. Thanks to this approach, we finally came to a list of 8 different web and mobile
platforms suitable to be included in our analysis.
The data for our analysis were therefore collected from the official websites of each platform.
They were collected in the primary language of the website: only 1 website was analysed in
English, while the rest in Italian. In the end we downloaded, read and analysed 38 pages from the
official websites (incl. texts, images, snapshots and links to embedded videos, downloadable
documents etc.).
In order to address the impact of web and mobile technology on food waste management, we
wanted to understand how each company addresses and explains their value proposition in their
own words (Thompson, 1997), namely which categories they use "naturally" when they tell their
own story to the stakeholders.
In the analysis of the secondary data (every type of the contents incl. texts, images, videos on
official websites) we used a qualitative approach to obtain a thick description of the platforms.
The data were analysed using latent and manifest content analysis (Mayan, 2009) via selective
and open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Empirical application: the Italian example

As an empirical illustration, we tested a framework aimed at describing the main characteristics
of eight web-sites and mobile technologies (namely, IT platforms) enabling food waste reduction
in the in the distribution and consumption stage. These IT platforms are delivered by eight
different organizations (private or non-profit) and are well established (in terms of general
awareness) in the Italian market. The list of products was retrieved by using the above-mentioned
methodology and is summarized in Table 1. This data set is obviously limited and the analysis
should therefore be considered as an illustration rather than as a test of the validity of the
framework. In this paragraph, we first explore the framework dimensions separately and then
describe a number of categories falling out of the data when we combine all the dimensions.

Table 1 - Analysed sample

Platform Short description

1. Ratatouille Food-share app. Users are able upload a description and pictures of the
unwanted perishables, allowing residents meet up with others in the
 community to pick it up.
Type: app (iOS)
http://www.ratatouille-app.com/

2. MyFoody E-commerce geolocalized platform, allowing retailers and producers to sell

products that risk to be wasted (closed to the expiry date, slightly damaged
or with aesthetic defects). Consumers can book and buy products, that are
taken at the selling point
Type: website
http://www.myfoody.it/

3. FameZero App and website aiming to facilitate food donations from people,
organizations or public institutions to NPOs working in the field of food
collection and redistribution. Between the “Donors” and the “Food
collecting point”, the “Angels” work in the name of and on behalf of
FameZero, to collect food.
Type: mobile app (iOS and Android)
www.famezero.com

4. Last Minute “Last-minute” marketplace for surplus products, connecting groceries and
sotto casa shops with consumers. An “alert” is received on the consumer's’
smartphone every time a shop is selling food at a special price near the
consumer’s area.
Type: website
www.lastminutesottocasa.it

5. Breading A digital platform that allows the redistribution of surplus food, connecting
food services (restaurants, cafès, take-aways and bakeries) with NPOs
working in the field of food redistribution. The NPOs, thank to a
geolocation service integrated in the mobile app, can monitor "alerts"
launched by retailers.
Type: website and mobile app
http://breading.foundation/

6. Bring The Crowdsourcing web/mobile application that allows donors to seamlessly

Food publish offers and easily coordinate collections.
Type: mobile app (Android)
http://www.bringfood.org/public/landing?locale=it

7. iFoodShare Web platform allowing the food redistribution and share. Consumers,
retailers, shops, groceries, bakeries and farmers can use the platform to
distribute surplus food.
Type: website
http://ifoodshare.org/

8. S-Cambia Web-platform allowing the food donation between consumers, food

Cibo services and organizations. The food is photographed and posted on the
 website by the donor, hence it appears on the map; keepers can privately
contact the donor to arrange the appointment.
Type: website
http://www.scambiacibo.it/

With regard to “transaction approach”, we studied the food transfer criteria mentioned in each
platform website. Six platforms (Ratatouille, Fame Zero, Breading, Bring The Food, IFoodShare
and Scambia Cibo) offered full functionalities to let users to communicate the food surplus they
have, in order to let other users to take that food without giving back anything. In other terms,
these platforms had a clear “donation” approach. One platform (Last Minute Market sotto casa)
let point of sales to use a SMS to communicate their surplus to end-users that signed up the
platform. These users went to the shop and bought food at a discounted price. This platform was
clearly sale-oriented.
One platform (MyFoody) was a marketplace in which point of sales can sell products at a
discounted price. Consumers could buy food at a low price and take it directly from the reseller.
This platform was considerable a “second market” and, therefore, it was profit and sale oriented
under this perspective. However, at the same time, this platform let users donate part of their shop
to NPOs, and was therefore partially donation-oriented. We considered this platform as an
“hybrid” one: mostly oriented to a sale approach but - at the same time - ready to host end-users
with a selfless spirit.
Surprisingly, we did not find any platform expressly aimed at a food exchange (food for food).
With regards to the type of actors involved into the food transaction, we analysed the type of
users that are mainly targeted by each platform. Being originated by the idea of “matching”, all
these IT solutions need two main types of actors in order to be successful: “givers” on one side
and “takers” on the other one. While takers are only placed in the consumption stage of the food
chain, according to our analysis, givers can be players positioned both at the consumption stage,
at the distribution stage and at the food services stage.
In order to simplify the analysis, we divided givers into two main clusters: “business givers”
(distributors or food service providers) and “customers givers” (households).
Three out of eight platforms (MyFoody, Last Minute Market sotto casa and Breading) are
designed in order to let business actors to give food surplus to external customers. In these cases,
players are provided with specific functions aimed at mass communicating their surplus, in order
to redistribute it among different players of the “consumption stage”.
Three platforms (Ratatouille, Bring the food and Scambiacibo) are clearly targeted to “customers
givers”. These platforms are really similar each other: in the first case, users can share their extra
food with other users and give out their surplus, while in the second case, households can share
some amount of food surplus (in terms of quantity and type) with other users. Two platforms
(FameZero and IFood Share) are mostly oriented to Business Givers (municipalities or
institutions, restaurants and shops) as well as to households.
The last dimension that we took into account in our analysis was the existence of a “mediator”
involved into the food transaction. As introduced in the first paragraph, food chains are including
new types of actors that are aimed at redistributing food within players that rely at different
stages of the chain. Some examples of these actors are food banks, NPOs and NGOs that take
care of food surplus in order to feed indigents. While all the analysed platforms consider
customers as takers of food surplus, some of them are aimed at providing mediators with food in
order to let them to feed customers. In particular, two of them (FameZero and Breading) are
designed in order to include mediators (NPOs or other users within the platform) in their own
operations.

Results and discussion

In the empirical setting of this paper, we successfully implemented a framework for the
classification of technologies for food waste reduction. The applied framework aimed at
describing how - thanks to technology - food surplus is redistributed among players at different
stages of the food chain and is based on three dimensions: “transaction approach” (free or paid
food transaction); “type of actors” involved as “givers” in the transaction (business or
consumers); “existence of a mediator” within the transaction.
The framework was able to correctly and exhaustively describe several platforms, as mentioned
in the Table 2.

Table 2 - IT Platforms for food waste management: the Italian case

IT Platform Type of Type of Type of Mediator Approach
Transaction Givers

1. Ratatouille Donation Households None 2

2. MyFoody Mostly Sale Businesses None 3

3. FameZero Donation Hybrid Peers 1 and 2

4. Last Minute sotto Sale Businesses None 3

casa

5. Breading Donation Businesses NPOs 1

6. Bring The Food Donation Households None 2

7. iFoodShare Donation Hybrid None 1 and 2

8. Scambia Cibo Donation Households None 2

Thanks to the classification of different platforms made through the framework, we are now able
to distinguish among different emerging options in food waste reduction.
The first one, is made of the platforms that have a “donation-oriented” transaction approach and
that need a qualified mediator (an NPO) to conclude those transactions. These platform have a
potential huge impact on redistribution networks, since they are able to quickly reallocate food
surplus among charities listed in the platform: even a small number of business users, therefore,
can potentially feed a huge number of indigents through the partnership with NPOs. At the same
time, the safety of food is guaranteed by the type of givers (business) and the type of mediators
(NPOs) that bring the food to end-customers. The platforms of this category are considerable
“quasi-food-banks”. Even if only for specific types of food, their technology is in fact aimed at
linking charity organizations and professional donors.
The second approach arises when givers are households and mediators are absent or peers. In this
case, a big dilemma arises: at one hand, micro-transactions of food can happen between a great
number of users, and can potentially feed a huge number of indigents of a very different type as
well as rich people (we therefore call this approach “food sharing technology”). At the other
hand, there is no control on food safety. Since a qualified mediator is missing, food takers are not
completely aware of food quality, and this is potential treat for them. This issue, is partially
reduced when donors are “businesses”, but an attention for food safety is needed.
The third approach is represented by all the platforms that enhance the development of a
secondary market for food surplus distribution. In this case, the food safety is guaranteed by the
type of giver (a business player) and the food surplus is redistributed in a network that is
forbidden to NPOs and Food Banks. Since the food surplus is transferred in exchange for money,
the poorest layers among indigents have not access to the system. Under this point of view, those
kinds of platform are “elitary”. They reduce food waste but are not able to increase food
fungibility by feeding hungry poor.
The analysis of the distribution of platforms on different categories is very helpful to highlight
some implications for this research. First of all, the food unsafety is a concrete issue that must be
taken into consideration by authorities for health and hygiene control. Under this point of view
there is room for an enrichment of the existing legislation in terms of food preservation. At the
same time, it can be argued that redistribution networks and the food chain itself could be
potentially affected - in terms of design - by this kind of technology. The degree of centrality and
the role of food banks, as well as of NPOs, could be rethought at the light of this technology.
These options, indeed, can be seen as effective tools to prevent food waste, allowing the
community to organize a food surplus redistribution model by themselves in a quick and simple
way. At the same time, some concerns arise. The more IT platform are oriented to “sharing”, the
less people have to prove they are needy (as for food banks access). Of course, people with little
money use it more, but this is not a needed condition to use it. This situation is not an issue itself,
but affects the degree of equity in food surplus distribution. At the same time, the shift from a
“non-profit” to a “profit” business model for food surplus management has a deep impact in the
efficiency and efficacy of waste management, in terms of food availability, redistribution
networks’ roles and composition.

Conclusions
This paper was a first attempt to offer a framework for a systematic recognition of different
technology options for food waste reduction. Our study showed that IT-platforms for food waste
prevention are really increasing nowadays, and that a diversified plethora of solutions is already
available on the market. Even if they are a concrete and helpful solution to food surplus
management and waste prevention, the more these IT platforms are successful, the more potential
threats and issues arise: the risk for an elitism in “technology access” and food transactions poses
the problem for effectively hunger facing, while the bypass for traditional mediators (like food
banks or NPOs) requires for an adapting of food safety norms and laws.
Under this perspective, this research was helpful to identify a new research agenda on this topic:
in order to generalize the evidences of this research, and therefore overcome the limits of this
paper, new examples of IT platforms must be analysed in order to test the validity of the
presented framework on different cultural context and at different stages of the food chain.
 References

Adhikari, B.K., Barrington, S., Martinez, J. (2006). Predicted growth of world urban food waste
and methane production. Waste Manag. Res. 24 (5): 421-433.
Beretta C., Stoessel F., Baier U., Hellweg S. (2013). Quantifying food losses and the potential
for reduction in Switzerland. Waste Management 33:764-773.
Buzby J., Hyman J. (2012). Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States. Food
Policy, 37(5): 561-570.
FAO (2014). Food Wastage Footprint. Full-cost accounting. Final Report. Available at
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3991e.pdf
Garrone P., Melacini M., Perego A. (2013). Feed the hungry. The potential of surplus food
recovery. Fondazione per la sussidiarietà, Milano, Italy, 245 pp.
Garrone P., Melacini M., Perego A. (2014). Surplus food recovery and donation in Italy: the
upstream process. British Food Journal, 116(9): 460 - 1477.
Grolleaud, M. (2002) Post-harvest losses: discovering the full story. Overview of the
phenomenon of losses during the post-harvest system. Rome, Italy: FAO, Agro Industries and
Post-Harvest Management Service.
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics, 148-170.
Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) (2013). Global Food: Waste not, Want not.
IMechE, London, UK.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A. (2011). Global Food
Losses and Food Waste. Extent, Causes and Prevention. Rome.
Lipinski, B., Hanson C., Lomax J., Kitinoja L., Waite R., Searchinger T. (2013). Reducing Food
Loss and Waste. Working Paper, Installment 2 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future.
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at
http://www.worldresourcesreport.org.
Mayan, M.J. (2009) Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Left Coast Press.
Midgley J.L. (2014). The logics of surplus food redistribution. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 57 (12): 1872-1892.
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative
research. International Journal of social research methodology,11(4), 327-344.
Papargyropoulou E., Lozano R., Steinberger J.K., Wright N., bin Ujang Z. (2014). The food
waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of
Cleaner Production 76:106-115.
Parfitt J., Barthel M., Macnaughton S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chain:
quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences 365(1554): 3065-3081.
Santos, F. M., Kathleen M. E. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization.
Organization science 16(5): 491-508.
Thompson, C. J. (1997). Interpreting consumers: a hermeneutical framework for deriving
marketing insights from the texts of consumers’ consumption stories. Journal of Marketing
Research: 438–455.
Williams I.D., Schneider F., Syversen F. (2015). The “food waste challenge” can be solved.
Waste Management (in press).

View publication stats