Paper 1

Reducing Food Loss and Waste in Supply Chain Operations -
The Impact of Government Intervention and Consumer

Behaviour
Na Luo
A thesis submitted
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in Operations and Supply Chain
Management, the University of
Auckland, 2022.
The University of
Auckland 2022
Copyright © 2022 by Na Luo
All Rights Reserved
ii
ABSTRACT
Food loss and waste (FLW) in the food supply chain (FSC) represents a significant
challenge for researchers and practitioners grappling with issues of famine and
inequitable access to food supplies. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused
a global economic downturn and serious food crises. The combination of movement
restrictions, lockdown policies, and international trade closures makes the pandemic an
acute threat and challenge to food systems. Therefore, FLW reduction has emerged as
a critical objective for the world.
Historically, operations management scholars have paid less attention to FLW
reduction in contrast to other streams of research in FSC management. This thesis
focuses on how to reduce FLW in FSC operations. Focusing on the interactions between
consumers, food suppliers, and governments, we examine two specific issues related to
FLW reduction: reducing FLW from the food supplier end and the consumer end,
respectively. In particular, we investigate the impact of government intervention and
consumer behaviour on FLW reduction in the context of COVID-19. To analyse the
incentives that promote food suppliers to reduce FLW, we build models and employ the
approaches of case study and optimisation. To investigate how certain consumer traits
impact FLW, we conducted a qualitative and longitudinal study, spanning three periods
in New Zealand.
This thesis first constructs a conceptual framework to analyse FLW within FSCs
from the perspective of operations management. This framework helps to
iii
comprehensively understand FLW occurrence and thus stimulate research focusing on
FLW from different perspectives. Then optimisation models are formulated to identify
the role of government interventions in preservation technology adoption and FLW
reduction by food suppliers. This work suggests concrete guidelines for an appropriate
mechanism that helps to reduce FLW. In particular, the extension models demonstrate
that unexpected price rises can harm the performance of FLW reduction. This result has
been further investigated from the consumer end in this thesis.
Four original papers have been included in the thesis. Paper I proposes a conceptual
framework to systematically examine FLW issues within FSCs, which helps to
comprehensively understand FLW occurrence in FSCs. Paper II presents a review of
research on FLW from the perspective of operations management. This research
provides insights into FLW studies from the lens of specific stages within the FSC and
from the perspective of the entire FSC, identifies overarching research themes, and
provides a projection of future research opportunities. Paper III formulates optimisation
models to identify the role of government interventions in preservation technology
adoption and food loss reduction by food suppliers. Paper IV investigates how certain
consumer traits impact household food waste, particularly in the face of external shocks,
which contributes to household FLW literature by providing a framework that integrates
external impacts, consumer segmentation to reflect on waste management, and the
possible applications of the proposed framework. Overall, this thesis provides
implications on FLW reduction in FSC operations.
iv
DEDICATION
To my parents and my aunties who love, support, and encourage me.
To my daughter and son who give their unconditional love to me.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Lots of emotions come to my mind at this moment, happy, thankful, and fortunate,
During the PhD study, I have gained much more than I could image.
First of all, I would highly appreciate and give my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor
Professor Tava Olsen. In my first year being PhD candidate, I had my first baby. I was
extremely stressful and afraid I could not be able to take the balance of my life and
research. During that tough period, Tava gave me very strong support and guidance
which helped me to overcome my postpartum depression. In the fourth year of my PhD
journey, I had my second baby by a surprise. I still remembered I wrote a very long
email to Tava and told her “I am pregnant”. Tava replied to me immediately with great
congratulations at that night, meanwhile, she planned everything for me, including the
extension for submission, the next research plan, and comforted me by telling me how
to balance my life and study. She is very encouraging and always supportive. Tava is
such a wonderful and brilliant supervisor, who can always find a solution for me when
I was stuck in my research. She taught me how to lead a course as an efficient tutor,
how to organise a research paper, and even how to communicate with journal editors. I
thought maybe I used up all my fortune so I could meet her. I am deeply indebted to her
for being my supervisor.
I would also like to thank Professor David Robb, my co-supervisor, who always
cares about me and provided me great helps with my life and research. He gave me lots
of valuable advice, shared his knowledge and network to me, and helped me to deeply
vi
understand my research questions. He always encouraged me and gave constructive
feedback on my research. I am very grateful to David Robb for his guidance both in
academic and practice. I would also like to thank Dr. Subhamoy Ganguly, who spent
lots of time discussing my research and provided me creative ideas. Also, I learned so
much from being the GTA of Subh’s course.
I also thank the staff in ISOM department for their always help and support. I
sincerely appreciate the colleagues those who attend our paper discussion meetings in
the Business School, University of Auckland. Especially, I enjoy the discussions with
my colleagues also my friends and I learned a lot from them, Xiaoyan Qian, Quan Zhou,
Shandong Mou, Mojtaba Mahdavi, Mahsa Boroushaki, and Tien Nguyen. I cherish this
experience in my PhD journey.
I would particularly thank my co-authors Abraham Zhang and Zhangwei Feng who
gave me lots of valuable comments and helped me to improve my research ability.
I am sincerely grateful for the financial support from the China Scholarship Council.
Finally, I would like to particularly thank my parents Hongfa Luo and Furong Ma,
and my auntie Hongying Ma who are helping me taking care of my babies, encouraging
me, and tolerating my bad mood sometimes. I would also like to give my sincerest
appreciation to my best friends Hongyu Xu, Jiahe Wu, and Xiaolei Chen who always
encourage me and accompany with me during my ups and downs. And I would like to
thank my kids, Keqing Liu and Zimo Liu, who make me strong with their unconditional
love.
vii
CONTENTS
Acknowlegement ............................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................xii
CHAPTER ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Research Motivation ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Theoretical Background ...................................................................................................... 5
2. Literature Review and Research Directions ......................................................................... 15
2.1 Motivation ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Review Methodology ........................................................................................................ 18
2.3 Sample Statistics ............................................................................................................... 20
2.4 Research Questions in FLW Studies ................................................................................. 22
2.5 Research Themes .............................................................................................................. 27
2.6 Future Research Directions ............................................................................................... 44
2.7 Brief Summary .................................................................................................................. 57
3. A Conceptual Framework to Analyse Food Loss and Waste within Food Supply Chains .. 59
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 59
3.2 Various Types of FSCs ..................................................................................................... 60
3.3 Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts of FLW ................................................... 62
3.4 FLW Occurrences and Possible Causes ............................................................................ 66
3.5 Measures to Reduce FLW in the Field of OM .................................................................. 74
3.6 Methodologies to Analyse FLW ....................................................................................... 76
3.7 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 82
4. The Strategic Preservation Technology Investment Decision to Reduce Food Loss: The
Role of Government Intervention – Basic Model ....................................................................... 83
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 83
4.2 Relevant Literature ............................................................................................................ 88
viii
4.3 Model Description and Assumptions ................................................................................ 90
4.4 Basic Model ...................................................................................................................... 96
4.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 114
5. The Strategic Preservation Technology Investment Decision to Reduce Food Loss: The
Role of Government Intervention - Extension Models ............................................................. 117
5.1 Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 117
5.2 Extension 1 – Integrated Subsidy and Carbon Emissions Tax Policy............................. 118
5.3 Extension 2 – Proportional PT Investment Decision ...................................................... 123
5.4 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 134
5.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 136
6. Food Supply Chain Waste Reduction in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Study of
New Zealand Consumers .......................................................................................................... 138
6.1 Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 138
6.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 140
6.3 Method ............................................................................................................................ 144
6.4 Findings........................................................................................................................... 151
6.5 Implications..................................................................................................................... 163
6.6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 166
7. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 168
7.1. Summary of this thesis ................................................................................................... 168
7.2 Contributions................................................................................................................... 170
7.3 Future directions and limitations ..................................................................................... 171
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 173
A Appendix for Chapter 3...................................................................................................... 173
B Appendix for Chapters 4 and 5........................................................................................... 183
C Appendix for Chapter 6 ...................................................................................................... 184
D Appendix – Ethics Approval .............................................................................................. 185
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 187
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Phases to Develop This thesis……………………………………………………..5
1.2 Food Loss and Waste Defined…………………………………………………….11
2.1 Literature Selection Process……………………………………………………....19
2.2 Count of Papers by Year…………………………………………………………..20
2.3 Distribution of Articles in the Review Pool……………………………………….21
2.4 The Distribution of Methods Employed…………………………………………..22
2.5 The Structure of the Research Themes…………………………………………....30
2.6 Studies Applying Deterministic Optimisation at the Production Stage…………...39
2.7 Distribution of the Interviewees…………………………………………………..44
2.8 Future Directions for FLW Research……………………………………………..46
3.1 A Brief Framework to Analyse FLW Problems within FSCs…………………….59
3.2 An Illustration for FSCs Categorisation…………………………………………..62
3.3 FLW Occurrences and Possible Causes in FSC Stages……………………………67
3.4 Avoidable FLW Generation Causes………………………………………………70
3.5 Traditional Mode and Possible FLW Occurrence…………………………………71
3.6 Wholesale Market Mode and Possible FLW Occurrence………………………....72
3.7 Supermarket Mode and Possible FLW Occurrence……………………………….73
3.8 Internet Retail Mode and Possible FLW Occurrence……………………………..74
3.9 Studies Applying Qualitative Research…………………………………………...77
3.10 Studies Applying Empirical Analysis…………………………………………...78
x
4.1 The Impact of Government Intervention on PT Investment……………………..112
5.1 The Sequence of the Events……………………………………………………..122
6.1 Consumer Segmentation Profiling and Application……………………………..141
6.2 Household FW Behaviour Analysis……………………………………………..142
6.3 A framework of Investigating Behavioural Changes……………………………148
6.4 Preliminary Conceptual Model of Consumer Segmentation…………………….151
6.5 Key Findings of Stage 2 Exploration…………………………………………….160
6.6 A Refined Conceptual Model of Consumer Segmentation………………………161
xi
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Comparison of the Terms FSC, Food Value Chain, Food System, Food
Chain………………………………………………….……………………………….6
1.2 Comparison of Food Loss and Food Waste……………………………………….10
1.3 The Chapter Outline of the Thesis………………………………………..……….14
2.1 Research Questions in Specific FSC Stages……………………………………....23
2.2 Research Questions from the Perspective of the Entire FSC……………………..24
2.3 The Identified Research Themes from Text Mining……………………………....28
2.4 Measures to Reduce FLW by Process and Supply Chain Design…………………34
2.5 Root-cause Analysis……………………………………………………………... 37
2.6 Topics Identified in Studies on Distribution Channels…………………………....40
2.7 Summary of Interview Findings…………………………………………..............45
6.1 Outline of the Two Studies in This Thesis……………………………………….144
6.2 Key Findings of Stage 1 Exploration…………………………………………….153
6.3 Behavioural Change Modes of Spendthrift Consumers…………………………155
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Motivation
Despite considerable inroads being made in the reduction of worldwide hunger, almost
690 million people, or 8.9 percent of the world’s population, were deemed
undernourished (Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO], 2020a), and 135 million
people were identified with severe food shortages in 2019 (The World Food Program,
2020). More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a significant global
economic downturn and serious food crises (FAO, 2020b). The combination of
movement restrictions, lockdown policies, and international trade closures makes the
pandemic an acute threat and challenge to food systems (FAO, 2020b), particularly in
relation to the availability of, and disruptions to, food supplies and the overall
uncertainty surrounding food demand (FAO, 2020c). Amidst these increasing concerns,
“Save food” and “Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction” have been
highlighted as global initiatives (FAO, 2021).
Therefore, food loss and waste (FLW) reduction has emerged as a critical objective
for the world (Hamilton and Richards, 2019); in addition, it makes direct contributions
to achieving the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals No.2 (zero hunger)
and No.12 (responsible consumption and production) (United Nations, 2022). Fifty-
nine international organisations are working on FLW reduction worldwide (Foodbank,
2016), and national and international agencies have made significant effort towards and
commitments to FLW reduction over the past decade. For example, in 2016, New
1
Zealand conducted the action – “Love Food Hate Waste” to help people reduce food
waste. In 2019, to highlight the importance of FLW reduction, the 74th United Nations
General Assembly designated 29 September as the International Day of Awareness of
Food Loss and Waste (United Nations, 2021). Italy, Japan, and China promulgated anti-
food waste laws and regulations in 2016, 2019, and 2021, respectively.
The FAO (2011) estimates that around 1.3 billion tons (valued at 1.2 trillion US
dollars) of edible food for human consumption is lost or wasted – enough to feed about
97% of the undernourished population (FAO, 2018). The United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP, 2021) estimates that around 931 million tons of food were wasted in
the downstream food supply chain (FSC) in 2019. Furthermore, lost or wasted food
consumes resources equivalent to almost one-third of available agricultural land,
freshwater, fertilisers, and pesticides used in production (FAO, 2018); it accounts for 8-
10% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, ranking as the third emitter after
China and the U.S. if considered as a country (FAO, 2015). FLW is also regarded as an
inefficiency within the FSC (Corrado and Sala, 2018). According to Govindan (2018),
23% of FLW could be reduced by more effective FSC management methods. FLW
reduction is increasingly regarded as central to FSC management (Kourmentza et al.,
2018).
FLW occurs for many reasons, among which spoilage is a key factor (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 2022). Worldwide, around 20% of food lost due to spoilage
occurring upstream in FSCs during production, post-harvest handling and storage,
transportation, processing, and distribution (Li et al., 2018). This spoilage accounts for
2
about 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions (United Nations, 2020), and over 85% of
greenhouse gas emissions from landfilled food wastage produced by FSCs (EPA, 2022).
Although perishability is an inherent characteristic of food products and widely
acknowledged to be responsible for spoilage, a shorter or limited shelf life caused by
inadequate facilities and technical malfunctions can also exacerbate the deterioration of
food products and increase food loss in the upper streams of FSCs (United Nations,
2020). FSC stakeholders are seeking to reduce food loss through innovative solutions
and the application of technologies (United Nations, 2022). In particular, preservation
technology plays a key role in reducing food loss by influencing the demand for and
deterioration rates of perishable food products, which may increase total profit (Yang
et al., 2019). The Profit Experts (2011) report that retail profit can be increased by as
much as 33% if preservation technology adoption reduces the food loss resulting from
deterioration by 20%.
Applying preservation technology to reduce deterioration rates and food loss has
been examined extensively in the perishable inventory management literature (Dye and
Yang, 2016). However, our literature review suggests that limited attention has been
given to the trade-offs between the benefits and costs of preservation technology
investment in reducing food loss in conjunction with government interventions on
preservation technology adoption to protect the environment.
Historically, Operations Management (OM) scholars have paid less attention to
FLW reduction in contrast to other streams of research in FSC management, such as
issues of traceability (e.g., Aung and Chang, 2014), network design (e.g., Yu and
3
Nagurney, 2013), and transportation and storage (e.g., Validi et al., 2014). However,
increasing concerns about the economic, moral, and environmental effects of FLW have
elevated the need to effectively reduce FLW by optimising the FSC and have amplified
the need to study FLW issues from an operational lens.
Finding the solutions to reduce the FLW in FSCs was the original motivation for
this research. Distinct from existing publications, my thesis focuses on the FLW issue
motivated by empirical studies (surveys and case studies). This method has been coined
as “relevance-driven” research which aims to identify practical needs and provides
insights into my studies to prove the significance of my research. Further, to develop
this thesis, three phases have been involved, shown in Figure 1.1. In phase 1, an
extensive literature has been reviewed to identify overarching research themes and
research gaps in the FLW related literature. Following the literature review, phase 2
constructs a conceptual framework to analyse FLW in FSCs which describes the
background of this thesis. . After understanding FLW in FSCs academically and
practically, studies focusing on the food waste at household level and food loss at the
food supplier end have been conducted to fill the research gaps and provide practical
implications.
4
Empirical research:
Survey & Case study
Motivation: The
importance of FLW
research
Figure 1.1: Phases to Develop This Thesis
1.2 Theoretical Background
The FLW literature uses a wide range of terms, sometimes inconsistently. For instance,
“food supply chain”, “food value chain”, “food system”, and “food chain” are all used
in the literature, sometimes synonymously (Östergren et al., 2014). Moreover, the
definition of, and the distinction between, food loss and food waste vary greatly in the
literature (Beretta et al., 2013). The interchangeable use of such terms may confuse OM
researchers undertaking work in this area. Thus, this subsection discusses the key
definitions emerged in the literature and clarifies the concepts involved.
5
Table 1.1: Comparison of the Terms FSC, Food Value Chain, Food System, Food Chain
Other synonymous or
Operations-based Other elements
Terms Definition Emphasis specialised terms
Activities involved
applied
“All the activities that help Production, storage, Product, information, Cooperation between
Food ensure the delivery of transportation and and financial flows the upstream and Agri-food supply chain,
Supply finished products to the distribution, across multiple downstream, agri-business supply
Chain* consumer from the primary processing, wholesale, organisations and efficiency, chain, etc.
producer” retail, consumption customers sustainability, etc.
“A systematic structure that
Farming, processing, Agri-food value chain,
Food coordinates all Processes or activities Economic activities,
waste disposal, agro-food value chain,
Value agents and their economic by which customer value value added analysis,
packaging, marketing, sustainable food value
Chain** activities within a food is formed etc.
logistics chain, etc.
chain”
“The sum of all the diverse Agri-food systems,
Production, Resources, environment,
elements and activities agro-food systems,
processing, climate, energy, A macroscopic view,
Food which, together, lead to the sustainable food
distribution, consumer, inputs, food security,
System* production and systems, local food
preparation, outputs, processes, sustainability, etc.
consumption of food, and systems, industrialised
consumption infrastructures, etc.
their interrelations” food systems, etc.
6
Food supply and
Production,
Microbiological safety, A macroscopic view, distribution chain, agri-
The practices and activities processing,
Food food safety, energy, food chain crisis, food chain, fast food
from harvest to distribution,
Chain* public health, nutrition, food chain structure, chain, aquatic food
consumption preparation,
etc. etc. chain, trophic food
consumption
chain, etc.
*
HLPE, 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome 2014.
**
FAO, 2015. Food system analysis versus value chain analysis: a conceptual approach for “meeting urban food needs”.
7
1.2.1 Food Supply Chain, Food Value Chain, Food System, and Food Chain
Table 1.1 outlines the differences between the terms FSC, food value chain, food system,
and food chain, and the elements they involve. FSC management focuses on the
operational problems and challenges in managing food product, information, and
financial flows across multiple stakeholders. It is mainly concerned with operations-
based activities including production, storage, transportation and distribution,
processing, wholesale, retail, and consumption. Given that FSC management typically
deals with multiple stakeholders, a key emphasis is on cooperation between the
upstream and downstream actors (Halloran et al., 2014; Bustos and Moors, 2018). Cost
efficiency has been a key performance measure in FSC management. In recent years,
however, FSC management has been giving more attention to sustainability
performance, for example, improving resource circularity (Farooque et al., 2019a;
Coderoni and Perito, 2020).
In contrast to FSC management, food value chain management studies the
economic activities in the FSC by which customer value is created. It is also concerned
with operations-based activities including farming, processing, and logistics. However,
relatively speaking, it has a greater interest in waste disposal, packaging, and marketing
activities, all of which can have a direct and substantial economic impact. From the
viewpoint of value creation, food value chain management focuses on processes or
activities by which customer value is formed. Consequently, management attention is
mainly on economic activities and value-added analysis.
8
Food system and food chain, which are often applied synonymously, are broader
concepts, involve more elements, and interface with a wider range of other systems
(HLPE, 2014). A food system is defined as “the sum of all the diverse elements and
activities which, together, lead to the production and consumption of food, and their
interrelations” (HLPE, 2014, p. 29). It involves not only operations-based activities at
a micro (firm/supply chain) level, but also other elements at the meso and macro levels
including resources, environment, climate, energy, infrastructures, among others. A
food chain includes all the stages from food harvest to consumption. It shares a
macroscopic view with the term food system but involves other elements including
microbiological safety, food safety, energy, public health, nutrition, etc.
A precise application of these terms in relation to FLW issues is important to
facilitate understanding of the occurrence, value, and root causes of FLW. For example,
FLW may occur during the transportation or storage process in a fragmented FSC with
multiple tiers due to a cooperation issue, or within a vertically integrated company that
inefficiently manages its food value chain. Interfaced with other systems, such as energy,
resource, and microbiology, FLW problems are also investigated as a key issue within
food systems or food chains. For the purposes of this chapter, which adopts an OM lens,
we focus on how FLW can be reduced by efficiently managing the FSC.
1.2.2 Food Loss and Food Waste
The terms “food loss”, “food waste”, “food loss and waste”, “food wastage”, and “post-
harvest losses” have been used interchangeably in FLW research (HLPE, 2014), leading
9
Garcia-Herrero et al. (2018) to contend that the lack of standard definitions is a
prominent problem for FLW studies.
Food loss and food waste have many differences when their definitions are
respectively unpacked, and these present distinct operational and managerial challenges
for OM research. One way of distinguishing between the concepts is whether the
decrease in food quantity is natural or behavioural. Another distinction involves
whether the occurrence is located at the upstream stage or the downstream stage of the
FSC. Table 1.2 summarises the key differences between the terms.
Table 1.2: Comparison of Food Loss and Food Waste

Distinction
between food Possible Advantage or
Food Loss Food Waste
loss and food Limitation
waste
Helps to identify the food waste
The stage of the Downstream
issues that are related to retailers’
food chain Upstream stages
and consumers’ behaviour, and
(Physical stages (Before (Retail or
food loss issues that are related to
occurrence at consumption) consumer
logistical and infrastructural
different stages) level)
limitations
Decrease in Decrease in
Distinguishes the "planned" and
food products food products
Usage of the food "unplanned" non-food use (animal
for human not for human
feed, bioenergy, etc.)
consumption consumption
Confusion can occur due to
Root causes of the
Behavioural or subjective perceptions of the
loss or waste Natural
voluntary meaning "behavioural" or
(Intention)
"voluntary" in different contexts
Some researchers have attempted to measure the quantity of food loss or waste
without focusing on the distinctions between the definitions. For instance, Bellemare et
al. (2017) define FLW as a simple measurement of the difference between the total
volume of food production and the sum of food usage in any form. Likewise, the Food
10
Policy Research Institute (2016) provides a new term, “Potential FLW”, which includes
pre-harvest losses and unrealised possible losses.
The terminology we apply in this thesis combines the definitions of HLPE (2014)
and Quested and Johnson (2009) (see Figure 1.2). Regardless of the intention (natural
or behavioural), which is difficult to measure, we consider whether the loss or waste
could be avoided by OM at different stages of the FSC. Our approach holds that food
loss refers to the quality and quantity decrease at upstream of FSC, from production to
distribution, whereas food waste involves a decrease at the consumption stage,
including customer consumption and retail consumption (i.e., in restaurants or similar).
Food Chain/ Food Supply Chain

Food Value Chain
Post-harvest
Distribution
Production Handling and Other stages Consumption
and Retail
Storage
Food Loss Food Waste

Food Loss and Waste (quality and quantity decrease)
Figure 1.2: Food Loss and Waste Defined
The thesis consists of seven chapters. Chapter 2 presents a relevance-driven
literature review. Chapter 3 provides a conceptual framework to analyse FLW in FSC
operations. According to the literature review in Chapter 2 and the research framework
in Chapter 3, Chapters 4 and 5 formulate optimisation models in different scenarios to
identify the role of government interventions in preservation technology adoption and
food loss reduction by food suppliers. To further investigate the interaction between the
food suppliers and the consumers and understand how the consumers’ trait impacts the
food waste reduction in the downstream of the FSC, Chapter 6 conducts a qualitative
11
and longitudinal study. The thesis is concluded in Chapter 7. A brief synopsis of
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 is as follows.
Chapters 4 and 5 formulate a basic model and extension models, respectively, to
investigate the role of government intervention. Rather than assuming preservation
technology adoption only has a positive impact on the environment through reducing
food loss, this thesis also considers the possibility that preservation technology adoption
can generate extra carbon emissions. Therefore, the influence of an integrated subsidy
and carbon emission tax policy on the uptake of preservation technology has been
investigated. The results highlight that when market prices are exogenous, the driving
force of the food supplier for preservation technology adoption and food loss reduction
comes from high market prices. In addition, the extension models demonstrate that
unexpected rising price can discourage preservation technology investment and harm
the performance of food loss reduction in the long-term.
Chapter 6 investigates the impact of consumer behaviour on FLW by developing a
novel consumer segmentation conceptual model and conducting a longitudinal study in
New Zealand. This research combines an exploratory survey and semi-structured
interviews to investigate household food waste behaviour and behavioural changes
caused by consecutive lockdowns. This investigation spanned over a year and covered
three periods. Unlike the extant literature, this thesis reports diversified outcomes of
food waste generated at the household level, and multiple determinants are identified
as contributors to food waste generation, among which, government intervention plays
a key role in reducing food waste.
12
The contribution of this thesis is threefold. First, this thesis provides insights into
FLW studies from the lens of specific stages within the FSC and from the perspective
of the entire FSC. Second, this thesis complements the existing literature on FSCs and
contributes to FLW reduction literature by investigating FLW reduction from both
upstream and downstream of FSCs. Third, this thesis applies different methodologies
to examine FLW issues which provides a direction to future research. Overall, this
thesis is an effort to incorporate different impact factors into practical models and
contributes to FLW reduction in FSC operations. Table 1.3 presents chapter titles with
associated publications or manuscripts and research questions.
13
Table 1.3: The Chapter Outline of the Thesis
Chapter Reference Research questions
Luo, N., Olsen, T., Liu, Y., and Zhang, A. 2022. RQ1: What are the FLW topics covered in present studies in FSC?
Reducing food loss and waste in supply chain RQ2: What are the research themes and methodologies employed
Chapter 2
operations. Transportation Research Part E: in the current literature?
Logistics and Transportation Review, 162, 102730. RQ3: What opportunities are there for future research in this area?
Luo, N., Olsen, T., and Liu, Y. 2021. A
Conceptual Framework to Analyse Food Loss and RQ1: How to systematically examine FLW issues within FSCs?
Chapter 3 Waste within Food Supply Chains: An Operations RQ2: What are the types and distribution modes of FSCs where
Management Perspectives. Sustainability, 13 (2), FLW occurs?
927.
Luo, N., Olsen, T., and Feng, Z. 2022. The RQ1: How are the key factors influencing the PT investment
Strategic Preservation Technology Investment decisions of food suppliers?
Chapters 4 and
Decision to Reduce Food Loss: The Role of RQ2: What impact do government interventions (subsidies and
5
Government Intervention. Will be submitted to an carbon emission tax) have on PT adoption by food suppliers and
OM journal. on FL reduction in the food industry?
RQ1. How does household FW behaviour change when trigger
Luo, N., Olsen, T., Ganguly, S., and Liu, Y. 2022.
events occur?
Food supply chain waste reduction for a CE in the
RQ2. Do these changes in household food waste behaviour differ
COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study of
Chapter 6 among consumer segments?
New Zealand consumers. International Journal of
RQ3. What are the implications for government, FSC
Logistics Management. DOI: 10.1108/IJLM-03-
practitioners, and consumers to adjust policy, strategy, and/or
2022-0100
behaviour to promote the CE during consecutive lockdowns?
14
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review and Research Directions
To facilitate an in-depth understanding, in the chapter, we provide a systematically
literature review on FLW in FSC operations. This chapter is based on a paper, which has
been published in Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
with DOI: 10.1016/j.tre.2022.102730 (see co-author form).
The literature review pool includes 346 articles published in prestigious OM,
management, and prominent economics, environment, and food science journals. As the
inspiration for this literature review is driven from real-life case studies, Section 2.1
presents the motivation of this “relevance-driven literature review”. Section 2.2 explains
the theoretical background. Section 2.3 outlines the review methodology. Section 2.4
presents sample statistics. Sections 2.5 and 2.6 review the selected papers from the
perspectives of research questions and research themes, respectively. After summarising
the key studies, we discuss the knowledge gaps that remain and suggest future directions
for research in Section 2.7.
2.1 Motivation
This thesis was initially motivated by a conversation with a department director working
in the Chinese government in 2018, who approached us to seek help in relation to how to
improve FLW by managing general operations and using government interventions. We
therefore started to scrutinise the literature and identified that there were limited studies
focusing on FLW issues from an OM perspective. We reached out to operations managers,
marketing mangers, heads of cooperatives, executives, etc. from different constituents of
FSCs, including food manufactures, farmers’ cooperatives, wholesalers, importers, e-
15
commerce companies, supermarkets, third-party logistics providers, governments, and
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to acquire first-hand information regarding the
FLW situation.
Thirty semi-structured interviews have been conducted with participants from both
large companies and small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs), governments, and NGOs
in China. The practitioners, governments, and NGOs all noted the importance of FLW,
although their foci are slightly different. For instance, a senior director at a leading food
processing company stated that “In our company, the food loss rate is around 0.5% in the
processing stage, and 2-3% in the sales stage”. Compared with this food processing
company (overall less than 3.5% food loss), the estimation of food loss is much higher in
a farmers’ cooperative. The head of a cooperative explained that “Food loss and waste
always occurs in the sales stage because not all fruit can be sold in a timely manner. The
loss rate is around 5-10% for the ones in good appearance and size, and around 30-40% for
the suboptimal fruits (small size or/and ugly food), even when there is no quality problem.”
Another logistics manager at a leading beverage company summarised that “The food loss
and waste issue is very serious in our company because its reduction can decrease overall
costs and increase profit.” (Note, all quotes are translated from Chinese and have been
paraphrased for clarity.)
Governments and NGOs address FLW issues mainly from national and global
perspectives. An associate director from the Chinese government highlighted that “FLW as
an important activity contributing to the sustainable development and carbon neutrality
strategies has attracted more attention worldwide recently” and “In China, the average
FLW rate is considerably high in all stages of FSC. It not only impacts the revenue of FSC
16
stakeholders, but also China’s food security” In addition, a director at an NGO stated that
“the COVID-19 pandemic caused more customer concerns on food security and food
availability owing to the lockdown policy. The government, food industry, and society are
paying more attention to FLW reduction”.
Considering the importance and meaningfulness of FLW topics indicated in our
interactions with practitioners, governments, and NGOs, we explore the current state of
research on FLW reduction. In this thesis, we scrutinise publications focusing on FLW
reduction from an OM perspective and address three research questions:
RQ1: What are the FLW topics covered in present studies in FSC?
RQ2: What are the research themes and methodologies employed in the current
literature?
RQ3: What opportunities are there for future research in this area?
In contrast to a typical literature review paper which only considers academic research,
this chapter is developed in a distinctively different way for which we coin the term
“relevance-driven literature review”. We define a relevance-driven literature review as a
literature review that is motivated by the problems and needs in practice and informed by
insights from empirical data, especially in discussing future research directions. Such an
emerging review approach is employed by Choi et al. (2018) and Zhang et al. (2021), both
of which survey not only academic research but also implementation cases in practice to
ensure the relevance of the review works. This innovative review approach overcomes the
relevance gap between research and practice which has been widely criticised as a grand
challenge in the management research (Tranfield & Denyer, 2004).
17
2.2 Review Methodology
2.2.1 Literature Search
The literature review has been developed with an inductive approach, including existing
literature on FLW in OM until December 2021. Because FLW research can be found in
multiple disciplines, such as agricultural and biological sciences, environmental science,
chemistry, and engineering, and to limit our search to the OM field, as the first step, we
defined two key sources for the articles: prestigious OM journals and other related journals
adopting OM methods.
For OM-journal selection, we selected 66 journals from the “University of Texas at
Dallas 24 Journals”, “Financial Times' Journals list”, “ABDC Journal list” (ranking A*, A,
and B journals), and “AJG Journal list” (ranking 4*, 4, 3 journals). For other related-journal
selection, we added 9 general management journals (e.g., MIT Sloan Management Review),
and 13 prominent journals associated with FLW reduction in economic, environmental, and
food science (e.g., Journal of Cleaner Production). We used the Scopus, Springer Link, and
EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier databases to search for the manuscripts. In addition,
we asked for suggestions from a group of prominent OM scholars in FLW research.
The keywords we used in our literature search are related to the concept of FLW itself.
The search targeted publications titles, abstracts, and keywords. The search syntax used
was “(loss OR waste OR wastage) AND (food OR post-harvest OR agribusiness OR
durable OR perishable OR fresh OR shelf-time OR fruit OR vegetable OR meat OR fish
OR dairy OR grain OR cereal OR oilcrop OR roots OR beef OR milk). The search syntax
covered specific foods apart from general FLW. This stage found 2290 research papers. We
read their abstracts to retain the papers within the OM field by judging their research
18
contexts (food supply chain, food value chain, food system, food chain, food production,
food distribution, or post-harvest loss). We also manually checked the sources referenced
in each review paper and, from these, we created a list of papers within the OM field before
eliminating the review papers. We eventually selected 346 research articles in the final
sample. The literature search steps are summarised in Figure 2.1.
Search Scope
Keywords
Step 1 ( Research article and review paper)
Relevant to FLW Keywords,

Reduction abstract, and title
Springer
Scopus Link &
database EBSCOhost
databases
2 Missing OM Journals in Scopus

62 OM Journals 630 Papers (Journal: Business & Information
(Area: OM) found Systems Engineering and OR
Spectrum)
9 Management
Journals 5 Papers 2 Inactive OM Journals in Scopus
(Area: General found (Journal: IIE Transactions, and
Management) International Journal of Flexible
Manufacturing Systems
13 Specialty Journals
(Area: Economic, 1648 Paper
environmental and found
food science ) 7 Papers found
2290 Papers
found
Step 2 Relevant to OM Manual

Check
346 Papers
Selected
85 Papers 261 Papers

selected from selected from
OM journals Special journals
Figure 2.1: Literature Selection Process
2.2.2 Review Procedures
We perform content analysis (Neuendorf, 2019) to examine research questions in the extant
19
literature and highlight the similarities and differences in two research perspectives, namely,
the perspective of specific FSC stages vs the perspective of the entire FSC (Section 2.4).
Then, we employ text mining (Song et al., 2020) to identify the overarching research
themes (Section 2.5). This step also draws insights from clustering the research questions
in the first step. Finally, we discuss future research directions drawing insights from the
literature analyses as well as from presentations in the leading OM conferences, working
papers, and 30 semi-structured interviews with a wide range of FSC stakeholders (Section
2.6).
2.3 Sample Statistics
Figure 2.2 plots the trend line for paper counts by year. Research studies on FLW were
sporadic in the first decade of the 2000s. However, research attention started to pick up in
the 2010s, with a sharp increase in publications being observed after the mid-2010s. This
is likely due to the increasing concern on FLW across the globe in recent years.
80 69 67
58
45 51
60
40 20
7 4 9 10
20 1 1 1 1 2
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure 2.2: Count of Papers by Year
Rather than being concentrated within a handful of journals, FLW studies in OM are
published in a wide range of journals, as shown in Figure 2.3. Journal of Cleaner
Production is the most popular outlet, publishing 132 papers in our sample. Three other
specialty journals, Waste Management, British Food Journal, and Food Policy, are also
very influential, publishing 58, 37 and 20 papers, respectively. Among the OM journals,
20
International Journal of Production Economics (17 papers) plays a leading role, followed
by Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review (11 papers),
Annals of Operations Research (7 papers), Computers and Industrial Engineering (7
papers), European Journal of Operational Research (7 papers), and International Journal
of Production Research (7 papers).
140 132
120
100
80 58
60 37
40 20 17
20 7 1 2 2 2 11
6 3 1 1 3 7 7 2 1 7 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 1
0 1 4
Figure 2.3: Distribution of Articles in the Review Pool
Extant FLW research employs a variety of methods. Figure 2.4 delineates the
distribution of articles applying different methods; around 30% of studies employ
qualitative methods to explore FLW problems. Heikkilä et al. (2016) suggest that, to
explore and illustrate unstructured phenomena, qualitative research approaches are
appropriate; although Lee (2018) argues that there are limitations in the universality and
applicability of results derived from qualitative methods. Statistical analysis and life-cycle
assessment (LCA), which are mainly used for quantitative empirical research, account for
127 and 30 papers, respectively. The remaining 81 papers in the sample involve a variety
of other quantitative methods, including multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) (8
papers), deterministic optimisation (32 papers), simulation (14 papers), stochastic
optimisation (18 papers), game theory (7 papers), and robust optimisation (2 papers).
21
Overall, FLW studies in the OM field are dominated by empirical methods. More
modelling works, which have a different nature from qualitative and quantitative empirical
works, may be beneficial for generating new insights for reducing FLW.
Robust optimisation 2
Game theory 7
Stochastic optimisation 18
Simulation 14
Deterministic optimisation 32
MCDM 8
LCA 30
Statistical analysis 127
Qualitative analysis 108
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
# of article
Figure 2.4: The Distribution of Methods Employed
2.4 Research Questions in FLW Studies
To provide an overview of the topics currently discussed in FLW studies, we perform
content analysis (Neuendorf, 2019) to categorise the literature into two groups: the first
group consists of studies from the lens of specific stages within the FSC and the second
consists of studies from the perspective of the entire FSC. According to this classification,
we listed the research questions that were examined in each group (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2),
highlighting the specific research questions covered by each paper. This summary helps us
understand the differences and similarities between the research questions in each FSC
stage and along the entire chain.
22
Table 2.1: Research Questions in Specific FSC Stages
Stage Research Questions
Q1. What are the causes of FLW?
Q2. What are the measures taken to reduce FLW and their performances?
Q3. How to define and quantify FLW.
Production Q4. How to prevent FLW.
Q5. How to optimise or design production planning with respect to FLW
reduction.
Q6. What are farmers' attitudes towards FLW?
Q1. How to improve the performance of post-harvest operations.
Post-harvest
Q2. What policies, strategies, approaches, or interventions can help to reduce
handling and
FLW?
storage
Q3. How to balance the costs and benefits of FLW reduction.
Q1. What are the causes of FLW generation?
Q2. What are the drivers and/or barriers of FLW?
Processing Q3. What is the role of reuse and recycling in FLW reduction?
Q4. How to quantify or measure FLW.
Q5. What are the environmental, economic, and social impacts of FLW?
Q1. What is the impact of managerial attitudes and technical methods on FLW
mitigation?
FLW?
Q3. What are the drivers and barriers of FLW reduction?
Q4. What is the relationship between the practices of FLW reduction, economic
performance, and/or environmental benefits?
Q5. What is the link between innovation practices and FLW management?
Q7. How to maximise the satisfaction of demand level considering the FLW
control.
Distribution
Q8. To what extent can inventory control reduce FLW in quantities and cost?
and retail
Q9. How to reduce FLW by optimising/planning the logistic and/or distribution
channel.
Q10. How to construct the distribution network to reduce FLW.
Q11. How does FLW management affect the efficiency of distribution?
Q12. What is the value of FLW?
Q13. What is the role of diverse distribution channels and their efficiency on
FLW reduction?
Q14. How does replenishment policy impact the FLW reduction?
Q15. What is the impact of the supply chain structure on retailers’ performance
considering waste reduction in FSC?
Q16. How to map and quantify FLW in retail trade.
Q1. What are consumers' attitudes towards FLW?
Consumption FLW?
Q3. What are the factors affecting FLW behaviours?
Q4. How to quantify, classify or measure FLW.
23
Q5. How does FLW at the household level affect food security?
Q6. What are the impacts of consumers' or food purchasers’ decisions on FLW?
Q7. What are the drivers and barriers of FLW reduction?
Q9. What are the possible impacts of different methods on FLW generation?
Q10. What are the territorial differences of consumers' behaviour toward FLW?
Q11. What are the economic and environmental impacts of FLW?
Q12. What are the costs and benefits of FLW reduction?
Q13. What methodologies can be used to deal with FLW and their
performances?
Q14. What is the impact of COVID-19 on consumer food waste behaviour?
Table 2.2: Research Questions from the Perspective of the Entire FSC
Research
Research Questions
Streams
Q1. How does FLW reduction support sustainable policies?
Q2. How to manage the sustainability of FSCs by reducing FLW.
FSC Q3. How to create a sustainable FSC by using and recovering FLW.
sustainability Q4. How to optimise a competitive FSC with sustainability consideration by
reducing FLW.
Q5. How to transform to CE by reusing and reducing FLW.
Q1. How to design the supply chain while maximising profits and
minimising FLW.
Q2. How to design the logistical structure and close loops to reduce FLW.
Q3. How to design the FSC by integrating harvesting decisions.
FSC design
Q4. How to design the FSC network to manage FLW.
Q5. How to optimise the configuration of FSC to reduce FLW.
Q6. How to build a green FSC by constructing a digitised FSC to reduce
FLW.
Q1. How to reduce FLW through collaboration.
Q2. What is the effect of different types of collaboration on the level of FLW?
Q3. How to determine the replenishment schedule and dynamic prices
considering FLW reduction during cooperation between the FSC
stakeholders.
Q4. What are the optimal pricing, inventory and preservation decisions that
help to reduce FLW?
FSC cooperation
Q5. What are the optimal sourcing strategies that help to reduce FLW?
Q6. What is the optimal pricing and ordering policy in the presence of
contracts and FLW?
Q7. What are the impacts of integration on profits and FLW reduction
performance?
Q8. What is the effect of contracts on shrinking inventories and FLW
reduction?
Q1. How to evaluate the FSC risk and its implication for FLW reduction.
FSC risk
Q2. What is the impact of COVID-19 on food insecurity and FLW in the
24
FSC?
FSC surplus-to-
waste transition Q1. How does overproduction contribute to FLW along the FSC?
mechanism
Q1. How to measure or quantify FLW in the entire FSC.
FLW
Q2. What is the value of FLW reduction in the entire FSC?
measurement
Q3. What is the quantity and quality of FLW along the FSC?
Q1. How to quantify and assess the environmental impact of FLW.
Q2. What are the environmental, economic, and social impacts of FLW?
Environmental,
Q3. How to manage food security through FLW reduction.
economic, and
Q4. How to use different management options to reduce the environmental,
social impact
economic, and social impacts of FLW.
Q5. How to manage nutrient losses through FLW reduction.
Q1. What are the critical factors and causes for FLW?
Root causes of Q2. What are the challenges inhibiting FLW in the FSC?
FLW Q3. How do different stakeholders prevent FLW while realising the root
causes of FLW?
Q1. How to manage the inventory to reduce quality degradation.
Inventory
Q2. What are the mitigation strategies for expiration in emergency inventory
management
system?
Impact of
technologies or Q1. How are the technologies used to reduce FLW and their performances?
policies on FLW Q2. How do policies help to manage FLW?
reduction
Q1. What are the challenges for FLW polices?
Policy design and
Q2. How to design the policy for FLW prevention.
government
Q3. What is the role of FLW hierarchy?
intervention
Q4. How to evaluate FLW policies.
Suboptimal food
Q1. How to manage suboptimal food products to prevent FLW.
products
Q2. What is the environmental impact of cosmetic standards?
management
Q1. How to design a sustainable supply chain using the residues/FLW.
Q2. How does a donation/recycling/redistribution policy work and to what
extent is it effective?
Q3. What are the drivers and barriers of recovery, recycling and
redistribution?
Q4. How to use technologies/policy/other measures to reduce FLW.
Recovery,
Q5. What are the factors that impact donation/ recycling/ redistribution
Recycling and
behaviours?
Redistribution
Q6. What are the benefits of recovery, recycling and redistribution
programs?
Q7. What are the challenges or motivations of non-profit organisations in the
operations of FLW reduction?
Q8. What are the values and environmental, economic, and social impacts of
recovered, recycled, and redistributed products?
25
Two hundred and forty-four papers were classified into different stages in the pool of
346 articles, among which around 60% of the articles centre on the consumption stage.
This finding concerning the OM literature is consistent with the trend across all fields
(Filimonau and Gherbin, 2017) in which FLW studies predominantly focus on the
consumption stage and on the downstream end of FSCs. To an extent, Table 2.1 concludes
the research questions reflecting the research focus on each stage, such as production
planning in the production stage, reuse and recycle issues in the processing stage, logistics
and distribution solutions in the distribution and retail stage, and analysis of consumer
behaviour in the consumption stage.
Rather than focusing on a specific stage, 102 papers deal with FLW issues from the
perspective of the entire FSC. As indicated in Table 2.2, the focus of these papers ranges
from supply chain design to cooperation to inventory management, etc. They reflect how
OM researchers tend to approach and analyse FLW issues within FSCs.
Comparing the research questions in these two perspectives, we can see that both
groups deal with FLW causes and measures, barriers and drivers to FLW reduction,
economic impacts, management practices, and behaviour aspects. However, studies from
the perspective of the entire FSC are comparatively more interested in the triple bottom
line (all three dimensions of sustainability, i.e., economic, environmental, and social), FSC
cooperation and collaboration, technology adoption, value recovery from FLW, and
government policy interventions. This is likely because these aspects require a more
systematic treatment in research investigations, hence a holistic supply chain perspective
is more suitable than a functional perspective.
26
2.5 Research Themes
As shown in Section 2.4, FLW topics are scattered across multiple areas. Even when studies
are grouped into different stages of the FSC, topics may overlap despite focusing on
different stakeholders. This creates difficulties in the comparative analysis of relevant
studies. Organising these papers into different research themes is one way of navigating
the body of FLW literature. In this section, we discuss the research themes identified from
our literature review.
2.5.1 Identified Research Themes
We employed a text mining method to search and identify a particular set of research
themes in the literature we reviewed. Although text mining has its limitations, this method
is regarded as an efficient way of selecting papers and providing a brief overview of the
research streams that emerge (Song et al., 2020). Table 2.3 describes the initial codes and
the show rate.
Applying the QDA Miner Lite software, we constructed research themes in six steps.
The steps were designed by following the works of Song et al. (2020), Wassmer (2010),
and Duriau et al. (2007). First, we imported the abstracts of selected papers, and 1,039
keywords were distilled and marked in the software system. Then, we excluded the ones
that are not applied in our coding process, for example, “literature review”, “descriptive
research”, and “case study”. This left us with 670 keywords to guide our text mining
process. Third, we created initial codes in the software (summarised in Table 2.3).
27
Table 2.3: The Identified Research Themes from Text Mining
Percentage Possible
Number of
Abstracts or keywords containing as a fraction Research
papers
of all papers* Themes
Consumer behaviour 56 16% √
Consumer awareness/preference/attitude/acceptance/decision/intention/engagement/choice 29 8%
Composition 13 4%
Environmental studies (including carbon emissions, carbon footprint, greenhouse gas
46 13% √
emissions, climate impact, environmental impacts/concerns/evaluation/effects)
Economic incentive/monetary value/cost analysis/value degradation 20 6%
FSC, food value chain, food systems, food chain 88 25% √
FSC cooperation/contract management 15 4%
FSC information sharing, risk management, design, disruption management 11 3%
Measurement/quantification 41 12% √
Methodologies (including qualitative research, life cycle assessment, linear programming,
robust optimisation, mixed-linear integer programming, game theory, simulation, action
research, multi-objective optimisation, multi-objective programming, SEM, material flow 99 29% √
analysis, DEMATEL, stochastic optimisation, practice theory, exploratory analysis,
experimental analysis)
Macro-level policy (including food waste hierarchy analysis, food security, food safety, CE,
38 11% √
sharing economy, closed-loop supply chain)
Operations-based policy and strategy (including dynamic pricing policy, capacity planning,
sourcing strategy, nudge, optimal ordering policy, menu planning, replenishment policy,
discount policy, reduction strategies, technology investment decisions, food labels 61 18% √
management, shelf-life management, expiration management, lean management, sales
forecasting, harvesting patterns, education)
Operations-based activities analysis (including inventory, delivery, logistics, distribution,
transportation, storage, production, procurement, retail operations, vehicle routing, 81 23% √
packaging, process, resource allocation)
28
Root cause analysis 49 14% √
Recycle, reuse, recovery, donation, by-product, reverse logistics 27 8%
Sustainability (including sustainable development, sustainable consumption, sustainable
61 18% √
management, sustainable operations management)
Technology (including technological innovation, technology investment, internet of things,
intelligent container, digitisation, forecasting technology, intelligent packaging, cold chain, 20 6%
blockchain)
Uncertainty analysis (yield uncertainty, dynamic expiry date, food and labour supplies,
17 5%
demand)
* The BOLD percentage is highlighting the result that is greater 10%, which we consider as an important cluster.
29
Next, we highlighted the important clusters with the criterion that a cluster is selected
when the percentage as a fraction of all papers is greater than 10%. In the fifth step, using
hierarchical method, we adjusted our coding framework by referring to the literature
(HLPE, 2014), which classified FLW research from macro, meso, and micro levels, and
setting up the subsections according to Tables 2.1 and 2.2 explorations. Finally, we
classified the clusters into research themes (see Figure 2.5).
FLW Research
Sustainability and Food supply chain

Research Operations-based activities analysis
environmental impacts/ management
Themes
studies
• Sustainability • Root-cause analysis

Subsections • Cooperation • Production
• Environmental impacts/
• Design and risk • Distribution
studies
management • Consumption (consumer behaviour)
• Uncertainty management
Figure 2.5: The Structure of the Research Themes*

* Some FLW studies may cover multiple research themes.
2.5.2 Sustainability and Environmental Impacts/Studies
One hundred and eleven papers (almost one-third of our selected papers) contain
“sustainability” or “environmental impacts/studies” in the keywords list or the abstract, of
which 76 are dedicated to sustainability and environmental research.
Sustainability
Within FLW and sustainability, key topics include sustainable development (e.g., Liu
et al., 2018, Derqui et al., 2020), sustainable consumption (e.g., Coderoni and Perito, 2020),
sustainable supply chain management (SCM) (e.g., Liu et al., 2021), and sustainable OM
30
(e.g., Garcia-Herrero et al., 2018). These studies involve the investigation of FLW
reduction activities using a general operations management lens, exploring aspects such as
residual recovery, consumer packaged goods management, sustainable production
management, and sustainable business models. Three methodologies are predominantly
applied: life cycle assessment, qualitative analysis, and statistical analysis. For example,
using life cycle assessment, Salemdeeb et al. (2017a) demonstrate a sustainable business
model that includes an environmental matrix. Lam et al. (2018) construct a sustainable
FLW management method for the international airport in Hong Kong. Employing a
qualitative analysis method, Sgarbossa and Russo (2017) construct a proactive model in a
sustainable FSC. Applying statistical analysis, Garcia-Herrero et al. (2018) discuss how to
support sustainable production by reducing potential food waste.
Rather than concentrating on each FSC stage, sustainability analysis in FLW research
primarily adopts an integrated supply chain perspective. Distinct from general SCM, the
studies approach their respective challenges by considering FLW minimisation or the
evaluation of FLW (e.g., Kaipia et al., 2013, Garcia-Herrero et al., 2018).
Environmental Impacts/Studies
Fifty-seven papers consider how to quantify the environmental impact of FLW, of
which, 30 papers apply life cycle assessment to evaluate this impact from a country or
district level, including Switzerland (Willersinn et al., 2017), the United Kingdom (Tonini
et al., 2018), Norway (Svanes and Johnsen, 2019), Turkey (Cakar et al., 2020), and Europe
(Scherhaufer et al., 2018), and from specialised processes in FSCs, such as packing (e.g.,
Wikström et al., 2016), animal feed (e.g., Salemdeeb et al., 2017b), processing (Li et al.,
2020), consumption (García-Herrero et al., 2019, 2021), resource recovery (Krishnan et al.,
31
2020), and surplus food redistribution (Damiani et al., 2021). Sixteen papers employ
qualitative or statistical analysis methods to assess the environmental impact of FLW, from
which FLW management options are variously linked to the waste hierarchy (e.g., Eriksson
et al., 2015), the CE (e.g., Coderoni and Perito, 2020), and closed-loop supply chains (e.g.,
Sgarbossa and Russo, 2017). Ten papers consider environmental impact as one of the
constraints or variables in a multi-objective optimisation approach, using deterministic
optimisation (e.g., Cattaneo et al., 2021), stochastic optimisation (e.g., Belavina et al.,
2017), and simulation (e.g., Kuiper and Cui, 2021). One paper applies multi- criteria
decision making (MCDM) to evaluate the environmental impact of food waste (Plazzotta
et al., 2020).
Studies within these streams often assume that FLW reduction has a positive impact
on environmental improvement, and much literature follows this logic. However, the
European Commission report in 2006 suggests that, to assess all the environmental benefits
of FLW reduction initiatives, two issues should be considered: whether FLW has been
actually reduced, and whether efforts at reducing FLW negatively affect downstream stages
of the life cycle. For instance, using refrigerated facilities during transportation help to
reduce FLW but increase the carbon footprint.
2.5.3 FSC Management
One hundred and fifty-two papers contain FSC, value chain, food systems, and food chain
in their keywords or abstract, of which 102 papers investigate FLW issues from the entire
FSC. The topics within this field are various, including information sharing (e.g., Kaipia et
al., 2013), risk management (e.g., Ali et al., 2019), supply chain design (e.g., An and
Ouyang, 2016; Jonkman et al., 2018; Song et al., 2021) and cooperation (e.g., Wang and
32
Chen, 2017), and supply chain resilience in the COVID-19 context (Burgos and Ivanov,
2021). The following subsections focus on measures to reduce FLW in reviewing the most
relevant publications.
FSC Cooperation
The FAO (2011) highlights those improvements in cooperation between stakeholders
in a supply chain can positively impact FLW reduction. An appropriate coordination
mechanism can encourage stakeholders to reduce FLW and optimise FLW management
(Halloran et al., 2014). Ideally, appropriate cooperation leads to optimal ordering from the
retailer, strategic pricing from the supplier, and/or astute investment to increase
preservation. However, even though cooperation is a topic often examined by OM
researchers, FSC cooperation studies in FLW reduction contexts remain scant.
Game theory is an approach often applied by researchers in a bid to solve cooperation
problems in FLW reduction. Within this approach, FLW performance is usually presented
as a parameter or constraint (e.g., Yu et al., 2020). For example, Huang et al. (2018)
developed a Stackelberg game model aiming to maximise individual profits. This study
included a FLW factor by considering an investment in preservation, which reduces the
deterioration rate and carbon emissions.
Qualitative approaches in cooperation research provide a lens to examine the FLW
situation in practice and offer a theoretical basis for in-depth research. For instance,
innovative collaboration between stakeholders is considered by practitioners to have
positive effects on FLW reduction (Martin-Rios et al., 2018). Cooperation can come in the
form of improvements to, or the creation of, interorganisational relationships through
information exchange, incentive engagement, and technology sharing (Bustos and Moors,
33
2018). Exploratory research of this nature offers insights into how stakeholders interact
with each other and engage in FLW reduction activities.
FSC Design and Risk Management
Studies involving FSC design that take into consideration FLW tend to include
decisions on processing and storage facilities investment and pricing policies (e.g., An and
Ouyang, 2016), logistical structure (e.g., Banasik et al., 2017), harvest timing (Jonkman et
al., 2018), and interorganisational coordination (Ghinoi et al., 2020). These decisions
usually consider FSC interruptions and risk management, including short and long-term
risks.
Short-term risks can be anticipated and evaluated, such as lack of storage facilities,
non-cooperative farmers in harvesting, and inferior technologies. Long-term risks might
be mitigated by planning, monitoring, outsourcing, and controlling the FSC (Ali et al.,
2019). Consideration of risk management within FLW research remains scant in this body
of literature.
Within the FSC design literature, a subset of research has investigated how to reduce
FLW by an appropriate design of value-added processes, pricing policies, or through
improved technology. Table 2.4 summarises the literature in this area.
Table 2.4: Measures to Reduce FLW by Process and Supply Chain Design
Reference Methodology Measures to reduce FLW

(Ahumada and Deterministic
Planning design
Villalobos, 2011) optimisation
(An and Ouyang, Robust Processing/storage facilities investment
2016) optimisation and pricing policy design
Deterministic
(Brulard et al., 2019) Farming system design
optimisation
(Beullens and Deterministic
FSC structure design
Ghiami, 2021) optimisation
(Despoudi et al., Statistical analysis Collaboration
34
2018)
(Fikar, 2018) Simulation Inventory and delivery strategy design
(Hafliðason et al.,
Statistical analysis Temperature control
2012)
(Herbon and Stochastic Dynamic pricing and replenishment policy
Khmelnitsky, 2017) optimisation design
(Jonkman et al., Stochastic
Supply chain design
2018) optimisation
Stochastic
(Janssen et al., 2018) Inventory replenishment policy design
optimisation
Qualitative
(Liljestrand, 2017) Logistics solutions
analysis
(Mogale et al., Deterministic
Transportation and storage design
2017a,b) optimisation
Deterministic
(Mogale et al. 2018) FSC network desgin
optimisation
(Maiyar and Deterministic
Logistics planning
Thakkar, 2019) optimisation
(Christensen et al., Qualitative
Forecasting accuracy
2021) analysis
Deterministic
(Orgut et al., 2016) Distribution design for food donation
optimisation
(Reddy et al., 2017) Simulation Procurement optimisation, Routing design
Deterministic Food rescue pickup and delivery logistics
(Rey et al., 2018)
optimisation design
(Rijpkema et al., Qualitative
Sourcing strategy
2014) analysis
(Sheppard et al., Qualitative
Decision-support infrastructure design
2020) analysis
Deterministic
(Song et al., 2021) Omni-channel strategies
optimisation
(Wang and Chen, Stochastic
Pricing policy design and coordination
2017) optimisation
Deterministic
(Widodo et al., 2006) Delivery design
optimisation
2.5.4 Operations-based Activities Analysis
Two hundred and forty-four papers discuss FLW issues in different stages of the FSC and
focus on operations-based activities. A wealth of topics is discussed and covered, especially
at the distribution and retail stage (65 papers) and consumption stage (159 papers). To
35
provide an overview of FLW occurrence causes in each stage, we first examine the root
cause of FLW generation. Following this analysis, we discuss the research themes
identified in the distribution and consumption stages and analyse the uncertainty problems
occurring in all the stages.
Root-cause Analysis
FLW can occur at any tier of a FSC (Östergren et al., 2014). To investigate the
mechanism of FLW generation, OM researchers apply different methodologies to identify
and discuss the causes of FLW. Table 2.5 summarises the causes identified by researchers
at either each stage or from the entire FSC perspective. We observe that 68% of the papers
apply qualitative or statistical analysis to explore the key causes of FLW. The employed
empirical research methods enable researchers to gather information in practice and
explore the root causes of FLW generation. For example, Macheka et al. (2018) examine
the possible determinants of FLW generation and identify that context characteristics,
logistics operations, and quality management are the leading causes of observed FLW.
36
Table 2.5: Root-cause Analysis
Stage Key words Methodology

Stochastic Statistical Qualitative Game Deterministic Simulation
Causes Details
Optimisation analysis analysis Theory optimisation
Context
characteristics, Storage facility, market price,
Production logistical infrastructure, √ √
operations, overproduction
quality control
Operating policy, policy
Post-harvest efficiency, refrigeration
handling and Operations strategy shortage, careless handling, √ √
storage exceeding volume in
purchases
Equipment defects, human
Logistical errors, experimental losses,
operations, quality cleaning losses, blackout,
Processing √
control, consumer package deformation,
demand recipient rejection, customer
demand change
Functionalised
packing/packaging strategy,
Managerial
Distribution redistribution, market √ √
attitudes and √ √
and Retail channel, delivery scheduling,
approaches
technology investment,
replenishment policy
Regulation, Mandatory regulations,
customers’ supervision, economic
behaviour, incentives, education,
awareness and environmental awareness,
Consumption √ √
attitude, culture, income, eating / buying/
product shopping/ storage behaviour,
characteristics, religious belief, information,
marketing and sale product shelf life, household
37
strategy, size
technologies
Knowledge and information
Coordination, sharing, long-term solution
government monitoring, contract breach,
intervention, trust and loyalty, feasible
sustainability, intervention, sustainable
cosmetic resolution, food
specifications, characteristics, supply chain
Entire FSC √ √ √ √
infrastructure, uncertainty, market
facility, pricing and infrastructure, food policy
inventory and regulation, partnerships,
decisions, networks, operational
management capability, quality
practices management, process control,
forecasting
38
Production
FLW research focusing on the production stage remains scarce. Only 18 papers fell
into this category from our selected pool, of which 15 papers use qualitative analysis,
statistical analysis, and life cycle assessment to investigate FLW issues at the production
stage. The topics for this stage involve FLW measurement (e.g., Ambler et al., 2018),
product expiration reduction (e.g., Akkas and Sahoo, 2020), farmers’ behaviour (e.g.,
Bonadonna et al., 2019), farming system design (e.g., Brulard et al., 2019), overproduction
(e.g., Darlington and Rahimifard, 2007), and approaches to FLW reduction (e.g.,
Thamagasorn and Pharino, 2019). We only found three papers that apply deterministic
optimisation to discuss FLW issues, all of which apply deterministic optimisation. Figure
2.6 describes how this small analytic stream discusses FLW issues at the production stage.
Demand
Yield
Key
Market price
Assumptions Maximise the producer’s
Products’ characteristics and type profit
Basic infrastructure (land, resources,

labour …) FLW reduction Minimise undistributed
is realised or
considered by food products
Distribution, storage, and
Constraint packing capacity
Assessing alternative
Shelf-time, decay function production options
When and how many to produce

Decisions Transportation model
Capacity allocation
Figure 2.6: Studies Applying Deterministic Optimisation at the Production Stage
39
Distribution
Distribution problems are significant issues in FLW reduction research. In an FSC
context, they are investigated along three main aspects: maximising the distribution amount
(e.g., Orgut et al., 2016), distribution planning (e.g., Ahumada and Villalobos, 2011), and
optimisation of the distribution channel and network (e.g., Mogale et al., 2019; Chaboud
and Moustier, 2021). FLW reduction might be realised by reducing the circulation loss
during the distribution (e.g., Mangla et al., 2019), redistribution of the surplus or donated
food (e.g., Garrone et al., 2016), and optimal distribution planning incorporating quality
degradation (e.g., Ahumada and Villalobos, 2011).
Some studies focus on FLW problems without specific attention to the different
distribution channels (e.g., Irani et al., 2018). In contrast, other studies address FLW
differences between various forms of distribution channels, for instance, online retailing
and physical retailing, or different stakeholders and value-added processes in the
distribution channels. Even in the same food industry, the stakeholders or the processes
involved may be different, leading to varying results in FLW research, including FLW
measurement, environmental evaluation, and FLW causes. Table 2.6 summarises the main
topics that emerged from the work on distribution channels.
Table 2.6: Topics Identified in Studies on Distribution Channels
Reference FSC stages or Actors Objective Methodology

Production, transport and
Corrado et al. Environmental Life cycle
storage, processing,
(2017) evaluation assessment
distribution, consumption
Raw milk preparation,
Lütke Entrup fermentation, flavouring and Maximisation of the Deterministic
et al. (2005) packaging, storage and contribution margin optimisation
delivery
Halloran et Primary sector, food processor, Analysis of FLW issues Qualitative
al. (2014) wholesaler and retailer, in Denmark analysis
40
consumer and households,
FLW processors
Creation of a sustainable
Kaipia et al. Milk supplier, logistics service Qualitative
model of closed-loop
(2013) provider, wholesaler, retailer analysis
supply chain
Macheka et Harvesting, processing, Exploration of logistics Qualitative
al. (2017) storage, distribution and quality control analysis
Minimisation of
Mogale et al. Procurement, transportation, transportation, storage Deterministic
(2017a) distribution, sales and operational costs of optimisation
the food chain
Farmers, procurement centers, Minimisation of
Mogale et al. central warehouse, state operations-based Deterministic
(2019) warehouse, district warehouse, activities cost and carbon optimisation
fair price shops dioxide emission
Production, harvest, storage,
Redlingshöfer transport, processing, Qualitative
FLW quantification
et al. (2017) distribution, consumption, analysis
import/export
Salemdeeb at Collection, transportation, Environmental Life cycle
al. (2017a,b) anaerobic digestion, import evaluation assessment
Production, food processing,
Scherhaufer Environmental Life cycle
retail distribution,
et al. (2018) evaluation assessment
consumption, food disposal
Sgarbossa Creation of a sustainable
Farmer/livestock, production, Qualitative
and Russo model of closed-loop
distribution, sales analysis
(2017) supply chains
Song et al. Discussion on Omni- Deterministic
Retailer, consumers.
(2021) channel strategies optimisation
Farming, processing,
Tonini et al. Environmental Life cycle
wholesale and retail, food
(2018) evaluation assessment
waste
Milk supplier, collection
Tostivint et Qualitative
points, factories, distribution FLW measurement
al. (2017) analysis
and retail
Wesana et al. Farmer cooperative, processor, Exploration of actor Statistical
(2018) wholesaler, retailer readiness to reduce FLW analysis
Widodo et al. Maximisation of the Deterministic
Farmer, retailer, consumer
(2006) demand level satisfied optimisation
Willersinn et Production, wholesaler, Environmental Life cycle
al. (2017) retailer, household evaluation assessment
Consumer Behaviour Analysis
FLW issues at the consumption stage have been widely investigated, and we yielded
41
143 papers focusing on this stage. The topic of consumer behaviour was highly dominant,
and it is seen as one of the critical issues driving the FLW problem in developed countries
(Jagau and Vyrastekova, 2017) while also attracting increasing scholarly attention in the
context of developing countries (Song et al., 2018). Consumer behaviour involves a range
of dimensions, including emotions, eating and shopping habits, values, and beliefs, all of
which can affect initiatives for FLW reduction. At a societal level, factors such as social
norms, culture, policies, regulations, retailing sales strategies, or education can impact
consumer behaviour.
Uncertainty Management
Uncertainties in the problem settings of the FSC seem to need more attention in OM
applications (Soto-Silva et al., 2016; Sgarbossa and Russo, 2017). In FLW studies,
stochastic programming and robust optimisation approaches are often used to capture the
uncertainties in the objective function and/or constraints; 20 papers in our pool employ
these methods to solve uncertainty problems.
Yield uncertainty is discussed as a key factor in FLW at the production stage. An and
Ouyang (2016) present a robust optimisation model with an objective of maximising the
company’s profit and minimising FLW. To deal with uncertainty, they assume that
stochastic yield varies within a pre-determined uncertainty set. They construct a three-
echelon supply chain network applying game theory under the decisions of distribution
cost and marketing equilibrium.
Deterministic demand and unlimited product shelf-life are two traditional assumptions
that are widely used in distributional design (Muriana, 2015). To relax the assumption
related to deterministic demand, Soysal et al. (2015) propose an optimisation model for
42
inventory routing, with the objective of minimising the costs of routing, inventory, and
FLW. They employ a deterministic approximation of the chance-constrained programming
model to solve the uncertainty in demand. To fill the gap related to unlimited shelf-life,
Muriana (2015) constructs a stochastic optimisation model under shelf-life uncertainty to
examine the effectiveness of food recovery, while assuming demand is deterministic.
Price uncertainty describes the practical situation where the prices of food products
may fluctuate, directly impacting both the profit of the entire FSC and actions taken to
reduce FLW. Zhang and Jiang (2017) propose a robust mixed-integer linear programming
model to solve FLW problems under uncertain prices. Process uncertainty is another issue
affecting FLW reduction. Variations in temperatures during transportation and storage
mean that the deterioration process is variable and uncertain.
Uncertainty and variability are applied interchangeably in some papers (e.g., Muriana,
2015); however, a group of researchers highlights the discrepancy between these two
definitions, especially in life cycle assessment studies (Menna et al., 2018) and consider
variability as an inherent characteristic in FSCs caused by human-made, internal, or
operational mistakes that are controllable, and uncertainty as an external factor that cannot
be controlled.
Rather than modelling the uncertainty, researchers often treat the variabilities as
parameters of their models to solve FLW issues. For example, Corrado et al. (2017) indicate
that the categories of avoidable, possibly avoidable, and unavoidable need to be considered
as a parameter in FLW analysis. Lam et al. (2018) include transportation distance as a
variable in their life cycle assessment study. Soto-Silva et al. (2016) recommend that OM
researchers put more effort into considering “uncertainty”.
43
2.6 Future Research Directions
Although the FLW literature has covered a range of topics and issues, we have identified
that many research gaps remain. We have developed future research ideas based on four
sources: our literature sample of 346 journal papers, presentations in the leading OM
conferences, working papers, and the interviews we conducted with different stakeholders
in the FSCs. The development of future research directions was informed by insights from
empirical data. Specifically, we employed a purposeful sampling approach to recruit
interviewees who were knowledgeable on FLW issues to ensure the validity of the obtained
practical insights. A diverse range of involved stakeholders (see Figure 2.7) helped us
acquire a holistic and comprehensive understanding of FLW issues. We interviewed 11
large-scale enterprises (annual revenue > 5 million RMB), seven medium-scale enterprises
(annual revenue 1-5 million RMB), and six small-scale enterprises (annual revenue < 1
million RMB). We also interviewed three associate directors from the governments and
three experts from the NGOs to understand their perspectives on FLW reduction. In total,
we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews. All the interviews were conducted online due
to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and the
average interview duration was around 40 minutes.
Manufactures/processors 4
Farmers' cooperatives 4
Wholesalers 4
Importers 2
E-commerce companies 2
Supermarkets 3
Third-party logistics providers 5
Governments 3
NGOs 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 2.7: Distribution of the Interviewees
44
Table 2.7 presents a brief summary of the interview findings from all stakeholder
groups. Apparently, different stakeholders have varying practical needs depending on the
nature of their operations. For example, farmers' cooperatives are concerned about farmer
behaviour analysis, while supermarkets are keen to explore distribution channel
optimisation and consumer behaviour analysis. Having said that, some stakeholders share
similar practical needs. Notably, government intervention, technology application, and
FSC cooperation are the three top areas.
Table 2.7: Summary of Interview Findings
Interviewee Practical needs for research

designations
Closed loop and circular SCM, FSC
Manager (3) cooperation, demand forecasting,
Manufacturers/Processors
Senior Supervisor (1) new technology adoption, and risk
management
Government intervention, demand
Head of Cooperative forecasting, farmer behaviour
Farmers' cooperatives (3) analysis, FSC cooperation, Agri 4.0
Vice President (1) application, and new technology
adoption.
Vice President (1) FSC cooperation, new technology
Wholesalers General Manager (1) adoption, facility investment, and
Manager (2) government intervention
New technology adoption, FSC
cooperation, distribution system
Importers General Manager (2)
optimisation, and government
intervention
FSC cooperation, new technology
Vice President (1)
E-commerce companies adoption, and government
General Manager (1)
intervention
Head (1) FSC cooperation, demand
Customer Service forecasting, risk management, new
Supermarkets Manager (1) technology adoption, distribution
Operations Manager channel optimisation, consumer
(1) behaviour analysis, pricing strategy
45
Customer Service Customer cooperation for packaging
Manager (1) recycling, new technology adoption,
Vice President (2) distribution optimisation, government
Third-party logistics
Department Director intervention, and process
providers
(1) optimisation
Operations Manager
(1)
The implementation of Anti-food
Waste Law, the effectiveness of
government intervention,
Governments Associate Director (3)
performance of new technologies,
and effective approaches for assisting
SMEs
Distribution network optimisation,
Director (1)
new technology application,
NGOs SCM expert (1)
government interventions, food
Head (1)
donation, and the roles of NGOs
Figure 2.8 provides an overview of the prominent research gaps and how they were
derived from the insights from the four sources as mentioned above. Collectively,
significant research opportunities exist for OM researchers in FLW reduction. In the
following subsections, we discuss the most important research directions.
• Literature sample (346

journal papers)
• Conference presentations FLW research
• Working papers
Operations and
Sustainability FSC management
Future research technology application
directions
• Sustainable FSCs • Cooperation • Demand forecasting

• Stakeholder • Risk management • Farmer behaviour
Check against practical needs intervention • Processing
by interviewing FSC • Distribution optimisation
stakeholders (30 interviews) • Technology application
Figure 2.8: Future Directions for FLW Research
46
2.6.1 Sustainability
Sustainable FSCs
A sustainable FSC, green supply chain, or closed-loop supply chain represents a
potential solution to realising sustainable operations (Sgarbossa and Russo, 2017; Ala-
Harja and Helo, 2014). In recent years, circular food supply chain has been advocated for
transitioning to a CE (Farooque et al., 2019a). Circular supply chain is a multi-dimensional
concept which encompasses closed-loop supply chain, reverse supply chain,
remanufacturing supply chain, industrial symbiosis, among others (Zhang et al., 2021). In
comparison with closed-loop SCM, circular SCM can further advance resource circularity
because it enables value recovery from waste not only in the original supply chain but also
in other supply chains (Farooque et al., 2019b; Zhang et al., 2021).
To some extent, the performance of FLW reduction in a sustainable FSC reflects the
social responsibility of the stakeholders involved (Filimonau and Gherbin, 2017). Success
in FLW reduction may positively affect stakeholders’ reputations and create potential
market value for the whole supply chain (Sgarbossa and Russo, 2017; Mangla et al., 2021).
FLW prevention encourages stakeholders to cooperate, seek solutions, and create close
connections with each other in a sustainable FSC.
Studies that offer models for a sustainable FSC are currently limited in number. What
studies that do exist include a multi-objective optimisation of sustainable FSCs (Zhang and
Jiang, 2017), a model of the distribution system in the context of sustainable FSCs using a
bi-objective approach (minimising costs and carbon dioxide emissions simultaneously)
(Mogale et al., 2019), creating a sustainable FSC through information sharing or closed-
loop supply chain development (Kaipia et al., 2013; Sgarbossa and Russo, 2017), and
47
sustainable FSC management for perishable food (Liu et al., 2021).
Research on traditional closed-loop supply chains often focuses on the durable goods
industry, and few quantitative modelling approaches exist which apply closed-loop supply
chains in the FSC (Banasik et al., 2017b). In the emerging circular SCM domain, research
attention is also lacking in the agri-food sector (Zhang et al., 2021).
Stakeholder Intervention
Typical sustainability studies encompass three-dimensional (environmental, social,
and economic) or four-dimensional (environmental, social, economic, and technical)
impacts. The predominant focus on the environmental impact of FLW has meant that
consideration of other dimensions remains limited. A vice president at a small vegetable
cooperative interviewed by us stated that “FLW reduction is important for us, as it
contributes to environmental friendship and may improve our revenue”; however, “We do
not have the financial capacity to invest in advanced package and pre-cooling facilities”,
and “we do hope to get help from OM researchers, especially on the topic of government
intervention”. The insights from industry reveal that many SMEs lack financial resources
to invest in FLW initiatives and they would welcome positive government interventions.
Thus, governments do have an interest to support businesses, especially SMEs. However,
they usually do not have scientific data on the effectiveness of possible policy measures.
OM researchers may well bridge the gap between the governments and businesses by
conducting research on government interventions.
As previously mentioned, researchers often posit that FLW reduction has a positive
influence on the environment and society. However, this contention is not as
straightforward as it may appear and warrants more careful investigation. For instance,
48
while FLW reduction may be a mechanism for alleviating hunger and improving the
availability of food products, the occurrence of FLW may not match the location of those
who are most affected by it. For example, the proportion of FLW in edible food is
comparatively high at the consumption stage in developed countries where people can
generally access food and a reduction of FLW here will not necessarily translate to an
improvement in the health outcomes of this population. This raises questions, such as the
possible roles of corporations, NGOs, and non-profit organisations in helping to construct
sustainable FSCs and what interventions could be implemented to redistribute the sources
converted from FLW into consumable products. A handful of studies have started to
consider issues around social supermarket operations (Holweg et al., 2010), donation
management (Buisman et al., 2019), and FLW conversion into by-products (Lee and
Tongarlak, 2017; Chávez et al., 2018). However, more FLW research on stakeholder
interventions for sustainability remains a pressing need.
An associate director in the Chinese government stated in our interview that “In the
context of COVID-19, almost all countries are encountering the challenge of food security.
FLW reduction is a possibly solution to relieve this situation”. The state of food insecurity
globally and the significant challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic are pushing
society and firms to seek sustainable solutions to mitigate the food crisis (FAO, 2021,
Burgos and Ivanov, 2021). Stakeholders in multiple tiers of the FSC are starting to realise
the importance of food and agricultural resources, which may encourage them to consider
more intervention measures for moving forward to a more sustainable business model.
A range of opportunities for future research in sustainability exist, including: 1) an
evaluation system for sustainable FSCs that considers FLW reduction, 2) sustainable
49
consumption initiatives and the impact on FLW reduction, 3) trade-offs to exercise a
sustainable FSC between stakeholders, 4) quantification of FLW in circular supply chain
models, 5) collaboration issues in the circular supply chain context, 6) government
intervention for FLW management and construction of a sustainable FSC, 7) the roles of
corporations, NGOs, and non-profit organisations for sustainable development with respect
to FLW reduction, 8) the relationship between food security/safety and FLW management,
and 9) the carbon footprint of FLW and the relationship between FLW reduction and carbon
neutrality.
2.6.2 FSC Management
FSC management has been widely analysed in existing publications. However, discussions
on FLW reduction that relate to the entire FSC, including FSC cooperation and risk
management, remain relatively scarce.
Cooperation
Nearly one-fifth of the interview questions relate to FSC cooperation, and over half of
the interviewees mentioned cooperation is one of the most important issues affecting FLW
reduction. Our interview data show that FSC cooperation helps to reduce FLW for both
large companies and SMEs. A purchasing manager at a leading food processing company
explained that “Our company strengthened the cooperation with upstream suppliers to
reduce the food loss, which has dropped around 1-2% compared with 4 years ago”, and a
head of a small cooperative indicated that “We tried hard to strengthen cooperation with
supermarkets, wholesalers, and processors, which reduced the food loss rate by around 5%
in the sales stage”. However, we identified only seven papers out of the 346 papers that
50
studied FLW through the lens of FSC cooperation, a reflection of the fledgling state of this
research area. Our review of the literature reveals two potential directions for future
research in relation to cooperation: FLW transmission mechanisms and coordination
mechanisms.
We define the FLW transmission mechanism as how the FLW costs or burdens are
transmitted in the upstream to the downstream, or vice versa. In practice, improper
treatment of the food in the upstream of the FSC, including packaging, handling,
transporting, and warehousing, may cause FLW downstream. Studies could investigate
how transmission mechanisms might work to minimise FLW.
From a holistic and network perspective, cooperation has been suggested as an
appropriate strategy to reduce FLW (Halloran et al., 2014). Future studies could consider
modelling or describing different variables in coordination mechanisms relating to FLW
reduction, such as different FSC stakeholders and their roles and power in cooperation. For
instance, a chief executive officer (CEO) at a small fruit and vegetable wholesale company
explained “Our company is a small-se company, and we lack marketing power to cooperate
with upstream suppliers or downstream retailers”. Other future directions include changes
and uncertainties in the network during cooperation and different contract types and their
impacts on FLW reduction. In particular, contract management is considered to be an
effective way to reduce FLW. A manager at a leading beverage company stated that “We
gradually strengthened our cooperation with the downstream of our supply chain by
contract management and retailer management and it contributes to around 1-2% in FLW
reduction”. Possible research topics could include: 1) how the transmission mechanism
works to minimise FLW in FSCs, 2) FLW reduction performance evaluation during
51
cooperation between the FSC stakeholders considering different marketing power of the
stakeholders, 3) innovative cooperation between stakeholders, 4) cooperation mechanism
design in the context of multi-stakeholders, 5) the impact of rejection rate on FLW due to
unsatisfied quality in the cooperation, 6) the concept of FSC integration to increase FLW
reduction, and 7) an appropriate contract management to reduce FLW.
Risk Management
Our interview data show that many companies are working on FSC design and risk
management to reduce FLW, especially for large food processors, traders and chain retailers.
An operations manager at a vegetable trade company stated that “We are planning to invest
in risk management to reduce FLW and hope to obtain the OM researchers’ suggestions”.
While FSC risk management has been well investigated in recent publications (Behzadi et
al., 2018), we could only find one paper (Ali et al., 2019) that also considered FLW
reduction.
Scholars often classify supply chain risk into two categories: disruption risks and
operational risks (Tang, 2006). The difference between these two types of risks is whether
they are caused by human-made and natural disasters or operational uncertainties.
Identification of potential risks in the treatment of FLW is important. For instance, given
specific circumstances, accepting some FLW might be economically efficient; however, if
corporations are forced to reduce their FLW with costly interventions, this might lead to
financial problems within the entire FSC. Another example relates to the redistribution of
unsaleable products. Holweg et al. (2016) suggest that even though some unsaleable
products are still edible and redistributable, there might be potential health risks involved
owing to a lack of refrigerated facilities during the redistribution. Uncertainty in customer
52
demand is another potential risk to consider in FLW management. For example, customers
might not accept the by-products converted from retail FLW. Potential areas of
investigation relating to risk management in FLW include the potential impact of FLW
reduction strategies on FSC disruption and uncertainties in the FLW reduction process,
which impact other food value chain stages.
2.6.3 Operations and Technology Application
Although issues relating to FLW are more frequently examined within the context of a
specific stage in the FSC, a number of research gaps still remain in operations-based
activities and technology application.
Demand Forecasting and Farmer Behaviour
A manager at a beverage company concluded that “In our company, the root-cause of
food loss is mostly owing to the inaccuracy of forecasts, which leads to over-production”,
and another purchasing manager at a food production company further explained that the
reasons for FLW are various, including “suppliers’ behaviour, learning experience, and
willingness to obey the contract”. Further exploring the literature, we identify that demand
forecasting and farmer behaviour are two possible research topics. Demand forecasting is
not only a technical problem; thus, OM methods could be productively employed to resolve
the challenges at hand. While there are studies that focus on uncertainty problems in FSCs,
there is still a need for further work in modelling yield, price, and demand to improve
demand forecasting accuracy and accordingly reduce FLW.
Farmer behaviour is another promising area of research. In practice, farmers are not
always price sensitive and their transactions may be affected by trade-offs between extra
53
transaction costs and the benefits from a higher selling price. In addition, farmer behaviour
may also be influenced by transaction habits rather than current conditions when making
decisions. Our search did not yield any papers that deal with FLW issues in relation to
demand forecasting and farmer behaviour.
Processing
Quantitative analysis based on qualitative research findings in the processing stage is
thought to be underdeveloped (Raak et al., 2017). We could only find three papers
investigating FLW issues in the processing stage (Raak et al., 2017; Redlingshöfer et al.,
2017; Simms et al., 2020), and all of them use qualitative methods.
In practice, we observe that processing planning, decisions on new technology
adoption, and managing material surplus can impact FLW reduction performance in the
processing stage. A head at a farmers’ cooperative stated that “We introduced new planting
technology and invested in new processing facilities, which greatly decreased the
suboptimal tomatoes. These methods reduce the rate of suboptimal tomatoes from 15-25%
to around 5%. It effectively reduced the food loss”.
These effects remain to be discussed, which provides significant opportunities for
FLW management contributions. Moreover, modelling the uncertainties during the
processing stage is also a promising avenue, for example, uncertain rejection rates. The
design of an appropriate processing plan and investment decisions around the application
of new technologies which consider the trade-offs between the investment cost and FLW
reduction performance are also research topics that beckon attention.
54
Distribution Optimisation
Distribution channels are quite different across different FSCs and may include diverse
stakeholders and processes. These differences could impact FLW reduction operations
(Song et al., 2021). Some studies focus on e-commerce or internet retail, while other studies
deal with physical stores such as supermarkets; there is a lack of comparative studies on
how different modes of FSCs affect FLW, and we only found two such papers. Accorsi et
al. (2014) consider a different network layout that can cause different FLW problems. Song
et al. (2021) discuss the omni-channel strategies and their impacts on FLW.
Possibly driven by technology and information availability, omnichannel distribution
has become a burgeoning practice, which changes the interaction between retailers,
manufacturers, and customers. The involvement of new distribution channels may
positively or negatively influence FSC management and FLW reduction. Consequently,
various FSC stakeholders voiced out the challenges they faced in distribution optimisation,
spanning across channel optimisation, network optimisation, and overall system
optimisation. Additional research can provide insights into omnichannel distribution, a
relatively new mode of distribution. Interesting topics in the context of FLW reduction
include studying customer choice of distribution channels and the economic value of
omnichannel options, challenges and opportunities in omnichannel operations, and the
impact of omnichannel distribution on FLW reduction performance.
Technology Application
Technology application has been mentioned by several interviewees. It is one approach
to effectively reduce FLW, with benefits that include keeping food fresh, extending the life
55
cycle, and changing the appearance and size of the food products. For instance, a vice
president at a vegetable company indicated that “advanced package and pre-cooling
facilities possibly reduce 10-20% of loss”. Exploring the extant literature, agricultural-
specific technologies and high-technology foods are two dimensions in Agriculture 4.0 1
(Olsen and Tomlin, 2020) that could possibly help to reduce FLW. As another emerging
technology, blockchain is considered an important tool to enhance supply chain visibility
(Rogerson and Parry, 2020; Mangla et al., 2021). The problem of tracking and tracing in
FSCs has been discussed widely (Derqui and Fernandez, 2017); however, blockchain
applications in FLW reduction are still scarce.
The application of new techniques can have a considerable impact on FSC
management and FLW reduction in that they: 1) may disrupt the traditional links in FSCs;
2) may improve production efficiencies despite increasing costs in the short-term; 3) may
reduce uncertainty in the FSC, while creating other types of risks, such as investment risk
in new techniques; and 4) may involve new recycling technology or FLW treatment
methods, while increasing disposal costs.
However, the interview result also indicates that the universal applicability of
techonology to reduce FLW are questioned and challenged in practice. Normally the large
companies could effectively control the FLW by applying technology. Whereas, counter-
intuitively, when the SMEs replicate or learn from the large companies in techonology
application, the performance in reducting FLW is sometimes unsatisfying.
Over fifty percent of the interviewees are expecting help from OM researcher in
relation to technology applications. The concerns include “being a small size wholesaler,
1 “Agriculture 4.0”, which is a reference to “Industry 4.0”, is defined as an agricultural revolution brought about by
advanced science, technologies, and devices (De Clercq et al., 2018).
56
we have no financial budget to pay for the technology” (a CEO at a small wholesale
company), and the different performance of technology between large companies and
SMEs. For instance, a manager at a large beverage company indicated that “RFID [radio
frequency identification] technology effectively improved the efficiency of our operations”,
whereas a vice president at a small food manufacture company said “We tried many
methods such as changing packaging and using iced-water bottles for pre-cooling.
However, these methods are not effective enough”. An associate director in the government
summarised that “In fact, large companies usually have effective methods including
technology application, while it is the contrary situation for SMEs”.
Our review did not locate any papers that discussed the trade-offs in new technologies
within the context of Agriculture 4.0 and/or blockchain contexts. As suggested by OM
researchers (e.g., Zhang and Jiang, 2017), future research into aspects of new technology
application in FLW management is needed. Interesting topics include, 1) the influence of
aesthetic grading on FLW, 2) the efficiency of government interventions on the application
of new technologies that impact the FLW performance, 3) the technical limitations that
reduce transformation for by-products, and 4) the trade-offs between adopting new
technologies and minimisation of rejection rates.
2.7 Brief Summary
This chapter provides a relevance-driven literature review of FLW studies. With
comprehensively examining the existing literature and incorporating the results of the
semi-structured interviews in the future research projection, we identify many research
gaps remain, among which, we select and include two specific topics in our thesis:
government interventions on the technology adoption that impact food loss reduction and
57
the impact of consumer behaviour on food waste reduction. These two topics represent
typical problems in reducing FLW in the upstream and downstream FSCs. Chapters 4 and
5 analyse the government interventions on preservation technology adoption and their
impact on food loss reduction, which focus on the key food loss issue in the upstream of
FSCs. Chapter 6 discusses the household food waste issue, which comprises a large fraction
of the FLW in the downstream of FSCs.
58
CHAPTER 3
A Conceptual Framework to Analyse Food Loss and Waste within Food Supply Chains
According to the literature review in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 constructs a conceptual
framework to analyse in-depth FLW occurrence in FSC operations. This chapter is based
on a paper, which has been published in Sustainability with DOI: 10.3390/su13020927 (see
co-author statement).
3.1 Introduction
As mentioned in Chapter 2, FLW studies are published in multiple disciplines, including
environmental science, agricultural analysis, energy, chemical engineering, biochemistry,
social science, etc. To provide an overview of the FLW issues in FSC operations, this
chapter develops an inductive approach and presents a research framework to help
researchers identify possible methods to reduce the FLW in the field of OM and facilitate
understanding of various types and distribution modes of FSCs where FLW occurs and the
impacts of FLW. This chapter proposes a framework to identify FLW problems within
FSCs and helps to comprehensively understand FLW occurrence and stimulate research
focusing on the FLW from different perspectives. Figure 3.1 describes the structure of this
chapter.
Research Scope
Various Types of FLW Measures and Methodologies

- where FLW occurs
FLW Definition Measures to Reduce
- how to identify FLW Analyse FLW Issues FLW in OM Field
within FSCs
FLW Occurrences and Methodologies to
Possible Causes Analyse FLW
- at different FSC stages,
stakeholders and distribution
modes
Figure 3.1: A Brief Framework to Analyse FLW Problems within FSCs
59
In the remainder of this chapter, Section 3.2 discusses the various types of FSCs.
Section 3.3 reviews the social, economic, and environmental impacts of FLW. Section 3.4
describes FLW occurrences and causes in different FSC stages, stakeholders, and
distribution modes respectively. Section 3.5 discusses the measures to reduce FLW in the
field of OM and Section 3.6 introduces some methodologies that might be applied for FLW
reduction studies. The conclusion is presented in Section 3.7.
3.2 Various Types of FSCs
Some studies focus on FLW within FSCs without specific attention to product
characteristics (Irani et al., 2018), whereas other studies address FLW in various forms of
FSCs, such as perishable FSCs (Rijpkema et al., 2014), chilled FSCs (Tromp et al., 2016),
and sustainable FSCs (Sgarbossa and Russo, 2014).
There have been some discrepancies in naming FSCs in recent research, such as
studies using “agri-FSCs” (Ahumada and Villalobos, 2009) or “agri-business supply
chains” (Wang et al., 2014) to emphasise the importance of the agriculture sector compared
with manufacturing supply chains, or “food value chains” to evaluate the FLW from the
view of value and cost (Lee et al., 2017). These expressions of supply chains in the food
industry may or may not examine the same group of products. Generally, characteristics
and categorisation of food products are two dimensions to be considered when naming the
FSCs in different studies.
Another group of OM researchers prefer to apply commonly accepted names in their
FSC research considering specific categories, such as vegetable supply chains (Brulard et
al., 2018), grain supply chains (Mogale et al., 2017), fresh fruit supply chains (Soto-Silva
et al., 2016), and dairy supply chains (Thompson et al., 2018). Or use more specific food
60
products, such as beef supply chains (Mishra and Singh, 2018) and avocado supply chains
(Bustos and Moors, 2018).
To enhance the understanding of various FSCs and define the scope of the study, some
researchers classify food products into kinds of groups with different categorising methods.
For example, Shukla and Jharkharia (2013) divide the food products according to whether
they are “durable” or “perishable”; Beretta et al. (2013) enumerate the food category, such
as “fruits”, “vegetables”, “cereals”; and Behzadi et al. (2018) classify the agri-food
products into “crops” and “livestock”.
Figure 3.2 illustrates a categorisation and a circulation of FSCs including the
destination of resource flow. FSCs are used to describe activities that bring the food from
farm to fork. To address the value of FSCs, some researchers also use the expression “food
value chain”. We could not cover all kinds of FSCs, as there might be thousands of FSCs
named by specific food products without mentioning the key word – “food”. Thus, we
selected seven commodity groups, which are addressed and analysed in the FAO report
(2011) as paradigms. Meanwhile, we also considered different expressions of FSCs, such
as agri-food or agribusiness supply chain, durable-FSC, and perishable FSC. To provide a
holistic picture of circulation, we included the food use hierarchy (FAO, 2016), which
highlights the importance of FLW reduction, and indicates the preferred methods for waste
management.
61
Farm
Food Supply Chains/ Value Chains

Most preferred
Agri-food/Agribusiness Supply
Recovery, recycling, and Chains
redistribution for human
consumption Durable-food Supply Chains Perishable-food Supply Chains
Short shelf-life food products
Long shelf-life food supply chains
products supply chains
Durable-food Supply Chains
Animal feed & donation Fresh-food supply chain
Grain/Cereal Oilcrop and pulse
supply chain Fruit/Vegetable Meat supply
supply chain
supply chain chain
Composting, energy
recovery, or other
Roots and Tuber Dairy
industrial uses Fish supply
supply chain supply chain
chain
Disposal
Green-food supply
Sustainable-food chain
Supply Chains
Least preferred
Fork
Figure 3.2. An Illustration for FSCs Categorisation
3.3 Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts of FLW
FLW has significant impact on society, economics, and the environment (Willersinn et al.,
2017), and these three forces are identified as the impetuses behind the FLW reduction
studies in FSC operations (McCarthy et al., 2017).
3.3.1 Social Impacts of FLW
Elaborating from ethical and moral dimensions (Girotto et al., 2015), FLW reduction is
recognised to have a considerable potential to increase the food supply (FAO, 2009), and
in turn, improve the food security and alleviate global poverty (Filimonau et al., 2017).
Pinto et al. (2018) highlight this impact as a way to reduce “social inequality and
62
misdistribution of resources”. FLW social impacts have been discussed in several
perspectives, including Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), cultural impacts, and
changes in the patterns of people’s life related to one other.
 CSR: FLW reduction reflects the CSR strategies of FSC stakeholders (Garrone et
al., 2016), and its triumph could have positive effect on stakeholders’ reputation
and create potential market value (Sgarbossa and Russo, 2017). Instead of
delivering to secondary markets, or reuse, redistribution, and recovery, food
donation is another way to demonstrate CSR and FLW management strategy
(Gokarn and Kuthambalayan, 2017). However, considering economically
efficiency, CSR may fail to motivate all stakeholders to take corrective methods
and efforts to reduce FLW, which may call for effective intervention from food
policy and regulation by governments (Muriana, 2015; Halloran et al., 2017).
 Cultural impacts: FLW reduction is deemed to have limited impacts on the cultural
changes, as certain amount of FLW is perceived to be socially acceptable (Pinto
et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). Zhang et al. (2018) analyse this impact and
indicate that the potential cause of reduced significance of cultural impact is due
to the failing proportion of food cost in total households’ income in pace with the
development of society.
 Changes in the patterns of people’s life related to one other: FLW prevention itself
encourages FSC stakeholders to cooperate with each other, seek for solution, and
create close connection with each other (Szabó-Bódi et al., 2018). On the other
hand, from the individual level, the encouragement for implementation FLW
reduction motivates people forwarding to sustainable living style (Shearer et al.,
63
2017), and changing their behaviours by observing socially approved behaviour
or norm (Lee et al., 2017).
3.3.2 Economic Impacts of FLW
Even though economic impacts are discussed or mentioned in almost all research articles
related to FLW reduction, current FSC management research focusing on cost/profit
optimisation tends to overlook the FLW economic impacts (Muriana et al., 2015).
Initiatives in FLW reduction are considered to contribute to the FSC stakeholders’ profits
by providing more available products to sell (Steur et al., 2016) avoiding disposal and input
costs (Govindan et al., 2018), and specifically, the fiscal deduction from food donation
(Muriana, 2017). Given external limitations (e.g., laws and regulations, credit constraints,
and insufficient investments on infrastructure), FLW reduction operations through
internally improving the efficiency of FSC management is considered as an approach to
increase the long-term profit of the entire FSC (Koester, 2014)
In addition, there are some arguments on the economic impacts of FLW. For example,
the FAO report (2011) emphasises that the reduction of avoidable FLW has a direct and
positive impact on the income of both farmers and consumers, whereas, Koester (2014)
notes that given specific circumstance, farmers may accept some FLW to be economically
efficient. Relevant analysis on economic impacts of FLW we observe, includes but is not
limited to,
 Economic costs of FLW reduction: Due to the costs of implementing FLW
reduction would be higher than the residual value of product- self (Muriana,
2015), FLW reduction might be treated as economically infeasible under certain
conditions. In this context, it requires researchers to analyse detailed and specific
64
costs of FLW reduction initiatives, such as transportation, processing, and
distribution network setup costs for recovery, redistribution, and reuse (FAO,
2011) and disposal and opportunity costs of resources wasted and lost (Rutten
2013).
 Economic benefits of FLW reduction: Initiatives in FLW reduction are considered
to contribute to the FSC stakeholders’ profits by providing more available
products to sell (Steur et al. 2016), and avoiding disposal and input costs
(Govindan, 2018). From a consumption perspective, they are regarded to be
propitious to lower food prices by reducing the imbalances between food supply
and demand and save money on purchasing food (Coderoni, 2020)
3.3.3 Environmental Impacts of FLW
To not be limited to provide adequate accessible food for a growing population, improve
the economic performance, and to be identified as a sustainable solution for FSC by
reducing the environmental adverse influence (Girotto et al., 2015), FLW reduction has a
considerable potential value to be studied and tackled. Many studies are from the field of
environmental science, which is the largest subject in FLW research. Studies discussing
the environmental impacts of FLW are mainly from two streams: the wastage of upstream
production resources, such as water, land, and the waste disposal from downstream, such
as greenhouse gas emissions caused by consumption waste (Kim et al., 2013; Coderoni et
al., 2020). Proper FLW reduction operations are considered to have high potential to reduce
the environmental burden (Salemdeeb et al., 2017).
Environmental impact could be evaluated by different disposal technologies (Reutter
et al., 2017), life cycle assessment methods (Salemdeeb et al., 2017), and environmentally
65
extended input-output methodology (Scherhaufer et al., 2018). The numerical results show
that FLW could cause severe environmental problems, such as greenhouse gas emissions,
natural resources waste, and soil degradation. However, can the practices of FLW reduction
could definitely alleviate environmental impacts? Lam et al. (2018) indicate that proper
FLW management has a high potential to reduce the environmental burden, otherwise, it
may exacerbate environmental problems. Most articles focus on the environmental impacts
that are directly linked to the FLW disposal, but do not consider those generated during the
other steps of the FSC, for example, using chemicals to extend the product’s life which
could reduce the FLW but may harm the environment, or using storage facilities which
consume more electricity. A comprehensive assessment on environmental impacts of FLW
reduction considering both FLW disposal and FLW treatment is needed.
3.4 FLW Occurrences and Possible Causes
3.4.1 FLW at Different FSC Stages
As described earlier, FSCs are complicated networks found between food producers,
processors, distributors, and consumers, and are used to describe activities that bring the
food from farm to table, from production to consumption. Distinguished from other supply
chains, the intrinsic characteristics of FSCs, include weather-related variability, uncertain
supply and demand, limited and fluctuating shelf life, uncertain degradation process in
quality and quantity, and demand for environmental sustainability. These characteristics
make the underlying FSCs more complicated and difficult to manage. FLW can occur at
any stage of FSCs. Figure 3.3 illustrates potential FLW occurrences and causes in a typical
FSC.
66
Post-harvest Handling Distribution and
Production Processing Consumption
and Storage Market
• Food safety regulations or

• Unsatisfied quality
• Damages caused by nature • Operational mistakes standards that cause the
• Mismatch between supply
(e.g., insects, microbes, or • Lack of proper storage and rejection of some products
and demand • Customer behaviours
weather) transportation facilities for human consumption
• Packing issues (such as over-preparation
• Operational mistakes • Damage caused by • Technical limitations that
• Expiration before and purchasing behaviors)
• Inadequate production puncture, vibration, and reduce transformation of
purchasing • Limited knowledge on
techniques compression byproducts
• Customer preference, such food storage
• Overproduction • Injuries due to technical • Rejection because of the
as size, appearance, • Lack of refrigerator or
• Farmers/Cooperatives’ limitations quality standard
freshness other storage facilities
behaviour (such as trade- • Improper packaging for • Equipment malfunction or
• Spoilage or damage • Confusions over ‘best
off between harvest costs transportation mechanical failure
• Transportation facility before’ and ‘use by’ dates
and product’s value) • Poor infrastructure • Overproduction
problems • ...
• ... • ... • Contamination
• ...
• ...
Figure 3.3: FLW Occurrences and Possible Causes in FSC Stages
We follow the descriptions of the FSC stages provided by the FAO (2018) and
summarise potential FLW occurrences and causes from Stangherlin et al. (2018), Buzby et
al. (2012), Kummu et al. (2012), and Parfitt et al. (2010).
3.4.2 FLW at Different FSC Stakeholders
There are hundreds of types or distribution channels of FSCs. In order to have a holistic
illustration of FLW occurrences within FSCs, we provide a general discussion on the
avoidable FLW at stakeholders and distribution modes, respectively. Typically, FSCs are
considered to embrace the components of suppliers, processors, and retail outlets (Banasik
et al., 2017). However, rather than a unique and standard distribution channel including all
components, the distribution channels that are associated with different categories of food
products are more likely to depend on the market structure and product characteristics in
the food sector (Nikolaou et al., 2018). Even in the same industry, different FSCs may
include different stakeholders. For example, Tostivint et al. (2017) investigate a dairy
67
supply chain, including milk suppliers, collection points, manufacturers, distributers, and
retailers, whereas Kaipia et al. (2013) consider that this industry includes a milk supplier,
logistics service provider, wholesaler, and retailer. In the remainder of this section, we will
discuss the avoidable FLW at different FSC stakeholders.
Farmers
The FLW occurs at the initial stage of FSCs, and the reasons are varied, including:
 Overproduction. For example, due to poor forecasting (lack of technology or
experience), the food products cannot be sold entirely to wholesalers, retailers, or
customers (Koester, 2014);
 Farmers’ rational choice on the acceptance of some FLW (FAO, 2013). Farmers
may discover that the costs (e.g., harvesting and delivering) of selling their
products are higher than the benefits;
 Inadequate technologies for cultivation and harvesting (Thamagasorn and
Pharino, 2019).
Wholesalers
In developing countries, wholesale markets are often characterised as being small
scale, crowded, unsanitary, and lacking cooling systems (FAO, 2011). Practically, not all
distribution channels include wholesalers as intermediaries. For example, online
companies may directly contract with farmers, and supermarkets have long and stable
relationships with farming co-operatives. However, the wholesale distribution channel is
an important aspect of the FSCs.
68
The FLW occurring at wholesalers is often related to poor distribution and storage,
and shortage of demand information (FAO, 2013). Longer distribution and storage time,
and poor facilities will reduce the quality of most agri-foods and introduce FLW.
Retailers
The FLW management at retailers involves many impact factors, such as, inventory
management, quality management, and supplier management. Studies on the FLW at the
retailing level is vary and increasing. The key focuses of the FLW at retailers include,
 Demand management: variabilities in demand are one of the significant factors
that generate FLW at a retailing level. Failures, such as inaccurately forecasting
the customers’ demand, unprepared promotions, and over-qualified service level,
can result in FLW (Muriana, 2017);
 Inventory management: the literature on perishable food products using inventory
management methods is vast. Rather than setting FLW reduction as the key
objective, most studies use traditional cost minimisation or profit maximisation
objectives, and indirectly examine FLW issues (Soysal et al., 2015);
 Motivation in FLW reduction: quality management, customer satisfaction, and
economically concerns are some of the key factors that impact motivation in FLW
reduction at the retailing level. For instance, to ensure the high level of freshness
and customer satisfaction, retailers may dispose products even they are still fit for
consumption. Another example is associated with food donations. Instead of
delivering to secondary markets, or reuse, redistribution, and recovery, food
donation is a way to demonstrate CSR and FLW management strategy. However,
considering economic efficiency, CSR may fail to motivate retailers to take
69
corrective methods and efforts to reduce FLW, which calls for effective
intervention from food policy and regulation by governments (Muriana 2017)
 Technology limitation: Inappropriate packaging, storage, and display in retailing
level can impact the quality, deterioration rate, and the shelf-life of the food
products.
Customers
Customer behaviour has been well examined in FLW studies. The factors, such as the
patterns of human life, the shopping habit, behaviour types, the knowledge for FLW, and
the cultures, significantly impact the FLW reduction performance (Luo et al., 2022).
Besides the key factors above, we summarise other factors coming from the literature
(e.g., Govindan, 2018; Setti et al., 2016; Despoudi et al., 2018; Filimonau and Gherbin,
2017; Gaiani et al., 2018; Gardas et al., 2018; Macheka et al., 2017; Pauls-Worm et al.,
2016; Raak, et al., 2017 Reardon et al., 2012), shown in Figure 3.4. This fish-bone frame
helps researchers to comprehensively understand the possible root-causes of FLW
generation in FSCs.
Distributors
(Distribution and Processors
Producers
Market) (Processing)
(Production)
Logistical Operations,
Quality Control,
Consumer Perception
(Possibly) Avoidable
FLW Generation
Distributors (Post-harvest
handling and storage)
Entire FSC Customers (Consumption)
Figure 3.4: Avoidable FLW Generation Causes
70
3.4.3 FLW at Different FSC Distribution Modes
From a practical and operational perspective, we identify at least four FSC distribution
modes that have co-existed, and we name them as “traditional mode”, “wholesale mode”,
“supermarket mode”, and “Internet retail mode”. We conduct a conceptual framework for
these forms of FSC and possible FLW occurrence in these modes, to provide an illustration
on how differently the FLW occurs in these four modes. We also acknowledge that, for
specific products, the stages could be significantly different, and sometime, even for the
same products, the distribution channels are co-existed.
Traditional Mode
Distribution,
transportation,
handling,
and storage FLW
Farmers Wet Market Consumer
• Postharvest loss • Disposal due to

• Production loss • Eating and
• Operation loss • Storage loss shopping habits,
• Farmers/Cooperati • Transaction loss • Over preparation
ves' trade-offs and • ... • Storage
rational choice methodology
• ... • ...
FLW occurance
Figure 3.5: Traditional Mode and Possible FLW Occurrence
A direct and traditional FSC is characterised by a narrow distribution channel, which
is normally led by farmers and traders. Direct sales in regional and local wet markets,
corner stores, or roadside stands, is primarily located close to the production region. The
number of intermediaries is small, and Reardon (2012) describes it as “geographically
short” and “intermediationally short”. The relationships between the seller and buyer are
71
generally limited to simple spot transactions (FAO, 2009), and products delivered via this
FSC are low cost and mainly targeted on the lower-income, urban and rural people. Figure
3.5 describes the FSC in traditional mode and the possible FLW occurrence.
Wholesale Market Mode
A wholesale market mode is an important form of FSC. Jia et al. (2013) suggest that around
70% of vegetables and fruit, and 20% of meats are distributed to the end consumer via this
mode worldwide. The wholesaler is the key player in this mode, and it can directly deliver
the products to the final consumers, such as the suppliers to school canteens. Figure 3.6
describes the distribution channel of the wholesale market mode. To avoid repetition, we
address the possible FLW that is different from other modes.
International transportation,
storage loss,
and FLW due to products Import • Distribution loss
FLW due to
rejection • Demand management;
Operational mistakes; Wholesale
market Infrastructure
Primary Hub Cooperation problems; Storage
Wholesale Market facility
• ...
Farmers/Rural Producing Area Sale Area

Retailers Consumers
Cooperatives/Farms Wholesale Market Wholesale Market
Processor Processed product International transportation,

storage loss,
Export and FLW due to products
rejection
Figure 3.6: Wholesale market mode and possible FLW occurrence
Supermarket Mode
Figure 3.7 illustrates a brief FCS, in which, supermarkets are the core stakeholder. In this
distribution mode, food products can be supplied by wholesalers, producers, importers, or
72
even directly from farmers. In some cases, to ensure efficiency and quality, supermarkets,
especially hypermarkets, can have their own distribution centres and contract farms. The
FLW problems in this mode are to some extent associated with the inventory, demand,
quality, strategy, and cooperation issues.
FLW due to
• Inventory management;
Demand forecasting; Pricing,
sales, and ordering strategies;
Quality management;
Cooperation problems
Import • ...
Farmers/Rural
Wholesale Market Supermarkets Consumers
Cooperatives/Farms
Processors Processed Product
Figure 3.7: Supermarket Mode and Possible FLW Occurrence
Internet retail mode
The booming development of IT and distribution/express delivery enables the
implementation of internet retail. This mode is more complex compared with supermarket
mode, shown in Figure 3.8. However, even though it involves new stakeholder in the FSC,
this burgeoning business mode supports a platform to direct trade for different stakeholders
in FSC, and that may potentially reduce the FLW by decreasing the total transaction time
of the FSCs.
73
E-commerce company: Act as E-commerce company: Act as a
Payment center/Trading platform online store
FLW due to
FLW due to • Products rejection (online pictures do
• The FSC coordination not match the physical products);
• Product rejection Demand management; Quality control;
• Distribution/transportation Reverse logistics; Operational
• ... mistakes; Delivery timing
• Transportation, distribution loss
• ...
Import
Farmers/Rural E-commerce
Wholesale Market Supermarket Consumer
Cooperatives/Farms Company
Processor Export
Figure 3.8: Internet Retail Mode and Possible FLW Occurrence
FLW performs differently in each mode, and this concern provides a lens for
researchers to investigate the FLW issues in-depth, not only considering sole distribution
mode, but multiple modes.
3.5 Measures to Reduce FLW in the Field of OM
What are the measures used in FLW reduction, and how do OM researchers demonstrate
the efficiency of their measures? Based on these questions, this section summarises the key
conclusions from the current literature in the field of OM.
3.5.1 Sustainable Business Model
The food use hierarchy (FAO, 2016) indicates that FLW prevention and management are
preferable to disposal. Compared with conventional business models, creating a sustainable
business model is considered a proactive action to get a “win-win” situation both for
74
economic performance and FLW reduction (Ribeiro et al., 2018). Sustainable operations
can be realised by constructing closed-loop supply chain models (Sgarbossa and Russo,
2017), specifically, adjusting the evaluations matrix for business performance (Ribeiro et
al., 2018), or improving the information sharing about the FLW situation (Kaipia et al.,
2013).
A sustainable business model that includes an environmental matrix was developed
and identified by various methods, such as exploratory case study, survey, life cycle
assessment analysis, multiple attribute decision making model, and material flow analysis.
Their results show that, through these changes, the performance of FLW reduction can be
improved.
3.5.2 Technological Innovations
Here, we consider that the “technological innovations” do not only refer to the technical
improvement of facilities, but also the innovative actions, methods, and knowledge in
practice. For instance, Shearer et al. (2017) investigate an innovative action to encourage
household recycling behaviour and prove this method can consistently reduce the FLW. Li
et al. (2017) compare the choice between a regular and active package, and discuss the
packaging decisions in the retailing interface. Pinto et al. (2018) introduce a method by
displaying posters to motivate FLW reduction in university canteens and indicate that
around 15% of FLW is reduced by this new action.
Some studies use quantitative methods instead of qualitative methods. In particular,
Haass et al. (2015) applied simulation methods to identify the advantage of using intelligent
containers to reduce FLW and carbon emissions. Grunow and Piramuthu (2013)
demonstrate the benefit of applying RFID technology in FLW reduction employing
75
stochastic optimisation methods. At the retailing level, Janssen et al. (2017) practice an
inventory replenishment model using simulation methods.
3.5.3 Effective FSC management
Rather than focusing on the internal structure of individual companies and technological
improvement, effectively managing the entire FSC is considered as another approach to
reduce FLW. However, even though “coordination”, as an important topic, is often
examined by OM researchers in SCM, and FAO (2016) highlights that improvement of the
coordination level between FSC stakeholders could have positive impact on FLW
reduction. We note that, despite most articles mentioning the importance of policy
improvement and government intervention on FLW reduction, only a few papers examine
this influence of external regulation on FLW reduction. For example, Katare et al. (2017)
constructs a FLW disposal tax and government incentive mechanism at the household level
and interprets the interrelationship between FLW and external cost.
3.6 Methodologies to Analyse FLW
Current FLW studies apply quantitative, qualitative, or a mixture of these methods to
address FLW questions. In this section, we introduce seven different methods that are
applied to FLW issues.
3.6.1 Qualitative Research
We use the term “qualitative research” to encompass the studies focusing on case studies,
scenario analysis, and theory development, while excluding the studies using survey and
experimental methods. Figure 3.9 lists the main topics of existing studies.
76
Environmental, social,
Descriptive
economic impacts
analysis
Case study
FLW quantification Bottom up
approach
Descriptive
FSC challenges, trends, study Inductive
Qualitative and management related approach
Research to FLW reduction Cross country
study Material Flow
Approaches to reduce analysis
FLW
Scenarios
analysis Grounded
Root-cause analysis theory
Figure 3.9: Studies Applying Qualitative Research
Compared to quantitative research, qualitative research in FLW research not only
provides a lens to examine the FLW situation in practice, but also offers a theoretical basis
for in-depth research. We scrutinised the qualitative studies, and found some meaningful
findings as below:
 Innovative collaboration within the FSC stakeholders can positively affect
environmental, social, and economic performance (Bustos and Moors, 2018);
 Appropriate legislation and economic incentives have a positive impact on FLW
reduction at the household level (Chalak et al., 2016);
 Logistic’ solutions that are implemented at different FSC stages are interlinked,
which help to effectively reduce the FLW (Liljestrand, 2017).
3.6.2 Empirical Analysis
Empirical analysis is considered an effective method to explore and interpret phenomena,
practice, or circumstances. Studies identified to use empirical analysis on FLW topics are
shown in Figure 3.10.
77
Customer attitude,
awareness, and behavior
Descriptive
FLW quantity and
statistics
composition
FSC challenges, trend,

and management Survey and SEM
Empirical analysis
associated with FLW Experiment
reduction
Regression
Approaches to reduce
FLW DEMATEL
Root-cause analysis
Figure 3.10: Studies Applying Empirical Analysis
Survey and experimental methods were used to investigate and explore the research
questions. To analyse the data from surveys or experiments, researchers employ various
analytical tools and models. Most of the studies use descriptive statistics to describe and
summarise the results of their investigations (primarily surveys); others employ regression
and SEM models, respectively, to test the relationships within factors that impact FLW;
and apply the Trial Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method to identify key factors.
Other methods including the Bayesian Belief Networks model (e.g., Song et al., 2018),
thematic-discourse analysis (e.g., Michalec et al., 2018), inverse model (e.g., Spada et al.,
2018), and fuzzy cognitive map (e.g., Irani et al., 2018) are used to further analyse the
survey results.
Both the advantages and shortcomings of the empirical analysis are obvious. As a
burgeoning research area, exploratory studies in FLW issues could help to explain
unstructured phenomena and find the key impact factors. However, due to several
limitations such as data inaccuracy and inconsistency problems, and geographical
limitations, the implications from the survey results might be questioned.
78
3.6.3 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Unlike other methodologies, LCA applications in FLW mainly focus on two topics:
sustainability and environmental impacts. For example, with regard to sustainability,
Salemdeeb et al. (2017) use LCA and case study methods to discuss a sustainable business
model in Portugal, and Lam et al. (2018) analyse FLW issues from the perspective of
sustainable management employing LCA methods. For the environmental impacts, the
discussions are various, such as environmental impact of FLW and an environmental
comparisons of packing alternatives. We further observe that discrepancies in geography,
FSC stages, and root causes of FLW create different values in these studies.
3.6.4 Deterministic Optimisation
OM researchers employ deterministic optimisation methods to help with decision making
in production, transportation, distribution, and other stages. To sharpen the trade-offs in
the FSC, and improve the accuracy of the decisions, we need to develop models targeting
optimal decisions or solutions both for each stage and for the entire FSC.
Distribution problems are one of the significant issues in the production stage
(Ahumada and Villalobos, 2011) Orgut et al. (2016) present a distribution model to achieve
the optimal solution for donated food considering the trade-offs between equity and
effectiveness. Differentiating from maximising the distribution amount, Lütke Entrup et al.
(2015) integrate the product’s shelf-time parameter into the price function, and Ahumada
and Villalobos (2011) consider the FLW cost in their planning and distribution model. Both
works integrate the FLW variables into the objective function and engage in maximising
the producer’s total profit. Corresponding to these decisions in production planning,
79
Banasik et al. (2017) develop a multi-objective deterministic model to evaluate the
production options and aim to identify an eco-efficient solution. Using deterministic
optimisation in FLW research is scarce. Delivery scheduling (Widodo et al., 2006), pricing
and inventory control (Li et al., 2017), and transportation and storage trade-offs (Mogale
et al., 2017) are the some of the identified topics using this methodology.
3.6.5 Stochastic Programming and Robust Optimisation
Stochastic programming has been applied in various FSC problems, considering different
uncertain factors, such as yield, shelf life, price, demand, and inventory. Rather than an
application of deterministic approaches in FLW reduction, which tend to integrate FLW as
a parameter into the objective function or constraints, and indirectly reflect the FLW issues,
a few studies directly focus on reducing FLW using stochastic programming. The
following representative example is given to illustrate how the decisions are made under
uncertainty, and how these decisions relate to FLW reduction performance. From a
gleaning operations perspective, Lee et al. (2017) distinguish their model from other
operations settings by considering the uncertain arrival time of donation and gleaners’
attendance. This work presents a stochastic model that aims to construct a mechanism to
improve the gleaning operations performance and minimise the FLW by considering a
trade-off between appointment capacity and gleaner capacity.
Unlike traditional assumptions that the demand is deterministic, demand uncertainty
has been discussed as a key factor to enhance the application of FSC management in
practice. Dealing with similar uncertainty issues, robust optimisation that adopts a different
mathematical formalism from stochastic programming, is also applicable in FLW
reduction problems using the min-max approach. For example, Zhang and Jiang (2017)
80
present a multi-objective model under the case where the price of biodiesel produced from
waste cooking oil is uncertain. Their results provide a treatment of waste cooking oil, in
turn reducing FLW. An and Ouyang (2016) employ a robust optimisation approach to
design the grain supply chain considering the trade-offs between FLW and harvest timing.
3.6.6 Simulation
The advantages of applying simulation in FLW issues are noticeable: it allows OM
researchers to quantify the effects of uncertainties and variabilities, test the different
scenarios, measure the performance of a new technology, and study the relationships
between causal factors. It also can be a useful tool to show the effectiveness of technical,
logistical, and marketing interventions.
Besides simulating the process, structure, or settings in the FSC, a simulation model
is often combined with other methodologies, such as empirical analysis and qualitative
research, to analyse FLW problems in depth. Teller et al. (2018) conduct exploratory
research on retail store operation and FLW. To detect the root causes of FLW, this work
simulates the operations process, followed by analysis with case study research, and finally
confirms the findings via the results of their investigation. Janssen et al. (2018) develop an
inventory model, and further employed simulation methods to demonstrate the
improvement of the new decision on the performance of FLW reduction. Fikar (2018)
focuses on the trade-offs between FLW reduction and minimisation of the travel distance
in e-grocery delivery. This work constructs a simulation model to optimise the performance
of the inventory and delivery operations.
81
3.7 Conclusions
This chapter introduces the various types of FSCs where FLW occurs, discusses the social,
economic, and environmental impacts of FLW, and summarises the FLW occurrences and
causes in different stages, distribution modes of FSCs, and the measures to reduce FLW in
FSC operations. Additionally, applicable methodologies for FLW studies have been
investigated.
After an overview of the FLW occurrence in different types of FSCs and possible
solution to reduce FLW, this thesis further scrutinises existing literature in the next chapter
and provides a comprehensive literature review related to FLW reduction in FSCs.
82
CHAPTER 4
The Strategic Preservation Technology Investment Decision to Reduce Food Loss:

The Role of Government Intervention – Basic Model
Moving on from our discussion on research gaps in Chapter 2 and following the
research framework in Chapter 3, Chapters 4 and 5 focus on food loss reduction in the
upstream of FSCs.
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Research Background
As reviewed in Chapter 3, one of the inherent features of food products, particularly,
fresh food, is their perishability. Food products spoil progressively, which leads to
quantity loss. As introduced in Chapter 1, spoilage causes around 20% of Food Loss
(FL) in the upstream of FSCs. To reduce the deterioration rate of perishable food
products and extend their shelf life, efficient preservation technologies include time-
temperature management (Mercier et al. 2017) and traceability technology (Badia-
Melis et al. 2015).
However, the adoption of Preservation Technology (PT) by food suppliers is
significantly influenced by the carbon emissions and FL reduction instruments
promulgated by governments. As shown by the literature review presented in Chapter
3, the belief that reducing FL is beneficial to environmental conservation efforts through
decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is a prevailing assumption in the FL reduction
literature. However, two important issues need to be assessed when evaluating the
83
environmental influence of FL reduction: 1) whether FL has been efficiently reduced,
and 2) any significant negative impacts on the environment of the technologies being
applied to reduce FL (European Commission, 2017). For example, PT such as
customised packaging and cold supply chains can reduce FL during the circulation
process, but disposal of the used packing and the carbon emissions generated by the
refrigeration facilities are damaging to the environment. Therefore, governments face a
trade-off between galvanising PT investment to reduce FL and cutting down on the
carbon emissions generated by PT adoption.
In line with the exploratory nature of this research, we conduct semi-structured
interviews to explore possible factors influencing PT investment decisions by food
suppliers. Based on the results of this empirical study, we then formulate an
optimisation model to investigate the role of government interventions in PT adoption
and FL reduction by food suppliers.
4.1.2 Semi-structured Interviews
We applied a purposeful sampling approach to recruit interviewees familiar with FL
issues to ensure the validity of our interview findings and obtain practical insights. The
FSC stakeholders we interviewed provided representation across the food sector as
follows: 11 large-scale food enterprises (annual revenue > 5 million RMB), seven
medium-scale enterprises (annual revenue 1–5 million RMB), six small-scale
enterprises (annual revenue < 1 million RMB), 30 small-scale food suppliers (annual
revenue < 10 thousand RMB), as well as three associate directors from the government
and three experts from NGOs. We conducted 60 interviews in total.
84
The interview findings suggest that the main preservation technologies applied in
practice include cold storage and refrigerated transportation, pre-cooling equipment,
and customised packaging. The interviewees all noted the significance of PT in
reducing FL. However, the universal application of PT was questioned and challenged
by various food suppliers. For instance, over 60% of the small-scale famer respondents
did not anticipate applying PT because:
…we note pre-cooling equipment or cold supply chains can help to extend the shelf
life of our products and reduce FL in the FSCs, however, we do not need this
technology as we do not sell our products to the distant markets.
Another noted that “yield uncertainty impedes PT adoption, and we cannot take the
risk of the associated high costs”, while the head of a cooperative stated:
…around 10-15% of our crops are lost in the circulation period. We understand
that the cold chain can help to reduce this loss, however, owing to the high cost
and the low market price, we prefer to keep a certain level of food loss.
While the small-scale food suppliers in our sample generally showed little
willingness to adopt PT, a regional distribution centre manager from a leading food
manufacturing company commented, “The cold supply chain is significant for us, with
which the quality of our products is improved, and we obtained higher profits by
increasing the price.”
Similar to the small-scale farmers and medium- and large-scale suppliers,
governments and NGOs showed mixed attitudes towards PT adoption. An associate
director from the Chinese government stated:
…on average, less than 50% of the food suppliers in China are applying PT
currently. We have published a series of policies to promote PT adoption, however,
the incentives are ineffective”.
85
Another associate director commented:
…more recently, we started to re-evaluate the impact of PT adoption on our carbon
footprint. We plan to reach out to the operations management researchers for
advice on how to balance FL reduction and limit the carbon emissions generated
by PT adoption.
Other reasons beyond environmental concerns have led some to reconsider PT
adoption. For instance, a director from a food import public service platform raised the
following issue:
In contrast to the shortage of PT application, over investment on PT is another
issue that has emerged recently, particularly for high-value food products.
In the interviews, stakeholders from FSCs, government, and NGOs all noted the
importance of PT adoption for reducing FL, but their foci varied. The main focus of
food suppliers is the trade-off between PT investment costs and the economic benefits
to be gained, whereas government is concerned with the need to balance reduced FL
with the carbon emissions generated by PT adoption.
Our interviews revealed two main implications:
1) the way subsidies and carbon taxes are structured by government can lead to
different PT investment decisions by food suppliers;
2) the main factors influencing PT adoption and reduced FL include market prices,
uncertain yield, PT costs, and the effectiveness of PT in reducing the rate of
deterioration of food products.
The findings from the semi-structured interviews also indicate that governments
have an interest in supporting enterprises to reduce FL by investing in PT, and at the
same time enterprises welcome positive government intervention. However, to the best
86
of our knowledge, these insights from the food industry have not been investigated in
the existing literature.
4.1.3 Research Questions and Contribution
Motivated by the implications of the semi-structured interview findings, we note the
lack of studies that consider the influence of government instruments on PT decisions
and other important factors affecting PT investment and FL reduction, such as market
prices, PT cost, and transportation cost.
This research therefore considers the tradeoffs between the costs and benefits of
PT investment to investigate the PT investment decision of medium- and large-scale
suppliers who prefer to sell their domestic fresh products to the distant market. Small-
scale food suppliers are not investigated in our thesis because they are unlikely to sell
their products to distant market and thereby having low incentive to invest in PT (Hu et
al., 2019). For the sake of tractability, international transportation is not considered,
which means we focus on PT adoption for domestic fresh products.

The research questions are as follows:
RQ1: How do key factors such as market price and PT cost affect the PT investment
and FL reduction decisions of food suppliers?
RQ2: What impact do government interventions (subsidies and carbon emission
taxes) have on PT adoption by food suppliers and reduced FL in the food industry?
This chapter is organised as follows. Section 4.2 presents the literature relating to
PT adoption and the effect of government intervention on PT investment decisions.
Section 4.3 presents the model description and assumptions. Section 4.4 formulates the
basic model to investigate the impact of market prices and government intervention on
87
PT investment and FL reduction. Section 4.5 concludes with the key findings and
discusses the remaining knowledge gaps. Extensions to the basic model presented in
this chapter are examined in Chapter 5.
4.2 Relevant Literature
The literature review in Chapter 3 addresses the importance of PT. To facilitate an in-
depth understanding on PT adoption considering the role of government intervention,
two additional streams of literature are reviewed in this section: the impact of PT
investment on FL reduction in FSC operations, and the influence of government
intervention on PT investment.
4.2.1 The Impact of PT Investment on FL Reduction in FSC Operations
As discussed in Chapter 3, perishability is an inherent feature of food products that is
difficult to manage, and which causes FL in FSCs. The high deterioration rates of
perishable food products are considered a key factor in inventory loss, which can
increase food suppliers’ costs and decrease profits (Li et al., 2018). PT investment to
reduce the deterioration rate and extend the shelf life of perishable products has
therefore been closely examined in the literature on deteriorating inventory (Yang et
al., 2019).
Hsu et al. (2010) is considered the first study to introduce PT investment decisions
into research related to deteriorating inventory. This work develops a deteriorating
inventory policy by applying a constant PT cost. Although FL reduction is implied by
the reduced deterioration rate, the authors do not explicitly discuss the impact of PT
investment on FL reduction, instead focusing on the profit achieved by adopting PT.
More studies on topics related to PT investment decisions in the context of inventory
88
management have followed. Li et al. (2015) investigate the PT decision problem for
non-instantaneous deteriorating items, considering pricing and replenishment policies.
They approach the FL issue by assuming PT investment can reduce the deterioration
rate, thereby reducing the inventory loss. Their key focus is identifying a global
replenishment policy for given pricing and PT investment decisions. Liu et al. (2019)
prove that an optimal PT investment decision exists in an imperfectly competitive
market. In this study, FL reduction is defined as reduced inventory loss due to PT
investment. Applying the same logic of PT investment having a positive impact on
inventory loss, Dye and Yang (2016) propose a joint pricing and PT investment model
for a deteriorating inventory system, considering the effects of reference price.
Although the PT investment decision has been widely studied in FSC operations,
most studies focus on the effect of PT investment on deteriorating inventory loss and
the tradeoffs between the cost and benefit of PT in inventory management (Dye and
Yang, 2016; Yang et al., 2019). These studies do not consider the effect of PT
investment on FL reduction in FSCs. In addition, in most studies, PT cost is assumed
as a constant and exogenous parameter and has a positive impact on loss reduction
(Yang et al., 2019). However, this cost can be related to the level of effort needed to
reduce the deterioration rate and is affected by other factors, including market price and
government intervention.
Besides its impact on the quantity of food supply, PT investment can also change
the quality of food products (Liu et al., 2015). Liu et al. (2015) therefore discuss PT
investment strategy considering quality decay.
The above studies show that PT investment can reduce the deterioration rate and/or
improve the quality of products. Therefore, a key concern is the trade-off between the
costs and benefits of PT investment.
89
4.2.2 Government Intervention on PT Investment
A growing stream of studies in the operations literature focuses on government
intervention in FSCs. For example, Cohen et al. (2015) investigate a government
incentive for green technology adoption, Hu et al. (2019) discuss the influence of
government policies on crop planting decisions, and Levi et al. (2022) construct a
behavioural game-theoretic model to analyse the influence of government interventions
on consumer welfare in FSCs. However, studies of the effect of government
intervention on PT adoption remain scant, particularly in FLW-reduction contexts. This
research gap is identified in Chapter 3. Applying “government intervention” and
“preservation technology” as the keywords in our literature search in the Scopus
database did not locate any studies that look at the effect of government intervention on
PT investment from the perspective of operations management.
4.3 Model Description and Assumptions
In this section, we propose an optimisation model to study the food supplier’s PT
decision to reduce FL in one type of product and in one period from postharvest until
purchase, which includes one planting and one harvest season. We first investigate how
key factors such as market price and PT cost affect the PT investment and FL reduction
decisions of food suppliers. We then discuss the role of government intervention in the
food supplier’s PT investment decision and the impact on FL reduction.
The following notation and conventions are used throughout this chapter. The
expectation operator is denoted by E, and superscript i denotes food supplier i. All
notation and parameters are summarised in Appendix B (for Chapters 4 and 5).
We model the PT investment decision of food suppliers. We assume there are M
food suppliers in the food market and all food suppliers are homogenous, meaning they
90
have same production and cost stucture. Further, all parameters are assumed to be
known to all suppliers. This assumption has been made for reasons of tractibility, but it
has previously been applied and justified by OM researchers in agricultural settings
(e.g., Qian and Olsen, 2020).
We assume that food supplier i plants qi acres of a single product, for i = 1, 2,
… M, and harvests qiYi (where we define Yi as a the random yield of the food
supplier i), and the food supplier can sell all the product it grows. This assumption of
unlimited demand has been applied in agricultral settings in the recent literature. For
example, Levi et al. (2022) investigate artificial shortage in agricultural supply chains
by assuming the demand for “essential” food products is stable and unlimited. Akkaya
et al. (2021) analyse the effect of government intervention on incentivising agricultural
innovation by assuming total supply matches the demand in each period. Food products
as a type of essential commodity are therefore considered with unlimited demand in our
model.
We further assume that while the yield of food supplier Yi is affected by external
factors such as weather conditions, proficiency levels, planting skills, and other
uncertain factors, it is independent of PT adoption. This assumption is reasonable as
yield of food suppliers is mainly determined by the planting acres and natural
conditions. We further introduce a probability density function f ( y ) to describe the
distribution of uncertain yield Yi , with the mean and standard deviation denoted by µ
and σ .
4.3.1 Cost Structure of the Food Supplier with PT Investment
91
The objective of the food supplier is to maximise his expected profit by considering the
trade-offs between costs and benefits. The components of the costs and benefits are
described as follows.
We assume the cost structure of the food supplier comprises of the production cost,
the transportation cost, and the PT investment cost.
Production cost
Following the Alisamir et al. (2019), we assume that the cost for food supplier i
to plant qi acres is α qi2 , which represents the total cost of resources and effort needed
to plant these qi acres. This quadratic cost function captures an increasing marginal
cost of planting and has been employed in exising agricultural models (e.g., Alisamir et
al., 2019; Guda et al., 2021).
Transportation cost
In our model, we assume that if the budget permits, the supplier prefers to sell their
products to the distant market with higher demand and market prices to obtain highest
profit. This assumption was verified in our interviews. As a purchasing manager from
a leading beverage company stated, “To develop our business, we are always
approaching the distant market”.
We denote the transportation cost by T(qi) , and this is assumed to cover the
transporation post-harvest up until the point of purchase.
We assume that the cost related to distance is same for all food suppliers in our
model. While this assumption is largely made for reasons of tractibility, it can be
justified as follows. First, a USDA report in 2013 suggests that compared with different
92
transport patterns from field to market for imported foods, fresh domestic food products
are almost exclusively delivered by truck. Second, even though transportation costs
increase with distance, the locations of wholesale terminal markets for the same food
product are generally close (USDA, 2013). Third, fresh food growing locations
centralise to productive areas. For instance, 90 percent of U.S. tree nuts are produced
in California (USDA, 2022). Given the above three factors – same transportation
pattern, close wholesale terminal markets, and centralised growing locations for the
same food product, our research assumes the food suppliers deliver the same food
products to the same wholesale terminal market in order to focus on the effect of FL
reduction on the cost function, rather than the distance effect. Therefore, the cost related
to the distance is a constant parameter, denoted by c.
Given the assumption above, let β denote the unit transportation and storage
cost in relation to the quantity. Therefore, the transportation cost is
T (qi ) β qi E (Y ) + c .
=
PT investment cost
To capture the effect of PT adoption on FL reduction, we first denote λ0 as the
initial deterioration rate of the food product. Specifically, if PT has not been used, a
quantity y will become (1- λ0 )y of available product at the end of the period. PT
adoption can decrease loss through spoilage during transportation by reducing this
initial deterioration rate (e.g., Li et al., 2018; Hong and Guo, 2019); we denote the
reduction in the deterioration rate by λ . That is, if the food supplier decides to use PT
from the beginning of the period, a quantity y will become (1- λ0 + λ )y of available
93
product at the end of the period. We assume 0 ≤ λ ≤ λ0 , which is sensible, because the
reduced deterioration rate cannot be greater than the initial deterioration rate.
Following a number of OM researchers (e.g., Dong et al., 2016, Hong and Guo,
2019, Demirhan et al., 2007, Bai et al., 2020), we further assume that the PT investment
cost is given by I = k λ 2 / 2 , where k is the PT investment coefficient. This cost
function implies a convex increasing cost of wastage reduction, and k > 0 implies an
increasing marginal cost of the investment. The convexity of the cost function allows
for the existence of an optimal PT investment level, and further implies that over
investment in PT will reduce the efficiency of PT due to theincreasing marginal cost of
the investment.
4.3.2 PT Investment Benefits
Following Wang and Li (2012) and supported by our interviews, we assume that PT
investment can change both the quantity and quality of the food products. Based on this
assumption, we discuss the benefits of PT investment in two scenarios.
Scenario 1: PT investment leads to quantity change by reducing FL during
transport, but it does not change the quality of the food products. In this scenario, food
suppliers provide homogeneous products with no difference in quality.
Scenario 2: PT investment leads to simultaneous changes in the quantity and
quality of food products. In this situation, we assume that suppliers provide
heterogeneous products with significant differences in quality as a result of PT
investment.
94
4.3.3 Exogenous Market Price
A single type of product is assumed and studied in our model with an exogenous price,
which is denoted by p1(2) (subscript 1 (2) denotes the market price without (1) or with
(2) PT investment). We assume the market price is exogenous, as is the case with many
real-world food products. Food markets are often highly competitive and no single food
supplier or even a small group of food suppliers can decide the market price (Kumse et
al., 2021). All the food suppliers are paid the same or similar price for food products of
the same quality. However, wholesalers or retailers also offer differentiated market
prices for products of different quality. For instance, different market prices are paid
for low-quality and high-quality products according to the appearance and freshness of
the produce (Mookerjee et al., 2021).
In Scenario 1, we assume PT adoption can reduce the quantity loss but does not
change the quality. As mentioned above, a single food supplier or a small group of food
suppliers who are using PT cannot change the market price through the resulting trivial
increase in food supply if the majority of the food suppliers do not apply PT. Therefore,
in this case, the market price is exogenous, and the same with or without PT investment.
In Scenario 2, PT investment leads to changes in quality, with a differentiated
market price thereby being given to the food products with PT adoption. The market
price of the products with PT adoption can be higher or lower than the products without
95
PT investment. The justification for this assumption is as follows.
The market price of the products with PT adoption can be higher than those without
PT adoption. This assumption can be easily justified by reality. A higher market price
can be given considering the extra value added to the food products, for instance, due
to longer shelf-life or greater freshness.
However, another situation can also exist that lowers the market price of the
products with PT adoption. For example, to promote sales in the introductory phase of
products with PT investment, wholesalers or retailers may prefer to offer a lower price
to attract new consumers. In this case, in the short-term, the PT investment is non-
beneficial, however it may help to promote sales and gain extra revenue by extending
the products’ shelf-life.
4.4 Basic Model
Given the preliminaries above, in this section, we discuss the impacts of the exogenous
price and government intervention on PT investment and FL reduction.
4.4.1 The Impacts of the Exogenous Price
Let π N (qi ) denote the expected profit without PT investment (subscript N denotes the
situation where there is no PT investment), which comprises the revenue coming from
the expected yield and exogenous market price, plus transportation costs as follows.
The expected profit function for food supplier i without PT investment equals:
π N (qi ) =(1 − λ0 ) p1qi E (Y ) − α qi2 − ( β qi E (Y ) + c)

.
=[(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]qi µ − α qi2 − c
96
As discussed earlier, we focus on the optimal decision by assuming homogeneity
in types of food suppliers. Lemma 4.1 analyses the condition when the food supplier
chooses to enter the product market if no PT is available in current food markets. This
threshold is determined by expected yield, the initial deterioration rate, and
transportation cost as follows.
2 αc β
Lemma 4.1. If p1 > + , then food suppliers choose to enter the food
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0
market, otherwise, they do not enter the market. In the case where they enter the market,
∗
the food supplier’s optimal planting decision (denoted by qN ) and profit (denoted by
π N∗ ) are given respectively by
[(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]µ [(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2
; and π N
∗
∗
q = = − c , where superscript * denotes
N
2α 4α
the optimal solution, and the subscript N denotes the scenario with no PT investment.
Proof of Lemma 4.1.
From α > 0 , we have the second-order condition of π N (qi ) over qi , which is
∂ 2π N (qi )
derived as follows: −2α < 0 , which is negative, therefore the optimal
=
∂ qi2
decision is the unique optimal decision. Then solving the first-order condition of
∂ π N (qi )
π N (qi ) over qi requires =[(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]µ − 2α qi =0 , which gives us
∂ qi
[(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]µ ∗
the optimal quantity qN∗ = . Further, inserting qN into π N (qi )
2α
[(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2
renders π N∗
= −c.
4α
To ensure qN∗ > 0 and π N∗ > 0 , requires p1 > 2 α c + β .□

µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0
Lemma 4.1 shows that in the absence of PT, only when the market price is greater
97
2 αc β
than a threshold price (i.e., p1 > + ) does the food suppliers prefer to
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0
enter the product market. Higher expected yield ( µ ) and lower initial deterioration rate
( λ0 ) lead to a lower threshold price. Higher planting and transportation costs ( β ) lead
to a higher threshold price.
Next, we analyse the case when there exists PT that can reduce the FL by changing
the deterioration rate. We study whether and when the food supplier chooses to invest
in PT, and after choosing to apply PT, what their optimal decisions are in relation to
planting acres and PT investment effort, as represented by a reduced deterioration rate.
As discussed in Subsection 4.3.3, the exogenous market price can be the same with
or with no PT investment under Scenario 1 ( p1 ), or it can be different with ( p2 ) or
with no ( p1 ) PT investment under Scenario 2.
In contrast to the expected profit with no PT adoption, the profit structure with PT
investment includes the cost of PT investment and the revenue from FL reduction which
is represented by a resultant deterioration rate λ0 − λ of the food product. The expected
profit with PT investment denoted by π P (qi , λ ) is as follows, where subscript P
denotes the situation where there is PT investment.
For Scenario 1 where the market price with PT or with no PT is different, let p2
denote the market price with PT investment. Scenario 1 is therefore presented as a
special case, that is, when p1 = p2 .
π P (qi , λ ) =(1 − λ0 + λ ) p2 qi E (Y ) − α qi2 − k λ 2 / 2 − ( β qi E (Y) + c)

= [(1 − λ0 + λ ) p2 − β ]qi µ − α qi2 − k λ 2 / 2 − c
Based on the expected profit function with PT investment, Lemma 4.2 discusses
98
the conditions when the food supplier chooses to invest or not invest in PT, and his
optimal decisions related planting acres and investment effort, as represented by a
reduced deterioration rate.
Lemma 4.2. Option I: The food supplier chooses to invest in PT, if
k[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ]2 µ 2
(1) c < min{cˆ1 , cˆ2 } , where cˆ1 = and
2[2α k − ( p2 µ ) 2 ]
[( p2 − β ) µ ]2
=cˆ2 − k λ0 2 / 2 , and
4α
β 2α k ( p2 − β ) p2 µ 2 βµ
(2) < p2 < & < λ0 ≤ 1 − or
1 − λ0 µ 2α k 2α k
2α k ( p2 − β ) p2 µ 2
p2 ≥ & λ0 ≤ .
µ 2α k
Option II: The food supplier chooses not to invest in PT, if
(1) c is above the threshold which leads the optimal planting acres and the profit being
negative, or
βµ
(2) 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1 .
2α k
*
The optimal planting acres (denoted by q p ), reduced deterioration rate (denoted
by λ p ), and profit (denoted by π p ) under two options above are given respectively by
* *
 β 2α k ( p2 − β ) p2 µ 2 βµ
[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ] p2 µ 2 if < p2 < & < λ0 ≤ 1 −
 2α k − ( p µ ) 2 1 − λ0 µ 2α k 2α k
 2
2α k ( p2 − β ) p2 µ 2
=λP λ0
∗
if p2 ≥ & λ0 ≤ ,
 µ 2α k
 βµ
0 if 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1
 2α k
99
 k[(1 − λ ) p − β ]µ β 2α k ( p2 − β ) p2 µ 2 βµ
 0 2 if < p2 < & < λ0 ≤ 1 −
 2α k − ( p2 µ )
2 1 − λ0 µ 2α k 2α k
 ( p − β ) µ 2α k ( p − β ) p2 µ 2
=qP∗  2 if p2 ≥ & λ0 ≤ 2 ; and
 2α µ 2α k
 ∗ βµ
qN if 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1
 2α k
 k[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ]2 µ 2 β 2α k ( p2 − β ) p2 µ 2 βµ
 − c if < p2 < & < λ0 ≤ 1 −
 2[2α k − ( p2 µ ) ]
2
1 − λ0 µ 2α k 2α k
[( p − β ) µ ]2 k λ 2 2α k ( p − β ) p2 µ 2
=π P∗  2 − 0 − c if p2 ≥ & λ0 ≤ 2 .
 4α 2 µ 2α k
 βµ
π N∗ if 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1
 2α k
Proof of Lemma 4.2.
We first prove the uniqueness of the optimal solution. According to the Hessian
matrix of π P (qi , λ ) over (qi , λ ) , namely,
 ∂ 2π P (qi , λ ) ∂ 2π P (qi , λ ) 
 
 ∂qi2 ∂λ∂qi   −2α p2 µ 
=H = ,
 ∂ 2π (q , λ ) ∂ 2π (q , λ )   p2 µ −k 
 P i P i

 ∂qi ∂λ ∂λ 2

we have H1 = −2α and H
= 2 2α k − ( p2 µ ) 2 . Since α > 0 , H1 = −2α < 0 ,
2α k
and if p2 ≥ , H 2 ≤ 0 . Under this condition, the Hessian matrix is nonnegative
µ
definite, which leads the optimal reduced deterioration rate being equal to the initial
2α k
deterioration rate (i.e., λ p = λ0 ). If p2 <
*
, H 2 > 0 , which leads to the
µ
Hessian matrix being negative definite. Under this condition, π P (qi , λ ) is jointly
∂π P (qi , λ )
concave on (qi , λ ) . Then, solving the first order conditions of = 0 and
∂λ
100
∂π P (qi , λ ) k[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ]µ
= 0 , gives us the optimal values qP′ = and
∂qi 2α k − ( p2 µ ) 2
[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ] p2 µ 2
λP′ = , which may or may not be feasible. Particular, only when
2α k − ( p2 µ ) 2
β 2α k
< p2 < , qP′ and λP′ are feasible. Consider three cases: (1) As
1 − λ0 µ
previously assumed in Subsection 4.3.1, 0 ≤ λP′ ≤ λ0 requires
( p2 − β ) p2 µ 2 βµ
< λ0 < 1 − . Under this condition λP∗ = λP′ and to keep qP′ > 0 ,
2α k 2α k
β
requires p2 > ; otherwise, it returns to Lemma 4.1. Inserting qP′ and λP′ into
1 − λ0
k[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ]2 µ 2
π P (qi , λ ) gives the=
optimal profit π P′ − c . To keep π P′ > 0 ,
2[2α k − ( p2 µ ) 2 ]
requires c < cˆ1 . (2) If λP′ > λ0 , then λP = λ0 , inserting λP = λ0 into π P (qi , λ )
∗ *
( p2 − β ) µ [( p2 − β ) µ ]2
yields the optimal decisions qP′′ = π P′′
and = − k λ0 2 / 2 − c .
2α 4α
βµ
To keep π P′′ > 0 , requires c < cˆ2 . (3) If 1 − < λ0 < 1 , then we return to Lemma
2α k
4.1 that the food supplier prefers to not invest in PT but he has optimal planting acres
without PT adoption. □
Lemma 4.2 shows given a moderate or a low initial deterioration rate of the food
βµ ( p − β ) p2 µ 2
products (i.e., 0 < λ0 < 1 − or λ0 ≤ 2 ) and the transportation
2α k 2α k
cost is low (i.e., c < min{cˆ1 , cˆ2 } ), when p2 is in certain ranges, there exists an optimal
reduced deterioration rate λ p* that maximises the profit. However, if the market price
is low, the food supplier chooses not to invest in PT. If the market price p2 is sufficiently
large, the food supplier prefers to invest in PT but that the optimal decisions relating to
101
reduced deterioration rate and the planting acres stop increasing in p2 and become fixed
at the point where p2 hits the top end of the range indicated in Lemma 4.2. If the
transportation cost is too high, the food supplier will prefer not to invest in PT. The
results of Lemma 4.2 can be explained in terms of how the exogenous market price and
transportation cost influence the PT investment decision and FL reduction.
Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 respectively examine the conditions that incentivise the food
supplier to enter the market and decide whether to invest in PT. These lemmas also
show how the exogenous market price and transportation cost affect the PT investment
decision when preservation technologies are available in food market.
Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 yield Propostion 4.1, where we compare different scenarios
of market prices.
Proposition 4.1. Comparing the profits with and without PT investment, we have
discussed the following two scenarios:
2 αc β βµ
Under Scenario 1 ( p1 = p2 ), if p1 > + , λ0 < 1 − and given
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 2α k
c < min{cˆ1 , cˆ2 } , PT investment is profitable; otherwise, the food supplier chooses to not
invest in PT;
Under Scenario 2 ( p1 ≠ p2 ), we have,
2 αc β (1 − λ0 ) p2 − β 2α k β
(1) if + < p1 ≤ + (note that
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 1 − λ0 2α k − ( p2 µ ) 1 − λ0
2
(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β 2α k β (1 − λ0 ) p1 − β 2α k
p1 ≤ + equals to ≤ ,
1 − λ0 2α k − ( p2 µ ) 1 − λ0
2
(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β 2α k − ( p2 µ ) 2
102
β 2α k
and may leads to p1 < p2 or p1 > p2 ) and < p2 < , given c < cˆ1 ,
1 − λ0 µ
∆π > 0 . In this case, PT investment is profitable;
2 αc β ( p2 − β ) 2 µ 2 − 2α k λ0 2 β β
(2) if + < p1 ≤ + and < p2 ,
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 1 − λ0
given c < cˆ2 , ∆π > 0 , in this case, PT investment is profitable;
2 αc β β
(3) if p1 ≤ + or p2 ≤ , PT investment is not profitable.
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 1 − λ0
Proof of Proposition 4.1.
Under Scenario 1 ( p1 = p2 ), if c < min{cˆ1 , cˆ2 } , and according to Lemmas 4.1 and
4.2,
2 αc β ( p2 − β ) p2 µ 2 βµ
(1) with the conditions p1 > + , < λ0 < 1 − , and
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 2α k 2α k
β 2α k
< p2 < , we have,
1 − λ0 µ
k[(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2 [(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2
=∆π −
2[2α k − ( p1µ ) 2 ] 4α
1 1 [(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2
{
= − } > 0 . In this case, PT investment is profitable.
( p1µ ) 2 2α 2
2α −
k
2 αc β ( p − β ) p2 µ β 2
(2) with the conditions p1 > + , λ0 ≤ 2 , and < p2 ,
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 2α k 1 − λ0
[( p1 − β ) µ ]2 k λ0 2 [(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2
=
we have, ∆π − −
4α 2 4α
103
( p1 − β ) p1µ 2
λ0 {[(2 − λ0 ) p1 − 2β ]µ 2 p1 − 2α k λ0 } λ0 {[(2 − λ0 ) p1 − 2β ]µ p1 − 2α k
2
}
≥ 2α k
4α 4α
λ0 µ 2 p1[(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]
≥ > 0 . In this case, PT investment is profitable.
4α
2 αc β βµ
(3) with the conditions p1 ≤ + , or 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1 , PT investment is
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 2α k
not profitable.
Under Scenario 2, according to Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, given c < cˆ1 , (1) with the
2 αc β ( p2 − β ) p2 µ 2 βµ
conditions of p1 > + , < λ0 < 1 − , and
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 2α k 2α k
β 2α k
< p2 < , we have
1 − λ0 µ
k[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ]2 µ 2 [(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2
∆π = π G∗ − π N∗ = − . Solving ∆π =0 leads to
2[2α k − ( p2 µ ) 2 ] 4α
(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β 2α k β
p1 + .
1 − λ0 2α k − ( p2 µ ) 1 − λ0
2
2 αc β (1 − λ0 ) p2 − β 2α k β
Further, if + < p1 ≤ + and
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 1 − λ0 2α k − ( p2 µ ) 1 − λ0
2
β 2α k
< p2 < , we have ∆π > 0 , i.e., PT investment is profitable; otherwise, we
1 − λ0 µ
have ∆π ≤ 0 .
2 αc β ( p − β ) p2 µ β 2
(2) With the conditions p1 > + , λ0 ≤ 2 , and < p2 ,
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 2α k 1 − λ0
[( p2 − β ) µ ]2 k λ0 2 [(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2
we have ∆π = π − π =
∗ ∗
G N − − .
4α 2 4α
( p2 − β ) 2 µ 2 − 2α k λ0 2 β
∆π =
Solving= 0 leads to p1 + .
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0
104
2 αc β ( p2 − β ) 2 µ 2 − 2α k λ0 2 β
Further, if + < p1 ≤ + and
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0
β
< p2 , we have ∆π > 0 , i.e., PT investment is profitable.; otherwise, we have
1 − λ0
∆π ≤ 0 .
2 αc β β
(3) with the conditions p1 ≤ + or p2 ≤ , PT investment is not
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 1 − λ0
profitable. □
In Proposition 1, we discuss two scenarios:
(1) p1 = p2 : the market price is the same with ( p1 ) or with no ( p2 ) PT investment
Food suppliers 1 and 2 provide homogeneous products without difference in quality.
(2) p1 ≠ p2 : the market prices are different with ( p1 ) or with no ( p2 ) PT investment
Under this scenario, PT investments result in different quality the products, which
means that food suppliers 1 and 2 provide heterogeneous products.
Proposition 1 proves that market price and initial deterioration rate of the food
products provide the motivation for PT investment and FL reduction, particularly,
2 αc β βµ
(1) under Scenario 1 ( p1 = p2 ), only if p1 > + , λ0 < 1 − , and
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 2α k
given the low transportation cost relating to distance, the food supplier’s willingness to
invest in PT is high;
(2) under Scenario 2 ( p1 ≠ p2 ), if p1 and p2 are both within certain ranges, and given
the low transportation cost relating to distance, the food supplier’s willingness to invest
in PT is high;
(3) in both scenarios, if the transportation cost relating to distance is high, PT

105
investment is discouraged, and the food suppliers choose to plant without investing in
PT.
4.4.2 Government Intervention
Following on from the discussion of the impacts of market prices on the PT investment
decision in the previous sections, this subsection analyses a second factor that impacts
PT investment: government intervention.
As identified in the literature review in Chapter 3, as well as its benefits for
reducing FL, PT adoption can also generate extra carbon emissions, but this is yet to be
addressed in the FL literature. To address this research gap and capture the effect of
government carbon emissions instruments on FL reduction and PT adoption, we assume
that the government charges the food supplier a carbon emissions fee. The fee is
denoted by te , where e is a constant parameter that denotes increased carbon
emissions owing to the PT adoption and t denotes the unit carbon tax set by
government. Here, a constant e represents a fixed amount of carbon emissions
regardless of the actual amount produced. This assumption can be justified in practice.
For example, the Chinese government charges a fixed carbon emissions fee for each
food supplier if they apply cold storage facilities. Also, this assumption has been
applied in previous studies that focus on government intervention to address carbon
emissions (e.g., Feng et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2020). In the base model, we assume
106
increased carbon emissions e is a constant and not influenced by the PT investment
level. This assumption is relaxed in our extension model in Chapter 5, which considers
increased carbon emissions as a function of PT investment level.
To capture the effect of integrated government policies on PT investment, besides
the carbon emissions tax, we also include a subsidy for planting food products in our
model. Let b denote the unit subsidy provided by the government with the aim of
encouraging the food supplier to produce the product. Governments use a range of
subsidy programmes, such as price loss coverage, agriculature risk coverage, and a
planting subsidy (Alizamir et al., 2019). To simply our model, we incorporate a planting
subsidy programme, which considers that the subsidy is attached to the planting acres
of the food product (i.e., the production subsidy is represented by bqi ).
In addition, given the consideration that PT investment can bring extra value to
consumers by providing off-season food products or extending the shelf-life of food
products, we further assume the government provides an extra subsidy that is attached
to food production with PT adoption. Let h denote the unit subsidy provided by the
government to incentivise food suppliers to invest PT, thereby reducing FL. In contrast
to the subsidy that aims to improve the production (i.e., bqi ), this subsidy is focused
on stimulating FL reduction (i.e., h(1 − λ0 + λ )qi E (Y) ). This type of subsidy has been
introduced in several articles using terms such as “food price subsidy” (Kaushal, N. and
Muchomba, F. M., 2015).
For the sake of tractability, we further assume the market price is the same with or
without government intervention under the assumption of PT investment. Therefore the
107
same notation for market price with PT investment ( p2 ) is applied in the condition
where there is government interventions. This assumption can be easily justified in
reality, because the market price of food products is mainly affected by cost and demand
rather than government intervention (Timmer C. P., 1989).
According to the above assumptions, the expected profit function of the food
supplier with government intervention comprises the revenue from FL reduction
increasing the food supply and the subsidies provided by the government, and the cost
of the carbon emissions tax and PT investment.
Let π G (qi , λ ) denote the profit with government intervention (the subscript G
denotes the situation where there is government intervention), the expected profit
function with government intervention and PT investment is as follows.
π G (qi , λ ) =(1 − λ0 + λ ) p2 qi E (Y) − α qi2 − k λ 2 / 2 − ( β qi E (Y ) + c) + bqi + h(1 − λ0 + λ )qi E (Y) − te

= [(1 − λ0 + λ )( p2 + h) − β ]qi µ − α qi2 − k λ 2 / 2 − c − te + bqi
To capture the influence of government intervention on PT investment, Lemma 4.3
∗
discusses the optimal planting decision (denoted by qG ) reduced deterioration rate
*
(denoted by λG* ), and profit (denoted by π G ) with or with no government intervention,
where the the superscript * denotes the optimal decision and the subscript G denotes
the scenario given the consideration of government intervention. We further compare
the optimal planting decision and reduced deterioration rate in Lemma 4.3 with the
results from Lemma 4.2 to investigate the influence of government intervention.
Lemma 4.3. Two options have been discussed:
Option I: The food supplier invests in PT and c < min{cˆ3 , cˆ4 } , where
108
k{[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2 {[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2
cˆ3 −=te and ˆ
c4 − k λ0 2 / 2 − te ,
2{2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ] }
2
4α
and
Option II: The food supplier chooses to not invest in PT.
Considering the above two options, the optimal planting acres, reduced deterioration
rate, and profit with government intervention are given respectively by
 k{[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b} if µβ − b − h < p < 2α k − h & λˆ < λ ≤ 1 − µβ − b

OptionI : 2 0 0
 2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ]2 µ (1 − λ0 ) µ 2α k
 [( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b 2α k
& λ0 ≤ λˆ0 ,
qG∗ OptionI : if p2 >
 2 α µ
 µβ − b
OptionII : qN∗ if 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1
 2α k
 µβ − b 2α k µβ − b
 ( p2 + h)qG′ µ if − h < p2 < − h & λˆ0 < λ0 < 1 −
OptionI : k
µ (1 − λ0 ) µ 2α k
 2α k
=λG* OptionI : λ0 if p2 ≥ − h & λ0 ≤ λˆ0 ,
 µ
 µβ − b
OptionII : 0 if 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1
 2α k
and
 k{[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2 µβ − b 2α k µβ − b
OptionI : − c − te if − h < p2 < − h & λˆ0 < λ0 < 1 −

2
2{2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ] } µ (1 − λ0 ) µ 2α k
 {[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2 2α k
π G*  Option I : − k λ0 2 / 2 − c − te if p2 ≥ − h & λ0 ≤ λˆ0
 4α µ
 µβ − b
OptionII : π * if 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1
 N 2α k
[( p2 + h) µ + b − βµ ]( p2 + h) µ
where λˆ0 = .
2α k
Proof of Lemma 4.3.
According to the Hessian matrix of π G (qi , λ ) over (qi , λ ) , namely,
109
 ∂ 2π G (qi , λ ) ∂ 2π G (qi , λ ) 
 
 ∂qi2 ∂λ∂qi   −2α ( p2 + h) µ 
=H = ,
 ∂ 2π (q , λ ) ∂ 2π (q , λ )   ( p2 + h) µ −k 
 G i G i

 ∂qi ∂λ ∂λ 2

we have H1 = −2α and H 2 = 2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ]2 . Since α >0 ,
2α k
H1 = −2α < 0 , and if p2 ≥ − h , H 2 ≤ 0 . Under this condition, the Hessian
µ
matrix is nonnegative definite, which leads the optimal reduced deterioration rate being
2α k
equal the initial deterioration rate (i.e., λG = λ0 ). If p2 <
*
− h , H 2 > 0 , which
µ
leads to the Hessian matrix being negative definite. Under this condition, π G (qi , λ ) is
∂π G (qi , λ )
jointly concave on (qi , λ ) . Then, solving the first order conditions of =0
∂λ
∂π G (qi , λ ) k{[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}
and = 0 , gives the optimal values qG′ =
∂qi 2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ]2
( p2 + h)qG′ µ
and λG′ = . Consider three cases: (1) As previous assumed in Subsection
k
µβ − b
4.3.1, 0 ≤ λG′ ≤ λ0 requires λˆ0 < λ0 < 1 − . Under this condition, to keep
2α k
µβ − b 2α k
qG′ > 0 , requires − h < p2 < − h ; otherwise, we return to Lemma 4.1
µ (1 − λ0 ) µ
that we don’t invest in PT but we do plant. Inserting qG′ and λG′ into π G (qi , λ )
k{[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2
gives
= the optimal profit π G′ − c − te . To keep π G′ > 0 ,
2{2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ]2 }
requires c < cˆ3 .
k[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ]µ 3 (2 p2 + h)h k[(1 − λ0 )hµ + b]

Further,
= qG′ − qP′ + >0
{2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ] }[2α k − ( p2 µ ) ] 2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ]2
2 2
( p2 + h)qG′ µ p2 qP′ µ [(qG′ − qP′ ) p2 + hqG′ ]µ

and λ=
′ ′
G − λP −= > 0 . (2) If λ̂0 > λ0 ,
k k k
110
then λG* = λ0 , inserting λG* = λ0 into π G (qi , λ ) to obtain the optimal decision
[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b {[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2
qG′′ = = and π G′′ − k λ0 2 / 2 − c − te . To
2α 4α
hµ + b
keep π G′′ > 0 , requires c < cˆ4 . Further, qG′′ − qP′′= > 0 . (3) If
2α
µβ − b
1− < λ0 ≤ 1 , we return to Lemma 4.1 that we don’t invest in PT but we do
2α k
plant.□
Lemma 4.3 shows that both qG∗ and λG* are increased compared with the optimal
decisions without government intervention indicating that government intervention
promotes food production and the PT investment level.
Now the influence of government intervention on the PT investment and the
optimal planting decisions has been determined in Lemma 4.3, Corollary 4.1 further
investigates the influence of carbon emissions instruments on PT investment and FL
reduction. By comparing the profit with ( π G ) and without ( π P ) government

∗ ∗
intervention, the thresholds for government subsidy b and carbon emissions tax t
can be calculated. These thresholds are determined by ignoring the realisation of the
production.
Corollary 4.1. If b > max{bˆ1 , bˆ2 } or t > min{tˆ1 , tˆ2 } , the government carbon emission
reduction instruments can incentivise FL reduction initiative by increasing the PT
investment of the food supplier.
Proof of Corollary 4.1.
From Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3, (1) in case 1, solving π G∗ − π P∗ =

0 , we have,
111
1 k[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ]2 µ 2
=bˆ1 {2α k − [( p2 + h ) µ ]2
}{ + 2te} − [(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ . If
k2 [2α k − ( p2 µ ) 2 ]e
b > bˆ1 , we have π G∗ − π P∗ > 0 ; otherwise, π G∗ − π P∗ ≤ 0 . Similarly, we have
k{[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2 k[(1 − λ0 ) p2 − β ]2 µ 2

tˆ1 − and if t < tˆ1 , π G∗ − π P∗ > 0 ;
2{2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ] }e
2
2[2α k − ( p2 µ ) ]e
2
otherwise, π G∗ − π P∗ ≤ 0 . (2) in case 2, solving π G∗ − π P∗ =

0 , we have,
bˆ2
= 4α te + [( p2 − β ) µ ]2 − [( p2 + h) − β ]µ . If b > bˆ2 , we have π G∗ − π P∗ > 0 ;
{[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2 − [( p2 − β ) µ ]2
otherwise, π G∗ − π P∗ ≤ 0 . Similarly, we have tˆ2 =
4α e
and if t < tˆ2 , π G∗ − π P∗ > 0 ; otherwise, π G∗ − π P∗ ≤ 0 . □
Corollary 4.1 demonstrates the influence of government carbon emission reduction
instruments on PT investment. When the subsidy is sufficiently high or the tax is low,
the government subsidy can significantly impact PT investment and FL reduction (i.e.,
π G∗ > π P∗ ), otherwise, this impact is trivial. Figure 4.1 delineates how government
intervention stimulates PT adoption by the food supplier.
t π G∗ ≤ π P∗
min{tˆ1 , tˆ2 }
π G∗ > π P∗
Government intervention
promotes PT investment
max{bˆ1 , bˆ2 }
b
Figure 4.1: The Impact of Government Intervention on PT Investment
112
4.4.3 Social Welfare Function
Optimising social welfare is considered a more significant objective compared with
simply minimising the expected cost or maximising the expected profit (Bakshi and
Gans, 2010). We now move on to consider the effect of government intervention on the
PT investment decision and FL reduction when maximising the social welfare is the
objective. This chapter additionally discusses the government intervention on PT
investment decision and FL reduction by setting the objective as maximising the social
welfare. This objective is expressed by max{SW1 , SW2 } , where SW1 denotes the
social welfare with government intervention, which is defined as the sum of the food
supplier’ profit with government intervention and PT invesment ( π G∗ ) and
government’s revenue te after deducting the government susbidies bqG∗ ; and SW2
denotes the food supplier’s profit with no government intervention ( π N ). The social
∗
welfare function is
SW max{SW1 , SW
= = 2} max{π G∗ + te − bqG∗ , π N∗ }
 k{[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]2 µ 2 − b 2 } [(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2
 case I : max{ − c , − c}
 2{2α k − [( p2 + h ) µ ]2
} 4 α
 {[( p2 + h) − β ]2 µ 2 − b 2 } [(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]2 µ 2 ,
case II : max{ − k λ0 / 2 − c,
2
− c}
 4α 4α


 π N∗ otherwise
2 αc β
where Case I represents the conditions p1 > + ,
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0
µβ − b 2α k µβ − b
− h < p2 < − h , and λˆ0 < λ0 < 1 − , and Case II represents the
µ (1 − λ0 ) µ 2α k
113
2 αc β β
conditions p1 > + , − h < p2 , and λ0 ≤ λˆ0 .
µ (1 − λ0 ) 1 − λ0 1 − λ0
According to the social welfare function above, the unique market price p̂1
satisfying π G∗ + te − bqG∗ =
π N∗ is calculated. This determines the impact of government
instruments on PT investment and FL reduction. Proposition 2 describes the price
condition as follows.
Proposition 2. The government subsidy stimulates PT investment and FL reduction
initiatives only if p1 < min{ pˆ11 , pˆ12 } (i.e., SW1 > SW2 ).
Proof of Proposition 2.
There exists a unique market price that satisfies, π G∗ + te − bqG∗ =

π N∗ , which is
given by, p1 = pˆ11 in Case 1 and p1 = pˆ12 in Case 2, where
β 1 2α k{[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]2 µ 2 − b 2 }
pˆ11
= + and
1 − λ0 µ (1 − λ0 ) 2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ]2
β 1
pˆ12
= + {[( p2 + h) − β ]2 µ 2 − b 2 } − 2α k λ0 2 .
1 − λ0 µ (1 − λ0 )
Further, if p1 < min{ pˆ11 , pˆ12 } , then π G∗ + te − bqG∗ > π N∗ , i.e., SW1 > SW2 . □
With respect to social welfare, Proposition 2 indicates the government subsidy has
a significant impact on PT investment and FL reduction initiatives only when the market
price is lower than a threshold price (i.e., p1 < min{ pˆ11 , pˆ12 } ). This threshold price can
be determined by ignoring the realization of production.
4.5 Conclusions
Based on the results of our propositions, we suggest that when government intervention
effectively and efficiently reduces FL by stimulating PT adoption, social welfare can
114
be improved. Therefore, even though PT adoption may have a negative environmental
impact, governments tend to prefer encouraging PT investment to reduce FL and
increase food supply. This result matches the findings from our interviews with
governments and NGOs, and answers a key question: Why do governments prefer to
increase subsidies rather carbon emissions taxes?
Governments seeking to make decisions on integrated subsidy and carbon
emissions tax policies can compare the social welfare outcomes with PT investment
( SW1 = π G∗ + ten − bqG∗ ) and with no PT investment ( SW2 = π N∗ ). Alternatively,
governments may consider the trade-off between increasing their revenue from 0 to
ten − bqG∗ or increasing the food supplier’s revenue from π N∗ to π G∗ .
Our optimisation results in the basic model indicate when the efficiency of PT
investment is high (meaning that PT adoption can significantly reduce FL and increase
food supply), governments prefer to encourage PT investment.
This chapter has studied the role of government intervention in PT investment
decisions and FL reduction initiatives. Drawing on data collected from 60 semi-
structured interviews, we firstly identified key factors that impact decisions to invest in
PT, including market price and government intervention. We then established basic
models to examine the effects of these factors. The key findings from our basic models
are as follows:
(1) The economic factors driving PT investment by the food supplier are high
exogenous market prices and reduced FL.
(2) A high subsidy or a low carbon emission tax can promote PT investment by the
115
food supplier and stimulate the expansion of production and action to reduce FL.
116
CHAPTER 5
The Strategic Preservation Technology Investment Decision to Reduce Food Loss:

The Role of Government Intervention - Extension Models
Following the analysis in Chapter 4, in this chapter we relax some of the key
assumptions relating to PT investment patterns and integrated government policy.
5.1 Motivation
The optimisation results from Chapter 4 highlight that when market prices are
exogenous, the driving force for PT adoption by the food supplier and, in turn, FL
reduction, is high market prices. We presented the outcomes from Chapter 4 to the
interviewees and then conducted a second round of semi-structured interviews. The
interviewees suggest that an integrated government subsidy and carbon emission may
also drive PT adoption and FL reduction by the food supplier. In addition, they can
apply proportional PT investment strategy on food products. That is, the food supplier
can decide the proportion of food products that need to adopt PT. According to the
feedback collected from the interviews, in this chapter, we investigate two main
extensions of the basic model: (1) integrated subsidy and carbon emission tax policy;
(2) proportional PT Investment decision.
This chapter is organised as follows. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 construct extension
models by factoring in the concerns related to real-world problems, which were drawn
from the second round of interviews. Section 5.4 provides a brief discussion on the
results of extension models. Section 5.5 concludes with the key findings and discusses
the knowledge gaps that remain.

117
5.2 Extension 1 – Integrated Subsidy and Carbon Emissions Tax Policy
In this extension, we relax a key assumption in the basic model which assumes the
carbon emission tax is fixed. We introduce a function of carbon emissions and PT
investment represented by t λ 2 , where parameter t denotes tax level and decision
variable λ denotes the reduced deterioration rate. This assumption reflects the real-
world problem, and can be justified in reality, which implies a increasing cost of PT
investment. A number of OM researchers also apply this function to present the
technology investment, for instance Bai et al. (2020) and Demirhan et al. (2007). We
incorporate this new function related to carbon emission tax in the integrated
government subsidy and tax policies, and we define it as a new government carbon
emssion reduction instruments abbreviated by “a new tax policy”.
Following the other assumptions and notation in Section 4.4.2 the expected profit
function of the food supplier with a new tax policy comprises the revenue and cost from
the carbon emissions tax and PT investment.
Let π Gt (qi , λ ) denote the the profit with a new tax policy (where subcript G
denotes the condition where there is government intervention, and superscript t denotes
the new tax policy), the expected profit function is therefore as follows,
π Gt (qi , λ ) = [(1 − λ0 + λ )( p2 + h) − β ]qi µ − α qi2 − k λ 2 / 2 − c − t λ 2 e + bqi .
To capture influence of the new tax policy on PT investment, Lemma 5.1 discusses
the optimal planting decision (denoted by qGt ∗ ), reduced deterioration rate (denoted by
λGt* ), and profit (denoted by π Gt* ) with or without the new tax policy and PT investment,
where the the superscript * denotes the optimal decision, the superscript t denotes the
118
the new tax policy, and the subscript G denotes the scenario that is with government
intervention.
Lemma 5.1. Option I: The food supplier chooses to invest in PT with the new tax policy,
if
(k + 2te){[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2
(1) c < min{cˆ5 , cˆ6 } , where cˆ5 = and
2{2α (k + 2te) − [( p2 + h) µ ]2 }
{[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2
=cˆ6 − (k / 2 + te)λ02 , and
4α
2α (k + 2te)
(2) p2 > & λ0 ≤ λˆ02 .
µ
Option II: The food supplier chooses not to invest in PT, if
(1) c is above the threshold which leads the optimal planting acres and the profit
being negative, or
µβ − b
(2) 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1 .
p2 + h
The optimal planting quantity, reduced deterioration rate, and profit under two
options above are given respectively by
 (k + 2te){[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b} Case I  ( p + h)q t ′ µ Case I

 2α (k + 2te) − ( p2 + h) 2 µ 2  2 G
  ( k + 2te )
 [( p + h ) − β ]µ + b 
qGt ∗ =  2 Case II , λGt ∗ = λ0 Case II ;
 2 α 
 0
qN∗ Case III  Case III

 (k + 2te){[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2
 − c Case I
 2{2 α ( k + 2te ) − [( p2 + h ) µ ]2
}
{[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}
2
=and π Gt ∗  − k λ0 2 / 2 − c − t λ0 2 e Case II ,
 4α
 ∗
π N Case III

119
µβ − b 2α (k + 2te) µβ − b
where Case I represents − h < p2 < − h & λˆ02 < λ0 < 1 − ,
µ (1 − λ0 ) µ p2 + h
2α (k + 2te)
Case II represents p2 > & λ0 ≤ λˆ02 , and Case III represents
µ
µβ − b [ µ ( p2 + h) − ( µβ − b)]( p2 + h) µ
1− < λ0 ≤ 1 , where λˆ02 = .
p2 + h 2α (k + 2te)
Proof of Lemma 5.1.
We firstly prove the uniqueness of the optimal solution. According to the Hessian
matrix of π Gt (qi , λ ) over (qi , λ ) , namely,
 ∂ 2π Gt (qi , λ ) ∂ 2π Gt (qi , λ ) 
 
∂ qi2 ∂ λ∂ qi   −2α ( p2 + h) µ 
=H = ,
 ∂ 2π t (q , λ ) ∂ 2π t (q , λ )   ( p2 + h) µ − k − 2te 
 G i G i

 ∂ q i ∂ λ ∂ λ 2

we have H1 = −2α and H 2 = 2α (k + 2ten ) − [( p2 + h) µ ]2 . Since α > 0 ,
2α (k + 2te)
H1 = −2α < 0 , and if p2 ≥ − h , H 2 ≤ 0 . Under this condition, the
µ
Hessian matrix is nonnegative definite, which leads the optimal reduced deterioration
rate being equal to the initial deterioration rate (i.e., λG*t = λ0 ). If
2α (k + 2te)
p2 < − h , H 2 > 0 which leads to the Hessian matrix being negative
µ
definite. Under this condition, π Gt (qi , λ ) is jointly concave on (qi , λ ) . Then, solving
∂π Gt (qi , λ ) ∂π Gt (qi , λ )
the first order conditions of = 0 and = 0 , gives us the
∂λ ∂qi
(k + 2te){[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b} ( p2 + h)qGt ′ µ
optimal values qGt ′ = and λG
t′
= ,
2α (k + 2te) − ( p2 + h) 2 µ 2 (k + 2te)
which may or may not be feasible. Particularly, only when
120
µβ − b 2α (k + 2te)
− h < p2 < − h , qGt ′ and λGt ′ are feasible.
µ (1 − λ0 ) µ
Consider three cases:
(1) As the previous assumption in Subsection 4.3.1, 0 ≤ λGt ′ ≤ λ0 requires
µβ − b
λˆ02 < λ0 < 1 − . Under this condition, to keep qGt ′ > 0 , requires
p2 + h
µβ − b 2α (k + 2te)
− h < p2 < − h . Inserting qGt ′ and λG′ into π Gt (qi , λ ) gives
µ (1 − λ0 ) µ
′ (k + 2te){[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2
the optimal profit π
= t
G − c . To keep π Gt ′ > 0 ,
2{2α (k + 2te) − [( p2 + h) µ ]2 }
requires c < cˆ5 . Then, qGt ∗ = qGt ′ and π Gt ∗ = π Gt ′ .
(2) If λG′ > λ0 , then λG* = λ0 , inserting λG* = λ0 into π Gt (qi , λ ) to obtain optimal
[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b
decision qGt ′′ = and
2α
{[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2
=π Gt ′′ − k λ0 2 / 2 − c − t λ0 2 e . To keep π Gt ′′ > 0 , requires c < cˆ6 .
4α
µβ − b
(3) If 1 − < λ0 ≤ 1 , then π Gt < 0 , the food supplier prefers not to invest in PT
p2 + h
but he could plant with no PT adoption. □
Lemma 5.1 indicates that compared with a fixed carbon emissions policy, when
the tax is linked to the amount of PT investment, the optimal planting acres, FL
reduction effort, and the optimal profit are decreased. These results can be explained
by the elasticity in the carbon emissions tax policy. Rather than a fixed carbon
emissions tax, linking the tax to PT investment effort can increase the marginal cost of
PT investment, thereby restraining PT adoption.
After examining the impacts of the new tax policy, we now further investigate its
121
effect on social welfare. The definition of social welfare and the significance of social
welfare optimisation has been discussed in Chapter 4.
Let SW3t ∗ denote the social welfare with PT investment given the new tax policy.
In this case, the social welfare can be expressed as π Gt ∗ + t (λGt* ) 2 e − bqGt ∗ . The function
of social welfare with PT investment and new tax policy is
π Gt ∗ t (λGt ∗ ) 2 e − bqGt ∗ .
SW3t =+
Based on the social welfare function above, Propostion 5.1 compares the social
welfare in a fixed carbon tax policy ( SW1 ) and in an integrated subsidy and carbon
emission tax policy ( SW3t ).
Proposition 5.1. When b ≥ max{bˆ3 ,1} , where b̂3 is the solution of the condition of
SW3t = SW1 in Case I, we have SW3t ≥ SW1 ; otherwise, SW3t < SW1 .
Proof of Proposition 5.1.
π Gt ∗ t (λGt ∗ ) 2 e − bqGt ∗ and Proposition 4.2, we have

From SW3t =+
(1) In Case I,
2α (k + 2te) 2 {[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]µ − b} + [2b(k + 2te) − k ][( p2 + h) µ ]2 t ∗

SW3t qG − c
2(k + 2te){2α (k + 2te) − [( p2 + h) µ ]2 }
k{[(1 − λ0 )( p2 + h) − β ]2 µ 2 − b 2 } t
and SW1 0 for b
− c . Solving SW3 − SW1 =
2{2α k − [( p2 + h) µ ] }
2
gives b̂3 . Further, if b ≥ bˆ3 , SW3t ≥ SW1 ; otherwise, SW3t < SW1 .
{[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}2 − 2{[( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}

(2) In Case II, SW3t
= − k λ0 2 / 2 − c
4α
{[( p2 + h) − β ]2 µ 2 − b 2 }
and SW1
= 0 for b
− k λ0 2 / 2 − c . Solving SW3t − SW1 =
4α
leads to 1 . Further, if b ≥ 1 , SW3t ≥ SW1 ; otherwise, SW3t < SW1 . □
122
Proposition 5.1. suggests that there exists a threshold subsidy, and when the actual
subsidy is less than this threshold, social welfare is increased by the new tax policy (i.e.,
SW3t ≥ SW1 ). Otherwise, the social welfare is reduced by the new tax policy (i.e.,
SW3t < SW1 )
5.3 Extension 2 – Proportional PT Investment Decision
Our basic and extension 1 model include two restrictive assumptions:
(1) all the food products need to be sold in one stage,
(2) the food supplier either invests in PT for all products or chooses not to invest
in PT at all.
Extension 2 relaxes the above assumptions by introducing three stages (growing,
sale, and extended sale), and allowing the food supplier to decide the proportion of the
PT investment.
5.3.1 Model Description
This section presents a three-stage deterministic model to examine the PT investment
decisions and FL reduction performance when proportional PT investment is allowed.
Figure 5.1 describes the sequence of events factored into the model.
the supplier decides on the supplier decides the supplier decides the
the proportion of PT quantities sold in the quantities sold in the
investment and its
Given the subsidy and second stage third stage
deterioration rate
tax level offered by
the government
The first stage The second stage The third stage

Observing the
to grow to sell Observing quantities to sell (extended)
exogenous prices
and the total yield
in the market
Figure 5.1: The Sequence of the Events

123
The sequence of events in this three-stage optimisation is as follows.
(1) In the first stage to grow: Given the subsidy and tax level (denoted by b and
t , repectively) offered by the government, the supplier decides on the proportion of PT
investment (denoted by γ ) and its deterioration rate (denoted by λ ) or the effort
needed to reduce FL.
(2) In the second stage to sell: Observing the exogenous prices (market prices in
the second stage p1 and p2 , and market price in the third stage p3 ), the supplier
decides on the quantities delivered to deliver to the market.
(3) In the third stage to sell (extended): the food products with PT investment can
be sold at this stage, satisfying the demand for off-season products.
In this extension, we make several additional assumptions for the sake of
tractability as follows.
(1) The products without PT investment must be sold in stage two, or they will be wasted.
Perishability is an inherent characteristic of food products. To capture this feature
and demonstrate the effect of PT investment, we assume the food products with no PT
investment can only be sold in the second stage. This assumption addresses the
perishability of food products, which distinguishes our models from models for durable
products (Wang and Li, 2012).
(2) The products with PT investment can be sold either in the second or third stage.
To better describe how the market prices affect PT investment decisions and FL
reduction, we assume that the adoption of PT can extend the shelf-life of food products,
and therefore the products with PT investment can be sold in the next stage. In practice,
124
this is a prevailing phenomenon as the food supplier can benefit from the trade-offs
between the PT investment cost and the increased price for off-season products.
(3) The relationship between the market prices without PT investment (denoted by p1 ),
with PT investment and being sold in stage 2 (denoted by p2 ), and with PT investment
and being sold in stage 3 (denoted by p3 ) is represented as: p3 > p2 > p1 .
The above assumption can be justified in reality because an increase in quality or
an extended shelf life can satisfy the psychological and physical needs of consumers,
and therefore push an increase in price (i.e., p2 > p1 ). The relationship between the
quality of products and price has been widely examined in the economic literature
(Stiglitz, 1987). The principle of higher quality goods fetching a higher price has been
verified by existing studies (Ding et al. 2010). In addition, PT investment provides a
solution to mitigate the seasonality of food products. Given that the supply of off-season
products is scarcer, we assume the price in stage 3 is higher than in stage 2 (i.e.,
p3 > p2 ).
(4) There exists a deterioration rate ( λ0 ) between stages 2 and 3, and this deterioration
rate is same as the initial deterioration rate. Also, a discounted rate (denoted by δ ) of
the profit in stage 3 is assumed in our model.
This assumption captures the reality that owing to the perishable characteristics of
food products, even with PT investment, a deterioration rate exists between stages 2
and 3. To simply our model, we apply the same deterioration rate as the initial
deterioration rate λ0 . This assumption will be relaxed in our later discussion.
Furthermore, to describe the trade-off between the sale of food products in stage 2
125
or 3, we assume a rational food supplier will prefer to obtain the profit in an earlier
stage, and therefore there is a discounted rate of profit (denoted by δ , where 0 < δ < 1 )
in the third stage. That is, in the third stage, the food supplier has the trade-off between
π 2 and δπ 3 (where π 2 denotes the expected profit in the second stage and π 3
denotes the expected profit in third stage).
(5) Food supplier’s planting plan
First, we assume that the food supplier can divide his planting acres into two parts:
planting the products with no PT investment and the products with PT investment. This
assumption related to planting plan decision has been studied in agricultural
publications (e.g., Beres et al., 2009). Also it can be justified in reality. For instance, the
food supplier chooses to plant different products that are targeted to low-end or high-
end markt (Qian and Olsen, 2021).
According to the basic model, we identify when there is assumed to no available

[(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]µ
PT, the food supplier chooses to plant qiN∗ = ; when PT is assumed to
2α
be adopted, under government intervention, the food supplier choose to plant
[(1 − λ0 + λ )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b
∗
qiG (λ ) = . To avoid the risk given by the uncertainty in
2α
PT efficiency (λ) and government subsidy and tax levels, the food supplier has to make
a proportional planting decision which is denoted by γ , and the planting acres are
γ qiN∗ + (1 − γ )qiG
∗
. Under this planting plan, if the food supplier decides to sell all the
products in the second stage, then the available food products are
(1 − λ0 ) µ (γ qiN
∗
+ (1 − γ )qiG
∗
) ; if the food supplier decides to sell all the products in the
third stage, then the available food products are (1 − λ0 ) 2 µ (γ qiN∗ + (1 − γ )qiG
∗
) , where we
126
assume the deterioration rate from stage 1 to stage 2 is λ0 , and from stage 1 to stage 3
is (1 − λ0 ) 2 . This proportional planting decision has been justified in practice and
mentioned in existing literature. According to our semi-structured interview, food
suppliers indicate that when they made the planting decision by considering the
availability of PT, three factors would be involved to reduce the planting risk and
maximise the expected profit: the optimal planting acres with no PT investment, the
optimal planting acres with PT investment and government intervention, and the chance
they could get the government subsidy. For example, one of the food suppliers states
that
…Assuming I will not adopt PT, then I could choose to plant 10 hectares, whereas
I could choose 12 hectares by considering the government policy with PT adoption.
However, the government subsidy policy will only be announced around January
each year after my planting decision. Therefore, I would like to give a proportional
planting decision, for example, in my case, it is 60%*10+40%*12=10.8 hectares.
The proportional planting decision γ (in above case γ = 0.6 ) is normally
considered to stem from the food suppliers’ 'savoir faire' (Guimarães and Mourão,
2006).
In term of the above assumptions, the scenario is described in three stages as
follows:
(1) the first stage to grow
Following the notation in Chapter 4, let Yi denote the random yield of a food
supplier, Q2∗ denote the quantity that is sold in the second stage, Q3∗ denote the
127
quantity that is sold in the third stage, where the superscript * denotes the optimal
quantity and the subscripts 2 and 3 denote the second and third stage, respectively.
Following the same assumption in Chapter 4, which is the total supply matches the
demand, the available food supply (the total supply) in our three-stage model is
therefore presented by sum of the selling quantities in stages 2 and 3 (the total demand).
Here, the available food supply has been defined in Chapter 4, which is “at the
beginning of the period if the food supplier decides to use PT, at the end of the period,
a quantity y will become (1 − λ0 + λ ) y of available food products”According to our
basic models in Chapter 4, we have the optimal planting acres with no PT investment
[(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ]µ
∗
qiN = , and the optimal planting acres with PT investment
2α
[(1 − λ0 + λ )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b
∗
qiG (λ ) = , Therefore, the expected food supply in the first
2α
stage is presented by the sold in stages 2 and 3, as follow,
(1 − γ ) ⋅ qiN
∗
µ + γ ⋅ qiG
∗
(λ=
) µ Q2∗ / (1 − λ0 ) + Q3∗ / (1 − λ0 ) 2
(2) the second stage to sell
Let π 2 denote the expected profit at the second stage, and π G 2 and π N 2 denote
the expected profit with ( π G 2 ) or with no ( π N 2 ) PT investment, where the subscript N2
denotes the condition where there is no PT investment in the second stage, and subscript
G2 denotes the condition where there is PT investment and government intervention in
the second stage. The expected profit at the second stage, therefore, is represented by,
π=
2 π N 2 ((1 − λ0 )(1 − γ ) ⋅ qiN∗ µ ) + π G 2 (Q2∗ − (1 − λ0 )(1 − γ ) ⋅ qiN∗ µ )
, where,
= π N 2 ((1 − λ0 )(1 − γ ) ⋅ qiN
∗
µ ) + π G 2 ((1 − λ0 )[γ ⋅ qiG
∗
(λ ) µ − Q3∗ / (1 − λ0 ) 2 ])
π G 2 (qi )= {[(1 − λ0 + λ )( p2 + h) − β ]µ + b}qi µ − α qi2 − k λ 2 / 2 − c − te and
128
π N 2 (qi ) = [(1 − λ0 ) p1 − β ][γ qiN∗ + (1 − γ )qiG∗ ]µ − α qi2 − c .
(3) the third stage to sell
Let π N 3 denotes the expected profit in the third stage, where the subscript N3
denotes the condition that the food products with PT adoption have been sold in the
third stage. The expected profit in the third stage is represented by
π
= 3 π N 3 + π 2 / δ , when Q3∗ satisfies
0 ≤ Q3∗ ≤ (1 − λ0 ) 2 γ ⋅ qiG
∗
(λ ) µ which is to ensure the available quantity in the third
stage is less than or equal the quantity that has adopted PT investment at the first stage.
5.3.2 Model Solution
Backward induction has been applied to solve the problem described in the previous
section, as discussed in the following three steps.
∂ 2π 3 1
Step 1: Because −2α [1 +
= ] < 0 , then solving the first condition of
∂qi 2
δ (1 − λ0 ) 2
2α [1 − γ (1 − λ0 )]qiG
∗
(λ )
[(1 − λ0 ) p3 − β ]µ −
∂π 3 δ (1 − λ0 )
= 0 for qi gives Q3a (λ ) = µ .
∂qi 1
2α [1 + ]
δ (1 − λ0 ) 2
Consider three cases:
2α [1 − γ (1 − λ0 )]qiG
∗
(λ ) β
< p3 < p3′′ , where p3′
(1) if p3′ = + ,
δ (1 − λ0 ) µ
2
1 − λ0
2α [(1 − λ0 ) + (1 − 2λ0 ) 2 γδ ]qiG

∗
(λ ) β
p3′′ + , then Q3a > 0 and
δ (1 − λ0 ) µ
3
1 − λ0
Q3a (λ ) − (1 − λ0 ) 2 γ ⋅ qiG
∗
(λ ) µ < 0 ,
therefore,
= Q3∗ min{Q3a (λ ), (1 − λ0 ) 2 γ ⋅ qiG
∗
=(λ ) µ} Q3a (λ ) .
129
(2) if p3 > p3′′ , then Q3a > 0 and Q3a (λ ) − (1 − λ0 ) 2 γ ⋅ qiG
∗
(λ ) µ > 0 , therefore,
(1 − λ0 ) 2 γ ⋅ qiG
Q3∗ = ∗
(λ ) µ .
∂π 3
(3) if p3 ≤ p3′ , then Q3a < 0 and < 0 , therefore, Q3∗ = 0 .
∂qi
 Q3a (λ ) if p3′ < p3 ≤ p3′′


Step 2: In terms of step 1, we identify Q3 = (1 − λ0 ) γ ⋅ qiG (λ ) µ if p3 > p3′′
∗ 2 ∗
,
 if p3 ≤ p3′
0
(1 − λ0 ) µ[γ qiN∗ + (1 − γ )qiG
∗
− Q3a (λ ) / (1 − λ0 ) 2 ] if p3′ < p3 ≤ p3′′
∗ 
therefore, Q2 = (1 − λ0 ) µ[γ qiN∗ + (1 − γ )qiG
∗
− γ ⋅ qiG
∗
(λ )] if p3 > p3′′ .
 if p3 ≤ p3′
(1 − λ0 ) µ[γ qiN + (1 − γ )qiG ]
∗ ∗
Step 3: according to steps 1 and 2, we identify that the profit in stage 1 is given by,
π 1∗ (λ , γ ) = δ 2 ⋅ π 3∗ = δ 2 ⋅ [π N∗ 3 (Q3∗ ) + π 2∗ / δ ] , where
π=
∗
2 π N∗ 2 ((1 − λ0 )(1 − γ ) ⋅ qiN∗ µ ) + π G∗ 2 ((1 − λ0 )[ µγ ⋅ qiG
∗
(λ ) − Q3∗ / (1 − λ0 ) 2 ]) .
Because we assume the food products with no PT investment have to be sold in the
second stage, the profit function must include δ ⋅ π N 2 ((1 − λ0 )(1 − γ ) ⋅ qiN∗ µ ) .
Based on the analysis above, two threshold prices, denoted by p3′ and p3′′ , are
identified for stage 3. These thresholds help understanding the conditions of the food
supplier’s selling decisions and PT investment decision in each stage. Compared with
the basic model, this three-stage model considers the function of the PT investment in
extending the shelf-life of food products, therefore affecting the PT decision. The
discussion related to the PT decisions in the second and third stage is as follows.
Corollary 5.1. If p3 ≤ p3′ , all the food products will be sold in the second stage, and
the food supplier has no incentive to invest in PT; If p3 > p3′′ , the food products with
PT investment will be sold in the third stage, and products with no PT investment will
130
be sold in the second stage; and if p3′ < p3 ≤ p3′′ , the food products with PT investment
will be sold in both stages 2 and 3.
π2 ∂ 2π 3 1
From
= π 3 π N 3 (Q ) + , we have
∗
3
−2α [1 +
= ] < 0 , then solving
δ ∂qi 2
δ (1 − λ0 ) 2
∂π 3
the first condition of = 0 for qi gives
∂qi
2α [1 − γ (1 − λ0 )]qiG
∗
(λ )
[(1 − λ0 ) p3 − β ]µ −
δ (1 − λ0 )
Q3a (λ ) = µ . Consider three cases:
1
2α [1 + ]
δ (1 − λ0 ) 2
(1) if p3′ < p3 ≤ p3′′ , then Q3a > 0 and
2α qiG
∗
(λ )
[(1 − λ0 ) p3 − β ]µ − [1 + (1 − λ0 )3 γδ ]
δ (1 − λ0 )
Q3a (λ ) − (1 − λ0 ) 2 γ ⋅ qG∗ (λ ) µ µ
= <0,
1
2α [1 + ]
δ (1 − λ0 ) 2
therefore,
= Q3∗ min{Q3a (λ ), (1 − λ0 ) 2 γ ⋅ qiG
∗
=(λ ) µ} Q3a (λ ) , i.e., the food products with
PT investment will be sold in both stages 2 and 3.
(2) if p3 > p3′′ , then Q3a > 0 and Q3a (λ ) − (1 − λ0 ) 2 γ ⋅ qiG

∗
(λ ) µ > 0 , therefore,
(1 − λ0 ) 2 γ ⋅ qiG
Q3∗ = ∗
(λ ) µ , i.e., the food products with PT investment will be sold in the
third stage, and products without PT investment will be sold in the second stage.
∂π 3
(3) if p3 ≤ p3′ , then Q3a < 0 and < 0 , therefore, Q3∗ = 0 , i.e., all the food
∂qi
products will be sold in the second stage, and the food supplier has no incentive to adopt
PT. □
Corollary 5.1 describes how market prices impact the PT investment decisions of
131
the food supplier. The higher the market price, the greater the willingness to invest in
PT. There exists a threshold price and it is only when the market price in the third stage
is higher than the threshold that the food supplier will prefer to invest in PT. This
threshold is affected by the discount rate for profits between the second and third stages,
the circulation costs, and the proportion of PT investment. This is not surprising because
both the discount rate for profits and the circulation costs can increase the marginal cost
of the PT investment. As such, higher costs need to be balanced by higher marginal
benefits. Therefore, a higher discount rate for profits and higher circulation cost lead to
higher a threshold price when considering PT investment.
5.3.3 Modelling specific situations in Extension 2
Based on recent cases in China described in our semi-structured interviews, we further
investigate three specific situations related to extension model 2, including the effect of
an unexpected price rise for fresh foods and the effect of a differentiated deterioration
rate between stages 2 and 3.
(1) Effect of unexpected price rise for fresh foods
The previous section analyses how market prices impact on PT investment
decisions, showing that the higher the price, the greater the willingness to invest in PT.
Moving on from the above discussion, we investigate a specific situation that the market
price is unexpectedly increased for fresh foods.
Let p1 and p2 respectively denote the market price for food products with no
or with PT investment and sold in the second stage. Let p3 denote the market price in
132
the third stage. Corollary 5.2 discusses how these prices affect PT investment and FL
reduction efforts.
Corollary 5.2. When p1 and p2 are unexpectedly increased to p3 owing to the
external factors such as food supply interruption, π N 3 (Q3∗ ) = π N 2 (Q3∗ ) and therefore
δπ N 3 (Q3∗ ) < π N 2 (Q3∗ ) .
If p=
1 p=
2 p3 , then π N 3 (Q3∗ ) = π N 2 (Q3∗ ) . From 0 < δ < 1 , we have
δπ N 3 (Q3∗ ) < π N 2 (Q3∗ ) . □
Corollary 5.2 proves that with an unexpected rise in market price, the food supplier
will choose not to invest in PT to achieve high profits. Although this action reduces FL
in the short term because all the products will be sold in the second stage, in the long
term the low PT investment rate may have negative impacts on FL reduction.
(2) Effect of a differentiated deterioration rate between stages 2 and 3
In the discussion above, we assume the deterioration rate between stages 2 and 3
stays the same. To relax this assumption and investigate the impact of a differentiated
deterioration rate, we introduce λ1 to replace λ0 . For this case we analyse two
situations: λ1 > λ0 and λ1 ≤ λ0 .
In terms of this relaxed assumption, we examine how the optimal delivery quantity
in the third stage and the threshold price changes, as shown in Corollary 5.3.
Corollary 5.3. The impacts of the deterioration rate are indicated as,
Q3a (λ ) ↓ if p3′ ↑< p3 ≤ p3′′ ↑


λ1 > λ0 , then we have Q3∗ =  (1 − λ0 )(1 − λ1 )γ ⋅ qiG∗ (λ ) µ ↓ if p3 > p3′′ ↑ ;

0 if p3 ≤ p3′ ↑
133
Q3a (λ ) ↑ if p3′ ↓< p3 ≤ p3′′ ↓

λ1 > λ0 , then we have Q3∗ =  (1 − λ0 )(1 − λ1 )γ ⋅ qiG∗ (λ ) µ ↑ if p3 > p3′′ ↓ .

0 if p3 ≤ p3′ ↓
If λ1 > λ0 , from 0 < γ , λ0 , λ1 < 1 , then we have
2α [1 − γ (1 − λ0 )]qiG
∗
(λ ) β 2α [1 − γ (1 − λ0 )]qiG
∗
(λ ) β
+ > + , i.e., p3′ ↑ , similarly,
δ (1 − λ1 )(1 − λ0 ) µ 1 − λ0 δ (1 − λ0 ) µ
2
1 − λ0
p3′′ ↑ , otherwise, p3′ ↓ and p3′′ ↓ . □
Corollary 5.3 discusses two types of differentiated deterioration rate between
stages 2 and 3. As mentioned by Yang et al. (2019) and Li et al. (2018), the deterioration
rate is not a constant parameter in most cases. Therefore, a differentiated deterioration
rate needs to be analysed. Corollary 5.3 provides insight into the impacts of the
differentiated deterioration rate on PT investment decisions. Compared with a constant
deterioration rate, the threshold prices change. The results indicate that when the
deterioration rate is higher than the initial rate, the threshold price for PT investment in
the third stage increases, which means that if food suppliers expect a high deterioration
rate in the third stage, they will prefer not to invest PT. This can be explained in terms
of the increase in marginal cost. Therefore, to encourage the food supplier to invest in
PT and reduce FL in the long term, the government should increase its subsidy to
increase the marginal profit.
5.4 Discussion
We have use game-theoretic model to obtain insights into the strategic PT
investment decisions of the food supplier in the presence of government intervention.
134
In this section, we present a brief analysis and case study based on the results of the key
propositions and corollaries.
5.4.1 Case study for a Specific Situations in Extension 2
Unexpected rising price is considered in our extension model. Our reason for including
this analysis is the emergence of a recent phenomenon in Shanghai and Beijing City,
China.
In our second round of interviews, both government and farmer interviewees
indicated that prices have unexpected increased in recent times due to the Chinese
government’s policy of locking down entire cities with the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic. Compared with the more open policy of most countries, China remains
insistent on a zero-COVID strategy. A strict three-month lockdown commenced in
Shanghai from 1 March, compelling residents to stock up on supplies in preparation for
this lengthy period of compulsory self-isolation.
We investigated 30 consumers in Shanghai, all of whom confirmed that food prices
had sharply increased during the lockdowns. We included this situation in our extension
model, and Corollary 5.2 proves that when market prices in stages 1 and 2 ( p1 and p2 )
increase to or are greater than p3 (the price of off-season products), there is no
incentive for food suppliers to invest in PT. From the perspective of the food supplier,
the sharp increase in price can increase marginal profits and promote the selling of food
products in the short term. However, social welfare will be significantly reduced and
the levels of FLW reduction become undefined owing to possible over-purchasing and
limited consumption at the consumer end.
135
5.5 Conclusions
Based on the second round of interviews, we constructed extension models
incorporating future projections relating to PT application and investment. The changes
included an integrated subsidy and carbon emissions tax policy and proportional PT
investment using a three-stage model. This aim of this refinement of our basic model
was to investigate PT investment decisions and FL reduction performance in the
following situations: when government interventions prevent over investment in PT;
and when PT allows the food supplier to provide off-season products. The key findings
from our extension models are as follows.
1) To improve social welfare, the government will seek to stimulate the expansion
of food production and reduce FL.
2) The government can prevent over-investment in PT by increasing the unit carbon
emission tax, which can significantly increase the marginal cost of food products.
However, there exists a breakeven point for social welfare, in that if the tax is too high,
social welfare will be sharply reduced.
In the three-stage model, PT is assumed to contribute to the provision of off-season
products. The key conclusion from this model are as follows,
1) The demand and market price for off-season products in the third stage have a
significant influence on the incentives for food suppliers to invest in PT and reduce FL.
2) Unexpected price rising can discourage PT investment and harms the
performance of FL reduction in the long term.
Although we have considered practical concerns in our basic and extension models,
136
the models have some limitations. For example, we have not factored in the competition
that exists between food suppliers. Moreover, we did not model the different types of
PT costs, nor did we consider the effect of demand shock on PT investment decisions.
Extending our models to address such gaps is a challenging process that will require
involving different food suppliers and different types of preservation technologies.
These extensions are left as possible avenues for future research.
137
CHAPTER 6
Food Supply Chain Waste Reduction in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal

Study of New Zealand Consumers
As reviewed in Chapter 3, FLW occurs both at the upstream and downstream of FSCs.
Chapters 4 and 5 investigate the trade-offs in PT investment by food suppliers, which
focus on FLW reduction at the upstream of FSCs and indicate that government
intervention has significant impact on FLW reduction. Moving on from our discussion
on FLW reduction in FSC operations, Chapter 6 investigates the key factors that impact
FLW reduction at the downstream of FSCs, mainly focusing on consumer Food Waste
(FW) reduction.
This chapter conducts a qualitative and longitudinal study, spanning three periods
in New Zealand. A preliminary model is constructed from the outcomes of a survey
with 178 participants. Then, we carry out 29 semi-structured interviews to refine the
preliminary model and adapt it to the analysis of household food waste behaviour.
The chapter is based on a paper, which has been published in International Journal
of Logistics Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-03-2022-0100 (see co-author
statement).
6.1 Motivation
As mentioned in Chapter 1, FW reduction in households is a complex problem as each
household has its idiosyncrasies when it comes to purchasing, consumption, and
wastage behaviours (Ganguly and Robb, 2022). Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic, a
severe trigger-event, fundamentally altered the shopping and consumption patterns of
138
consumers (Roe et al., 2021). The most obvious and radical change has been to “stay
and cook at home” rather than “spend at restaurants and hotels” (Chetty et al., 2020).
Owing to the concerns and perceptions of food security and accessibility arising from
the pandemic, consumers sought solutions by adjusting their food purchasing and
consumption behaviours. Panic purchasing (Raassens et al., 2021), over-ordering, and
planned consumption are typical behaviours that occurred with the onset of COVID-19
(Roe et al., 2021). Using consumer segmentation, we explore the research questions
relating to wastage in households.
Consumer segmentation is a significant approach used in analysing consumer
behaviour in the FSCs (Gerini et al., 2016). An appropriate segmentation of consumers
shapes policy and marketing decisions, and informs consumer behaviour studies (Wang
and Scrimgeour, 2022). However, as indicated in Chapter 3, the research applying
consumer segmentation to analyse the FW problem is scant. Most Circular Economy
(CE) research focuses on high value products and there is little on food products in
circular FSC research (Zhang et al., 2021). We develop a novel consumer segmentation
conceptual model and conduct a longitudinal study to explore household FW behaviour
and behavioural changes in New Zealand. This chapter addresses three research
questions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic:
RQ1. How does household FW behaviour change when trigger events occur?
RQ2. Do these changes in household FW behaviour differ among consumer
segments?
RQ3. What are the implications for government, FSC practitioners, and consumers
to adjust policy, strategy, and/or behaviour to promote the CE during consecutive
lockdowns?
139
This chapter makes three original contributions to household FW behaviour, FW
reduction in FSCs, and CE research. First, a novel conceptual model of consumer
segmentation involving a combination of two psychographic variables has been
presented. Second, applying the conceptual model, we examine how household
behaviour regarding purchasing, consumption, and FW changed in response to COVID-
19 related FSC disruptions. Third, through an understanding of the household FW
behaviour, we provide an insight into promoting CE with the application of our
conceptual model.
The remainder of this chapter is organised as follows. Section 6.2 presents a
literature review related to household FW in the pandemic and CE context. Section 6.3
introduces the methods that are applied in this research. Section 6.4 discusses the
findings, based on which a preliminary and a refined conceptual model are put forward.
Section 6.5 discusses the implications, followed by a conclusion in Section 6.6.
6.2 Literature Review
Building on the literature review in Chapter 3, which focuses on the importance of FLW
reduction at the household level, the literature review in this section concentrates on a
more detailed topic, namely, household FW in the pandemic and CE context.
Three streams of research are closely related to the work in this chapter: household
FW in the context of CE, consumer segmentation in FSCs, and household FW
behaviour analysis in the pandemic context.
6.2.1 Household FW in the Context of the CE
The concept of the CE has attracted much attention and is viewed as an implementation,
actualisation, and promotion of sustainable development (Khan et al., 2021). Kirchherr
140
et al. (2017) analyse 114 definitions of the CE and conclude with the 9R framework to
describe the transformation from a linear economy to a CE. Within this framework,
household FW prevention is addressed by Rethink and Reduce: Rethink how to
efficiently use food resources and Reduce FW. In the FW hierarchy (Papargyropoulou
et al., 2014), prevention is positioned at the top of the pyramid, which indicates its
significance. Various pathways can be followed for waste prevention, among which
household FW management is recognised as one of the key issues (Zokaei et al., 2006).
Only few articles focus on household FW issues in the CE context (Zhang et al.,
2021). The topics include consumer engagement in FW reduction (e.g., Coderoni and
Perito, 2020), awareness of FW (e.g., Do et al., 2021), and consumer lifestyle and
consumption behaviour (e.g., Liu et al., 2021). In contrast to the extant literature, we
investigate the impact of household FW behaviour and behavioural change based on
consumer segmentation in a chronological and situational context.
6.2.2 Consumer Segmentation
Traditional criteria to distinguish consumer segments are based on demographic or
socio-demographic characteristics (Arenas-Gaitán et al., 2022), including family size,
age, sex, income, and generations. Some scholars argue that there are limitations in the
effectiveness of traditional segmentation, and psychographic variables (e.g., emotion,
attitudes, and beliefs) should be used instead for consumer behaviour analysis (Arroyo
et al., 2021).
Although researchers noted the significance of promising and appropriate
consumer segmentation in FSC studies (e.g., Wang and Scrimgeour, 2022), we found
only one paper that uses consumer segmentation with respect to FW. McCarthy et al.
(2020) investigate the possible reduction of FW through increased consumer
141
acceptance of value-added surplus products, and their work segments consumers using
labels such as “status and convenience seeker” and “price and environmentally
conscious”. In contrast, our research explores key behavioural variables to segment
consumers, provides a general conceptual model of consumer segmentation, and
illustrates the application of this model in a household FW behaviour study. Figure 6.1
summarises how consumer segmentation has been used in FSC studies.
Socio-demographic Psychographic
variables variables
Profiling
Consumer
segmentation
Application in food supply chain management
Macro-level Meso-level Micro-level

(Governments) (FSCs) (Consumers)
• Marketing strategy decisions • Consumer behavior analysis

• Regulation or policy (consumption and buying behavior)
• Products or services design
implementation in respect to • Consumer preference analysis
decisions
food quality, food security, • Consumer attitude, concerns, and
• Business development and
and food safety perception analysis
innovation
Figure 6.1: Consumer Segmentation Profiling and Application
6.2.3 Household FW Behaviour Analysis in the Pandemic Context
Household FW behaviour has been widely investigated and analysed with a goal of
reducing FW and promoting the CE (Luo et al., 2022). The extant literature examines
the factors that influence FW in the dimensions of household, for instance, consumer
attitudes (e.g., Coşkun and Özbük, 2020), preference (e.g., Kim et al., 2020), beliefs
(e.g., Mattar et al., 2018), and other demographic characteristics (e.g., Coderoni and
Perito, 2020).
142
We located 16 studies that discussed household FW behaviour in relation to the
COVID-19 pandemic context. According to these empirical studies, FW generally
declined during the pandemic due to changes in purchasing and consumption
behaviours, such as improvement of food planning skills and awareness of FW. Among
these, Amicarelli et al. (2021) is the only work that focused on the behavioural
distinction between groups of consumers. In contrast to their work, which investigated
the household FW behaviour during the post-pandemic period, our thesis analyses the
behavioural changes in consecutive lockdowns. Figure 6.2 summarises the key findings
according to our literature review.
Socio-demographic variables
Social media
Neuroticism
Age, Gender, Income, Education, usage
Sex, Family size Retailers’
Retailers’ marketing decision
Impulsive buying strategy (discounted price)
Bulk purchasing and stockpiling Purchasing

behaviour
Planned shopping
Household waste
Eating foods after their expiration date

Consumption
behaviour
Psychographic variables
Concerns about COVID 19, Risk attitude Planned consumption and cooking
and perception, Experience, Intention,
Price-sensitiveness
Figure 6.2: Household FW Behaviour Analysis
6.2.4 Summary of Knowledge Gaps
After scrutinising the existing literature, we identify three knowledge gaps specifically
focusing on the household FW in pandemic and CE contexts.
First, household FW behaviour has been examined from the perspective of
purchasing and consumption behaviours by using socio-demographic and/or

143
psychographic variables. However, we notice a lack of integrated thinking from both
purchasing and consumption behaviours and explorations of a link between them.
Second, a stream of exploratory studies has been conducted to facilitate
understanding of the impacts of COVID-19 on household FW behaviour (e.g., Babbitt
et al., 2021). However, these studies have not considered the differences between
various consumer segments.
Third, consistent household FW behaviour has been assumed in most of the
literature, even though household FW behaviour may be changed by trigger events
(such as lockdowns). Moreover, these changes may be dynamic rather than remaining
static during each period of the pandemic. Therefore, a longitudinal study is needed to
analyse the dynamic changes in household FW behaviour.
6.3 Method
In this chapter, due to the exploratory and dynamic nature, we conduct two studies: an
online survey to explore the possible actions that influence household FW reduction,
and a longitudinal study to illustrate the application of, and to test, the preliminary
conceptual model. This method of combining exploratory and confirmatory studies is
motivated by the work of Garrone at al. (2014), who constructed a model to identify
FW reduction strategies in FSCs.
In study 1, as we attempt to reach a large sample and effectively collect the data,
we applied a survey method to ensure a comprehensive understanding from a diverse
range of consumers. In study 2, to ensure in-depth understanding of the consumer
behavioural changes during successive lockdowns and to help interpret the survey
results, we conducted semi-structured interviews. The outline of these studies is shown
in Table 6.1.
144
Table 6.1: Outline of the Two Studies in This Thesis
Study 1- Exploratory Study 2- Semi-structured

survey interviews
Explore the key
Test the preliminary conceptual
determinants that impact
model and investigate consumer
Purpose household FW to arrive at
behavioural changes during
the preliminary conceptual
successive lockdowns
model
A combination of simple A combination of in-depth semi-
Survey design survey type questionnaires structured interviews and survey
and an open question type questionnaires
178 valid and complete
Sample size 29 valid and complete responses
responses
The same pool of consumers as
People living in Auckland study 1
Data collected between Data collected at two time
Data collection
November 2019 - February points: 05 April 2020 - 15 May
2020 2020 and 20 August 2021 - 16
September 2021
Data analysis
Thematic analysis Content analysis
method
6.3.1 Study 1 – Exploratory Survey
Sample and Procedure
Convenience and snowballing sampling methods (Wheeler et al., 2014) were
applied to identify potential respondents. The online survey is composed of simple
survey type questionnaires and an open question.
145
The survey type questionnaires investigate the socio-demographic characteristics
of the consumers and ensure the diversity of the interviewees, including shopping
frequency, family size and composition, income, the base food consumption, and self-
reported levels of FW. The open question, “What are the factors that are responsible for
the wastage of fresh food in your family?” was designed to facilitate understanding of
the root cause of FW at the household level.
We sent out the survey to 510 contacts through personal networks, Facebook, and
communication software; 220 responses were received, among which 178 were valid
and complete.
Data Analysis
We conducted a thematic analysis of the data, a method which aims to capture
common concepts and systematically identify the patterns of themes (coding) across
the data set (Braun and Clarke, 2012). Thematic analysis provides a guidance to data
analysis (Aronson, 1995). Following this guidance, we used manual coding to analyse
the open-ended question, which helps to avoid misinterpretations (Kirchherr et al.,
2017). The coding process was developed in five steps.
First, we read the textual data thoroughly that had been recorded in the survey.
Second, we employed fishbone parameters as the initial coding framework to explore
the root causes of consumers’ FW behaviour, including People, Process, Equipment,
Material, Environment, and Management. Third, applying thematic analysis, we
examined the initial coding framework and added specific themes that were not
included. Next, we classified all data into the themes. Finally, we checked and ensured
that all the textual data has been identified and placed with the corresponding patterns.
Among the various possible causes, we found two overarching causes in the
“People” category: 65.36% of the total interviewees reported that they are easily enticed
146
by bulk foods at discounted prices, and 51.96% of the total interviewees reported that
they are not willing to eat food items that have started to deteriorate. We marked these
two variables as “threshold discount”, and “salvage from deterioration”.
6.3.2 Study 2 - Semi-Structured Interviews
Notwithstanding their limitations (Lee, 2018), semi-structured interviews are an
appropriate methodology to understand unstructured phenomena (Garrone et al., 2014).
Additionally, the nature of semi-structured interviews allows interviewers to gain an
in-depth insight into the subjects’ characteristics, and therefore helps interviewers to
adjust interview strategies based on the interviewees’ responses (Glover et al., 2013).
In this thesis, semi-structured interviews were held with the consumers responsible
for the shopping and meal planning for their households. A longitudinal panel study
interviewing the same respondents at two time points was conducted in Auckland, New
Zealand.
Background of the Longitudinal Study
After observing cases of community transmission, New Zealand declared the first level-
4 (most strict) lockdown policy in March 2020, under which people are strictly required
to stay at home and avoid close contact, unless necessary for essential movements. After
a five-week lockdown, the government announced a drop to alert level 3, in which some
restrictions were relaxed (e.g., customers could buy cooked food from restaurants),
although dining-in was still not allowed. Over the next few weeks, restrictions were
increasingly relaxed, and by June 2020, there were no domestic restrictions in New
Zealand. A second nationwide level-4 lockdown was declared in August 2021, when
147
an outbreak of the delta variant of COVID-19 was reported in Auckland. This level-4
lockdown lasted for 5 weeks in Auckland (History 2021).
Semi-structured Interviews Design
To test the preliminary conceptual model and explore the root causes of household FW
and FW behavioural changes, we use the same protocols and pool of consumers from
the exploratory survey.
A combination of in-depth interviews and survey type questionnaires is applied to
investigate household FW behaviours and behavioural changes linking to the trigger
events (the two lockdowns). This investigation covered three periods: pre-lockdown
(before March 2020), the first lockdown (25 March - 27 April 2020), and the second
lockdown (17 August - 21 September 2021). As with the exploratory survey, the
longitudinal study included the socio-demographic characteristics of interviewees, and
additionally, two variables that were identified in the exploratory survey, “Threshold
discount” and “Salvage from deterioration”, were added.
“Threshold discount” is the minimum discount rate provided by the retailers that is
sufficient to entice a consumer into buying a package that is larger than the consumer’s
regular purchase amount. Each survey participant was asked to choose between buying
their preferred quantity at full retail price or buying a larger quantity offered at a
discount A participant with a low “threshold discount” is considered to have high
“willingness to buy bulk food at a discounted price”. Conversely, participants
preferring to buy loose at full retail price, even when a substantial discount is offered,
are understood to have low “willingness to buy bulk food at a discounted price”. We
double checked this variable by using an additional question: “Do you think you are
easily attracted by the discounted price?”
148
“Salvage from deterioration” measures “the willingness to plan consumption”. We
designed the following question: “On a certain day, you notice 1 kg of fruit/vegetables,
which was bought a few days ago, has started to deteriorate, and will have to be thrown
away if it is not consumed in 3 days. In such a situation, how many kgs would your
household be typically willing to consume before it is thrown away?” The response to
this question reflects two aspects of consumption behaviour: a willingness to consume
deteriorating food and planned cooking by noticing the deterioration. We assumed that
consumers with salvage rate less than 30% have low willingness to consume items that
have started deteriorating. Following the investigation of our questionnaire, we
explored the possible causes of consumers’ FW and behavioural changes by having a
conversation with the consumers. A framework of the interviews was organised by open
questions, shown as Figure 6.3.
Is there any relationship

between these changes?
Purchasing Behavior Consumption

Change Behavior Change
Behavior changes
during lockdowns compared with
before?
Yes No
 Are there any reasons that

you believe leading to food
Changes differ from the
first and second No
wastage in your household
lockdown? during the pre-lockdown, first
lockdown, and second
Yes
lockdown?
 What are the main differences?

 Are there any reasons that you believe leading
to these differences?
 Do you think these changes are pushed by
external shocks (e.g., COVID-19) and/or internal
changes (e.g., awareness of FW), and how?
Figure 6.3: A framework of Investigating Behavioural Changes
149
Data Collection
Data were collected at two time points: 05 April 2020 - 15 May 2020 (focus on pre-
lockdown and the first lockdown periods) and 20 August 2021 - 16 September 2021
(focus on the second lockdown).
The selection of our interviews followed three rules: observability,
representativeness, and replicability. As noted by Pettigrew (1988), owing to the
limitation in the number of cases in the interview, it is reasonable to choose the cases
with “extreme situations and polar types in which the process of interest is
‘transparently observable’”. In addition, the selection of multiple cases within each
classification could allow the replication of the findings within categories.
We contacted 35 families living in Auckland from our survey pool, and 29 families
agreed to be involved. The interviews comprised an in-depth face-to-face interview
(during the level-2 lockdown) and a video chat (during the level-4 lockdown). For each
family, we spent between half an hour to one hour of conversation for each period to
understand their shopping and consumption habits. A sample of n=29 (72.4% female)
individuals were drawn from different areas of the Auckland metropolitan area; the
mean (SD) age = 35.6 (9.55), and the mean (SD) weekly spend per person on food
before lock-down in NZD = 56.0 (26.42).
After interviewing these 29 families, we connected with another 2-3 families in
each district of Auckland with a brief questionnaire asking for their shopping and
consumption habits during 18 September - 23 September 2021. The general findings
from these families were similar to those from our interviews. As suggested by
Eisenhardt (1989), the search for extra cases can be stopped when “incremental learning
is minimal”. As we did not have an in-depth interview with these extra families, they
are not included in our data analysis.

150
Data Analysis
Before proceeding with our analysis, we sent interview notes back to the interviewees.
Following their approval, we used content analysis to organise the data. Four steps are
applied to analyse the data set.
First, we segmented consumers according to their purchasing and consumption
characteristics. Then we compared the differences between the groups of consumers
and examined the significance of these distinctions at three time points. Third, to
understand causes of household FW behavioural changes during the consecutive
lockdowns, we summarised the patterns of the changes in each consumer segment.
Finally, we referred to the existing literature to build valid themes, which include
“External nudging”, “Internal changes”, “Social demographic variables”, and
“Psychographic variables”.
6.4 Findings
According to the outcomes of the exploratory survey, we defined our classification to
arrive at a preliminary conceptual model of consumer segmentation. Subsequently, we
carried out semi-structured interviews to refine the preliminary model and adapted it to
the analysis of household’s waste behaviour.
6.4.1 Preliminary Conceptual Model
Our identification of two important variables, “threshold discount” and “salvage from
deterioration” from our literature review is also supported by the existing literature
(e.g., Amicarelli et al., 2021; Cequea et al., 2021; Babbitt et al., 2021). According to
the framework shown in Figure 6.2 and combined with the outcomes of the
151
exploratory survey (the identified variables), we constructed a preliminary conceptual
model of consumer segmentation, which is used to support the analysis of household
FW behaviour (Figure 6.4).
This preliminary conceptual model includes four modules: consumer
segmentation, factors that impact behavioural change, reflections on household FW,
and possible applications. We classified consumers with similar traits in their
purchasing and consumption behaviours and identified four groups: “impulsive
consumers (I)”, “rational opportunists (R)”, “spendthrift consumers (S)”, and
“economic consumers (E)”. We assume the different segments of consumers have
different actions and responses in respect to FW reduction when being influenced by
external shocks and internal changes. To test our assumption, we conducted semi-
structured interviews, and we now report on the findings of these.

The willingness to buy bulk food with discounted price
Socio-demographic variables
Impulsive consumers
Rational opportunists
Age, Gender, Income, Education, (Price-sensitive &
Sex, Family size (Price-sensitive &
unplanned
planned consumption)
consumption)
Purchasing
behavior Different
Reflections
Retailers’ marketing strategy Household FW
Discounted price, Promotion, Bulk Spendthrift consumers

sales, Distribution Channel Economic consumers
(Fresh-sensitive &
(Fresh-sensitive &
unplanned
Low to high
planned consumption)
consumption)
Psychographic variables
Concerns about COVID 19, Risk attitude The awareness to plan consumption
and perception, Experience, Intention,
Low to high
Price-sensitiveness
Consumption
behavior
Application
Macro-level Meso-level Micro-level

(Governments) (FSCs) (Consumers)
• Regulation or policy
implementation in respect • Marketing strategy decisions • Consumer food waste behavior
to food waste reduction at targeting at different types of analysis by investigating different
household level considering consumers segments of consumers
consumer segmentation
Figure 6.4: Preliminary Conceptual Model of Consumer Segmentation
152
6.4.2 Refinement of the Preliminary Conceptual Model
Our findings from the semi-structured interviews are reported in three stages:
consumer segmentation and household FW behaviour identification, causes of
household FW and the reasons for behavioural changes, and the refinement of our
preliminary conceptual model.
Stage 1 - Consumer Segmentation and Household FW Behaviour Identification
In line with the preliminary conceptual model, we firstly segment the consumers using
two variables measured in our interviews: “Threshold discount” and “Salvage from
deterioration”. The results derived from our analysis of the patterns of collected data
reveal three key observations:
(1) In contrast to extant literature, which indicate that household FW decreased
during the lockdown (e.g., Amicarelli and Bux, 2021), our thesis reports diverse
outcomes. The influence of lockdowns on household FW is shaped not only by
segments of consumers, but also by chronological and situational factors.
(2) “Threshold discount”, “Salvage from deterioration”, and “Food cost” on
household FW have significant impacts on household FW.
(3) During lockdown periods, the mean difference in household FW according to
consumer segments (E, S, R, I) is statistically significant. During the pre-lockdown
period, this significance is slightly lower compared with the lockdown periods.
The key findings from stage 1 are indicated in Table 6.2, which will be further
discussed in stage 2.
153
Table 6.2: Key Findings of Stage 1 Exploration
Consumer
Avera
segmentation The FW levels at different
ge FW Behavioural change
(pre- situations
level
lockdown)
The FW amount in the
(1) Some of them change their
Economical Very second lockdown is lower
purchasing behaviour by
consumers Low than pre-lockdown and the
buying bulk food products.
first lockdown period.
(1) They present more
diversified changes compared
with other consumer segments.
In most cases, the wastage
(2) Most of them start to buy
in the second lockdown is
Spendthrift Moder bulk food products and/or plan
lower than in the first but is
consumers ate their consumption which is
at a level similar to the pre-
impacted by the lockdowns.
lockdown period.
(3) Some of them behave quite
differently in consecutive
lockdowns.
(1) The purchasing and
This stabilisation is also
consumption patterns of
reflected in the FW amount.
rational opportunists are quite
There is no significant
Rational stable.
Low difference between pre-
opportunists (2) They are price-sensitive and
lockdown, the first
proactively plan their
lockdown, and the second
consumption according to
lockdown periods.
circumstance.
(1) They hardly change their
Compared with the pre-
purchasing behaviour, but they
Impulsive lockdown period, the FW
High may be pushed by external
consumers declines during the
shocks to plan their
lockdowns.
consumption.
Stage 2 - Possible Causes of Household FW and Consumer Behavioural Changes
(1) Economical consumers (E)
154
Four cases have been classified as “economical consumers”, among which three
cases change their behaviours during the lockdowns. These changes present a similar
purchasing behaviour as rational opportunists.
Family 1 is an example of consumers changing their purchasing behaviour. Before
the lockdown, they were typical economical consumers who almost never bought bulk
products (even without impulsive purchasing), always planned their consumption, and
noticed the deterioration of food. The reasons for changing their purchasing strategy are:
--“It is the first lockdown, and we never had this experience. We thought we cannot
buy enough food”; “When I find out the food is on discount, no matter how much the
discount is, I prefer to buy it rather than considering its freshness”.
The difference between the first lockdown and the second lockdown was
described in the following way:
--“I have experience to deal with the food availability issue now [the second
lockdown]”; “I notice that food delivery is convenient, although they only provide
free delivery over $80, which may cause my over-purchasing”; “This time [the second
lockdown] I found a direct purchase from a farm, which offered a very low price but
high-quality vegetables”.
Family 24 performs a gradual change in purchasing behaviour from pre-lockdown
days through to the second lockdown period.
-- “When the government declared the [first] lockdown policy, we started to seek
available food, as usually, we did not store much food at home” and “we began to
buy bulk food when the prices are attractive”; “[During the second lockdown], I
realised that food delivery is fast, and most important, I trust our government since
155
they always perform well”.
Family 12 exemplifies a different change in purchasing behaviour by buying bulk
products in the first lockdown and finding an alternative solution in the second
lockdown.
--“[In the first lockdown] we largely reduced our frequency of purchasing, from 2.5
times to 0.5 per week, and in this case, we prefer to buy bulk food at a discounted
price. With the experience of the first lockdown, I joined a group purchase team [in
the second lockdown], which enables me to buy loose and fresh food with a frequency
of twice a week”.
(2) Spendthrift consumers (S)

Eleven cases have been categorised as “spendthrift consumers”. This group of
consumers exhibit diverse behaviour changes during the lockdowns. Two thirds of the
cases start to buy bulk food, or/and consider planning their consumption in each period.
The behavioural change modes of spendthrift consumers in the pre-lockdown, first
lockdown, and second lockdown periods are highly diverse, shown in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3: Behavioural Change Modes of Spendthrift Consumers

Modes Characteristics
Consumers do not change their behaviour, and always
S-S-S mode behave as spendthrift consumers, with FW percentages
being very stable during the different periods.
Spendthrift consumers who begin to buy bulk food during
the first lockdown, and some of them consume most of the
over-purchased food, and therefore, are classified as
S-R-S and S-I-S Rational opportunists (R). Others who fail to consume the
modes food items from their over-purchases are classified as
Impulsive consumers (I). The consumers representing
these two modes transformed back into spendthrift
consumers in the second lockdown.
156
Consumers who only change their behaviours in the
S-S-I and S-S-E second lockdown, either by beginning to buy bulk food
modes (classified as I consumers) or by planning their
consumption (classified as E consumers).
Consumer behaviours which change in each different
S-R-E, S-I-R, S-I-I period. This group of consumers continually adjust their
modes purchasing and consumption behaviours to adapt new
situations and the given circumstances.
S-S-S mode: Only one case shows significant increase in FW during the lockdowns
compared with the pre-lockdown period. The reason for this is:
--“I am single, and I always buy loose food rather than bulk food. Due to the
lockdowns, I choose shopping online. However, I find that the minimum delivery
value is over $80, which drives me to buy more, although I cannot eat everything”.
S-R-S and S-I-S modes: Reasons for changing their consumption behaviour to R
or I in the first lockdown, and reverting to S in the second lockdown, are as follows:
--“[In the first lockdown], I was afraid I could not get enough food”, “I try to plan
my consumption as I have no idea when level-4 will end”, “Cooking failures upset me,
and I could not force my kids to eat more”.
-- “I found out it is quite easy to get food, and I have plenty of time to order online or
go to the supermarket. I am not worrying about the food shortage [in the second
lockdown]
S-S-I and S-S-E modes: The following interview statements reveal some reasons
for this change:
-- “I have plenty of time to go to the supermarket [in the first lockdown]”, “[In the
second lockdown], I began to adjust my consumption, as I saw many people on
157
Facebook are reducing food waste, unfortunately, I did not successfully control my
waste”, “I started to buy bulk food [in the second lockdown], because I had access to
a direct sale from a farm with fresh and low prices”.
-- “The short notice from the government for level-4 lockdown [in the second
lockdown] pushed me to reconsider my shopping and eating patterns”.
S-R-E, S-I-R, S-I-I modes: When asked to explain the reasons for shifts in their
behaviour, the following responses were elicited:
-- “[In the first lockdown], I forced myself to over purchase, and eat more, because I
was afraid of food availability. This time [in the second lockdown], I explored lots of
channels where I could buy food”; “‘I was influenced by my friends [in the second
lockdown] and started to plan my consumption”
(3) Rational opportunists (R)

Seven cases were classed as “Rational opportunists”. Their behaviours are highly
stable during different periods. We noticed that the family sizes of rational opportunists
tend to be bigger compared with other segments of consumers, and this may be a possible
reason for bulk purchases and planned consumption. Conversations with these families
largely confirmed our contentions.
-- “Our family includes seven people, and we always buy bulk food”; “[In the first
lockdown], we bought more food compared with pre-lockdown period, however we
could encourage our family members to eat more”.
-- “We have a weekly budget for food, and we cannot afford more, particularly as my
partner lost his job because of the lockdown”; “The subsidies provided by the
government is not enough to remedy our loss”.

158
(4) Impulsive consumers (I)
Seven cases were categorised as “Impulsive consumers”. This group of
consumers prefer to buy bulk food but are not inclined to plan consumption. Three
cases did not change their behaviours during the different periods, and four cases tried
to plan their consumption during the first lockdown or/and the second lockdown
period. Key excerpts from interviews with this consumer segment are as follows and
these excerpts are preceded by our brief observations of the interviewees:
-- Family 3 is a special case in having the highest food expenses of all our interviewees
-- the expenses averaged on per person is almost 7 times more than the family with
the lowest food expense per person. Family 3 never plans their consumption, and the
percentage of wasted food is around 40%-60% in each period. They reported that
“[During the lockdown] I have to cook by myself, and I wasted lots of food”,
“Compared with pre-lockdown, the food wastage declined [in the first lockdown],
because I eat more and try to avoid waste”, “I was influenced by my friend, who asked
me to plan consumption”.
-- In comparison, Family 20 exemplifies a case of panic purchasing during the
lockdowns, spending almost twice the amount usually spent in the pre-lockdown
period. Without changing their eating habits, the FW percentage doubled during the
lockdowns. The interviewee explained that fears around a food supply shortage led to
this change in purchasing behaviour:
-- “I am afraid of food shortage”, “I heard lots of information that the FSC is
disrupted owing to the lockdowns”.
159
Family 10, 22, and 23 are quite similar in changing their eating habits during the
first lockdown and maintaining this change in the second lockdown. This change
significantly contributes to FW reduction.
-- “I thought the knowledge [that I gained from watching cooking video] of the
deterioration rate of each food [item] and the appropriate storage methods are quite
important for helping me schedule my consumption”, “I need a guideline to plan my
consumption”.
They described their purchasing behaviour in the following ways:
-- “I cannot change my shopping habit”, “I am easily attracted by food discount”, “I
feel safe and comfortable when I see my refrigerator is full of food”.
The key findings from stage 2 are indicated in Figure 6.5, which will be
incorporated into our refined conceptual model, as detailed in the next subsection.
160
1. Uncertainty drives the behavioral change from buying loose products to buying bulk products, which increases the FW and counters
the principles of a CE;
2. Experience in the first lockdown contributes to FW reduction and therefore promotes CE through better planned consumption and
appropriate purchasing channel;
Economical
3. Trust in the government plays a pervasive role in avoiding over-purchasing and therefore reducing FW at the household level and
consumers
promoting CE at the society level;
4. The threshold value and/or volume of free delivery matters for economical consumers and could impact food wastage. Lower
threshold of free delivery increases the households’ purchasing frequency, reduces FW at household level. However, whether it could
promote CE depends on the logistics coordination by other FSC practitioners.
1. Over half of the interviewees reported that FW declined during the two lockdowns. The reasons behind the reduction in FW include
improved skills in planning consumption, the impact of social media (like Facebook), which is a mechanism for showing people new ways of
reducing FW, communication with other people, and government nudging (for example, government rhetoric to ‘Be kind’ when shopping, and
to shop normally rather than stockpile). This mechanism helps to reduce FW and promotes CE;
2. Seventy percent of spendthrift consumers report lower FW and contributes to the CE in the second lockdown compared with the first
lockdown, and The main causes include the exploration of new distribution channels, the improvement of cooking skills, a greater awareness
Spendthrift
of FW, and social impact (as such peer pressure to reduce FW);
consumers
3. The high threshold to qualify for free delivery of groceries (i.e., one must spend over $80) has a negative impact on FW reduction and
counters the principles of a CE;
4. Short notice from the government for lockdowns increases the uncertainty of food availability and pushes consumers to change their
shopping and eating habits. This influence may be positive or negative on FW reduction;
5. Spendthrift consumers adjust their behaviors depending on the context. Experience from the first lockdown and more time to shop enables
them to find appropriate approaches to reduce FW and contributes to the CE in the second lockdown.
1. Socio-demographic characteristics may impact their purchasing and consumption behaviors and therefore influence their awareness of a CE;
Rational
2. The hardship experienced during lockdowns led them to improve their consumption planning skills. A heightened awareness of the
opportunists
importance of planning consumption was evident in interviewees in this consumer segment.
1. When the pattern of impulsive purchasing and purchases based on discounts has been established, this pattern is hard to change and counters
the principles of a CE;
2. Panic purchasing increases FW and breach the principles of a CE;
Impulsive 3. Guidelines and education may be effective in encouraging consumers to improve consumption planning skills and accordingly reduce FW
consumers and promote CE;
4. Lockdowns may drive the impulsive consumers to buy more food. Considering their consumption behavior, frequently lockdowns led the
impulsive consumers breaching the principles of a CE;
5. Stopping rumors is important in building consumer confidence in the reliability of the FSC which, in turn, helps consumers to reduce FW
and promote CE.
Figure 6.5: Key Findings of Stage 2 Exploration
161
Refinement of the Preliminary Conceptual Model of Consumer Segmentation
Based on the data and findings from our interviews, we refined our preliminary
conceptual model of consumer segmentation, which is presented in Figure 6.6.
Socio-demographic and
psychographic variables
Module 2 Module 4
Module 1 Interaction
External The willingness to buy bulk food with discounted price Retailers’
Nudging High Low marketing
Discounted price strategy
Impulsive consumers Diverse Purchasing Channel
(Price-sensitive & Rational opportunist
• Propagation in social Positive (Price-sensitive &
unplanned
media planned consumption)
consumption)
• Communication with
Purchasing
community
behavior
• Education
Nagetive
Negative
• Government response to Different
pandemic Reflections Household FW
• Guideline for
corresponding actions to Spendthrift consumers
(Fresh-sensitive &
Economic consumers
the onset of pandemic (Fresh-sensitive &
Low to high
• Retailers’ marketing unplanned

consumption) planned consumption)
strategy
Moderate Very Low

Internal Changes
The awareness to plan consumption
Low to high
Consumption
• Awareness of FW behavior
• Confidence and trust
• Concerns of food Application
accessibility and
availability
• Learning from experience Macro-level Meso-level Micro-level
• Uncertainty (Governments) (FSCs) (Consumers)
• etc.
Module 3
• Policy implementation in respect
to FW reduction considering • Consumer FW
• Marketing strategy decisions behavior analysis by
consumer segmentation
targeting at different types of investigating different
• Appropriate nudging to
consumers segments of
encourage positive behavioral
changes consumers
• Consumer awareness on CE
concept
Figure 6.6: A refined conceptual model of consumer segmentation
In the refined model, we include four modules: consumer segmentation, external
and internal impacts, the possible applications of this model, and the interaction between
retailers and households. The interviews prompted us to change our initial consumer
segmentation module, having observed that the behavioural changes are distinguishable
according to different periods, and these changes could positively or negatively
contribute to FW reduction. Following this observation, we examined the possible
162
causes of these changes, and summarised the findings from the interviews into two
categories: “External Nudging” and “Internal Change”. Accordingly, the adjustments
we made in our identification of causes of behavioural change are used to refine our
third module: “Application”. Finally, the interviews demonstrate the significant
influence of the discounted price and diverse purchasing channels provided by retailers
on the household behavioural changes and contribute to the household FW, which has
been reflected in our fourth module: “Interaction”.
6.5 Implications
This chapter presents a conceptual model of consumer segmentation based on
consumers’ shopping and consumption habits. It analyses household FW behaviour and
behavioural change prompted by trigger events (in our case, the COVID-19 pandemic
lockdowns in New Zealand), and it incorporates the conceptual model in household FW
behaviour analysis and the interactions between retailers and households, providing
managerial insights into FW reduction and CE promotion at the downstream end of the
FSCs.
6.5.1 Implications for Governments
Reducing household FW and promoting the CE is a major challenge for governments,
particularly during periods of crisis. Our thesis indicates three areas that represent
opportunities for improvement by governments alike: uncertainty, trust, and quick
responses to rumours.
Chapter 6 suggests that uncertainty currently has a negative contribution to FW
reduction by prompting consumers to engage in panic purchasing or over-purchasing
behaviours. As mentioned by our consumer interviewees, lockdowns at short notice and
163
rumours fuelling fears of food supply shortages heighten anxieties and feelings of
insecurity in consumers. To reduce uncertainty, governments could establish a
minimum period between the announcement of a lockdown and when it comes into
effect to give people time to prepare accordingly.
Trust in the government plays a central role in avoiding over-purchasing,
promoting stability of the FSC, and therefore, in reducing FW at the household level.
Transparently sharing information and effectively implementing regulations are likely
to be effective.
Quick government responses to quash unhelpful rumours help to reduce public
concerns around food shortages during lockdowns. Pessimists want to be comforted,
and optimists want to know the truth. Appropriate and timely responses that serve to
counter panic purchasing by consumers are important in helping to reduce the pressure
on, and fluctuations in, the FSC.
6.5.2 Implications for FSC Practitioners
Marketing strategies and decisions targeting different type of consumers are important
for a sustainable operation of enterprises. How to reach out to potential consumers and
expand the market are significant questions in the context of a pandemic. Three major
concerns from consumers were raised in our interviews: distribution channels,
distribution timeliness, and delivery charges.
The pandemic has hastened the growth of online shopping. Appropriately
arranging the logistics and being able to expand the distribution channel in a short time
is a critical issue for FSC practitioners, such as FSC logistic managers, seeking to adapt
to the rapid and severe changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The trade-
164
off between investment in distribution channel expansion and possible obtainable
revenue needs to be reconsidered, particularly for retailers.
Accuracy and timeliness are two important factors that impact the consumers’
purchasing behaviour. To some extent, consumers are more patient in waiting during
the pandemic period in contrast with regular periods. Logistic managers in FSC could
optimise the distribution network by considering the trade-off between the consumers
satisfaction rate and the delivery costs.
The stipulation of a minimum delivery value has a significant impact on consumer
purchasing behaviour, and indirectly influences levels of household FW. Given that
different segments of consumers have different attitudes on free delivery, food suppliers
would do well to analyse their target market before making decisions with respect to
delivery thresholds.
6.5.3 Implications for Consumers
Questions around effective food management during lockdowns and post-pandemic
periods are important for consumers. Our investigation reveals that the experience of
lockdown has different impacts on different groups of consumers. This variation of
experience may either enhance or exacerbate FW in households.
Learning from other people and through social media, and understanding different
consumption behaviours including their outcomes, are all factors that play a role in
helping consumers to effectively reduce FW. In our investigation, over 70% of those
who are responsible for FW are not aware of their high levels of wastage, until they are
prompted to evaluate their levels of waste. Our conceptual model and our analysis on
consumer behavioural changes help consumers to understand their behaviours and
therefore motivate them to reduce FW.
165
6.6 Conclusions
This chapter combines an exploratory survey and semi-structured interviews to
investigate household FW behaviour and behavioural changes caused by consecutive
lockdowns. This investigation spanned over a year and covered three periods. Unlike
the extant literature, this thesis reports diversified outcomes of FW generated at the
household level, and multiple determinants are identified as contributors to FW
generation.
From the findings of the exploratory survey, we constructed our preliminary
conceptual model of consumer segmentation. We then conducted semi-structured
interviews, drawing from the same pool of consumers who had participated in our
exploratory survey, to gain richer insights into various causes of household FW. The
data collected from these interviews were then used to finetune our conceptual model.
We further explore the application of the conceptual model in CE promotion. We
identified that the interaction between FSC stakeholders can impact the household FW
reduction and may counter the principles of or promote a CE in a specific consumer
segment.
There are some knowledge gaps that subsequently remain, which are summarised
as follows.
(1) Our thesis is limited by the modest number of interviews we conducted. To
make a persuasive argument, future research should focus on the comparison between
different countries, including developing and developed ones.
(2) The data collected is self-reported by our participants, which may differ from
what these consumers do in practice. We attempted to decrease the issue of self-
reporting by asking open questions and asking for proof of purchases. However, around
72% of our participants had not retained their shopping invoices.
166
(3) This research did not consider price increases in goods during the lockdown
periods. Future studies could investigate whether there are other factors that impact
consumer behaviours, such as price increases, and how these factors influence
household wastage in the context of a pandemic or post-pandemic.
(4) Our work is limited to food wastage in households, which is just a fraction,
albeit a large fraction, of FLW in the overall FSC. Building on our work, future research
can help reduce FLW and improve profitability for entities in upper levels of the FSC,
particularly retailers. Retailers and distributors might be able to tailor offerings to
consumer segments that we have identified that helps improve their profits or manage
wastage better.
Possible topics for future also studies include whether the experience in the first
lockdown contributes to FW reduction in subsequent lockdowns, identifying social
impacts on household FW reduction, and the efficacy of guidelines, education
programme, and other initiatives to promote consumption planning skills in, and the
reduction of FW by consumers.
167
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
7.1. Summary of this thesis
FLW reduction has emerged as a critical objective worldwide due to its significance for
the environment, society, and economy. This thesis has studied the FLW reduction
problem in FSC operations, investigating how to manage the wastage happening at
different stages of the FSC, from food suppliers through to households. The literature
review undertaken for this work identified a lack of research into the factors impacting
FLW reduction, which are not well understood. Focusing both upstream and
downstream in FSCs, this thesis addresses real-world problems using a wide range of
methodologies, including empirical analysis, case study, and optimisation models.
Chapter 2 presented a review of research on FLW from the perspective of
operations management. The broad pool of literature included 346 articles published in
prestigious operations management, management, and prominent economics,
environmental, and food science journals. The review provided insight into FLW
research both at specific stages of the FSC and across the entire FSC, identifying
overarching research themes in the FLW literature to background and supplement
findings from two rounds of 60 semi-structured interviews conducted with FSC
stakeholders and provide a projection of future research opportunities.
Building on Chapter2, Chapter 3 proposed a conceptual framework to
systematically examine FLW issues within FSCs. It discussed various types of and
distribution modes in FSCs in relation to FLW, definitions of FLW, impacts of FLW,

168
and measures to reduce FLW in the OM field. Chapter 3 offers a comprehensive
understanding of FLW occurrence and the research motivation for examining FLW
issues applying different methodologies. As such, it provided the background for the
specific research questions addressed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6.
Chapters 4 and 5 formulated optimisation models to identify the role of government
interventions in PT investment and food loss reduction by food suppliers. Rather than
assuming PT adoption only has a positive impact on the environment through reducing
food loss, our models included the possibility that PT investment can also generate extra
carbon emissions. Therefore, the influence of an integrated subsidy and carbon
emissions tax policy on the uptake of PT was investigated. The optimisation results
highlighted that when market prices are exogenous, the driving force for PT adoption
and FL reduction by the food supplier is high market prices. In particular, high subsidies
and a low carbon emissions tax can stimulate PT investment and food loss reduction
initiatives.
Chapter 6 moved the research focus to the consumer end of the supply chain. A
qualitative and longitudinal study spanning three periods in New Zealand was
conducted. A preliminary model was constructed from the outcomes of a survey with
178 participants. Then, 29 semi-structured interviews were carried out to refine the
preliminary model and adapt it to an analysis of household waste behaviour. The key
findings in Chapter 6 included: 1) for government, quick responses to quash unhelpful
rumours help to reduce public concerns around FSC interruption; 2) for retailers, the
169
pandemic has hastened the growth of online shopping; thus, the ability to expand the
distribution channel in a short time becomes a critical issue; and 3) for consumers, the
experience of lockdown has had different impacts on different groups of consumers.
These varied experiences may either enhance or exacerbate FW in households.
7.2 Contributions
This thesis has analysed two critical issues related to FLW reduction in FSC operations:
food loss reduction by food suppliers and household food waste reduction. In contrast
to existing publications, this thesis has contributed to FLW literature as follows.
1) From the perspective of upstream FSCs, this thesis investigates the PT investment
decision of the food suppliers and its effect on food loss reduction using optimisation
models. In these models, distinct from extant literature, the role of government
intervention in promoting PT investment and food reduction was identified and
discussed, and the results reflect the trade-offs between food loss reduction and
environmental concerns by considering the carbon emissions from PT adoption.
2) From the perspective of downstream FSCs, this thesis discusses the household food
waste reduction problem using a qualitative approach. This thesis investigates how
certain consumer traits affect household food waste, particularly in the face of external
shocks which is a meaningful topic and has not yet been comprehensively investigated
in extant literature. The qualitative and longitudinal study explored the distinct response
patterns of different segments of consumers in successive lockdowns and analysed the
impact of these patterns on household FW reduction which contributes to household
food waste reduction studies.

170
Although the focus of Chapters 4 and 5, and Chapter 6 is different, we can identify
some consistent results that have been proven by these three chapters. For instance, one
of the key findings from the optimisation models of Chapters 4 and 5 is that the
unexpected price rises can have negative impact on FLW reduction. This result has been
further reinforced by the outcome of Chapter 6, which indicates that when market prices
are unexpectedly sharply increased, consumers may change from economic consumers
to impulsive consumers in the context of COVID-19 and thereby increasing FLW.
Chapters 4 and 5 investigate how the market price affects the food suppliers’ behaviour,
and Chapter 6 complements this impact on consumers’ behaviour. Based on the analysis
both from the supply and demand sides, we identify that unexpected price increase
harms the performance of FLW reduction in the FSC operations.
Overall, this thesis contributes to the existing FLW literature and offers practical
implications for FLW reduction by providing insights from both the upstream and
downstream of FSCs.
7.3 Future directions and limitations
Besides the future projections discussed in the literature review (Chapter 2) and at the
conclusion of each chapter, there are other directions worthy of future study. First is the
PT implementation efficiency problem. The deterioration curve may not be altered
greatly after applying new technology, or alternatively, the technology is not able to be
operated efficiently due to a lack of expertise or operational mistakes. A quantitative
study into PT efficiency is therefore called for. A second factor is non-cooperative
behaviour in the retailing stage. For instance, given customers may be price-sensitive
171
or freshness-sensitive, the retailer may reject products with higher quality due to the
application of PT. These promising topics are worthy of research and could benefit and
contribute to society.
Besides the research limitations mentioned in each chapter, there are some research
limitations, particularly based on our current research, that should be addressed in
future work.
First, we do not model the effect of the endogenous market price on PT investment
and food loss reduction nor the fact that competition exists between food suppliers.
Second, the effect of demand shocks on PT investment decisions and different
types of PT costs can be involved and discussed in future research.
Third, our work is limited to food loss in food suppliers and food waste in
household, which is just a fraction, albeit a large fraction, of FLW in the overall FSC.
Fourth, the competition between different food suppliers and the interaction
between governments and other stakeholders are not investigated in this thesis. Even
though the role of government intervention has been discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6,
applying optimisation models and semi-structured interviews, further analysis for the
trade-offs between different stakeholders in the FSCs would be an interesting topic.
These extensions are left as a possible avenue for future research. Also, we have
several working papers with the topics related FLW reduction in the FSC operations.
172
APPENDIX A
Appendix for Chapter 3
Appendix 1 – Summary of Interviews
Interviewee Stakeholder group Firm Interviewee Work

number size* designation experience
Regional distribution
1 Manufacturers/Processors Large over 15 years
center manager
Senior Total
Productive
2 Manufacturers/Processors Large 7-10 years
Maintenance
Supervisor
3 Manufacturers/Processors Medium Purchasing Manager 11-14 years
4 Manufacturers/Processors Large Marketing Manager 7-10 years
5 Farmers’ cooperatives Small Head 7-10 years
8 Farmers’ cooperatives Small Vice president 4-6 years
9 Wholesalers Large Vice president over 15 years
10 Wholesalers Medium Purchasing Manager 11-14 years
11 Wholesalers Medium Operations Manager 7-10 years
12 Wholesalers Small General Manager 4-6 years
13 Importers Medium General Manager 4-6 years
14 Importers Large General Manager 7-10 years
15 E-commerce companies Large Vice President over 15 years
16 E-commerce companies Medium General Manager 7-10 years
17 Supermarkets Medium Head 4-6 years
Customer Service
18 Supermarkets Large 4-6 years
Manager
19 Supermarkets Large Operations Manager 4-6 years
Third-party logistics Customer Service
20 Medium 4-6 years
providers Manager
21 Small Vice president 7-10 years
providers
Third-party logistics Director in Strategy
22 Large 11-14 years
providers Department
23 Large Operations Manager 7-10 years
providers
24 Large Vice President 7-10 years
providers
25 Governments Vice Director over 15 years
26 Governments Vice Director 11-14 years
173
27 Governments Vice Director 7-10 years
Director of food
28 NGOs 11-14 years
import public service
29 NGOs SCM expert 11-14 years
30 NGOs Head over 15 years
*Note on firm size: Large: annual revenue > 5 million RMB; Medium: annual revenue 1-5
million RMB; Small: annual revenue < 1 million RMB.
The data collection used Chinese language and the answers were translated from Chinese to
English in this summary, which have been paraphrased for clarity.
Questions for food manufactures/processors, farm cooperatives, wholesales, importers,

and e-commerce companies, supermarkets, third-party logistics providers
1. Do you think food loss and waste is a serious problem in your company?
Answer:
Yes- All the interviewees
2. How serious do you think the food loss and waste issues in your company (estimate what
percentage of food has been wasted in your company)?
Answer:
The minimum food loss and waste is around 0.5 (beverage), the maximum food loss and waste
is 30-40% (fresh fruits).
The main reasons for the loss include suboptimal appearance and sizes of the fruit, financial
limitation to invest in package and pre-cooling facilities, marketing issues (e.g., incorrect
demand forecasting), operations mistakes (e.g., damage in loading/uploading operations,
transportation and storage damage), the perishability of the food, cooperation issues, and
limitation in technology accessibility.
3. Do you have effective management methods to control the food loss and waste? (If yes, could
you please indicate the improvement of food loss and waste performance after implementation
of this method?)
Answer:
Yes - 18
No - 4
Yes, but not effectively - 2
Government/ NGO – 6
4. Do you learn from other enterprises to improve the performance of food loss and waste
reduction?
Answer:
Yes - 23
No - 1
Government/ NGO – 6
174
5. Are there any expectations that you might seek the helps from the operations management
researchers? (e.g., cooperation problems? Distribution problems? New technology application
problems? Government intervention problems? Demand forecasting problems?)
Answer:
Yes –All the interviewees.
Practical needs: Layout of regional distribution centers, Implementation of total productive

maintenance and lean manufacturing to reduce food loss and waste, Supplier cooperation and
contract management, Consumer demand, New technology application, Government
intervention, and Demand forecasting, FSC cooperation, Location optimisation of cold storage
facilities.
Among these, Government intervention, technology application, and FSC cooperation are the
three top areas. Around 50% of the interviewees mentioned these areas.
6. Did you read our literature review paper? How do you think it might help the understanding
of current food loss and waste issue? Do you think the future direction is matching your needs?
Answer:
Yes –All the interviewees. Most interviewees suggest that this article helps them to
comprehensively understand the environmental, social, and economic impacts of food loss and
waste. Some of them feel interesting in customer behaviours.
All the interviewees confirmed that the future direction is matching their practical needs.
Questions for Government and NGO

1. Do you think food loss and waste is a serious problem in China?
Answer:
Yes –All the interviewees.
2. Do you think it is a global problem that has been addressed recently?

Answer:
Yes. Sustainable development and carbon neutrality strategies have attracted more attention
worldwide. The FLW seriously affects the revenue of FSC stakeholders. It also significant
impacts the environment, society, and food security.
3. Do you think the food loss and waste reduction are more important in the context of COVID-
19?
Answer:
Almost all countries are encountering the challenge of food security. Reducing FLW could
possibly alleviate the situation of food security and recent price increasing.
4. Do you think the food industry has effective management methods to control the food loss and
waste?
Answer:
Generally, leading companies usually have effective methods, while it is the contrary situation
for SMEs.
175
5. China has published a law that requires reducing food loss and waste, do you think it is
necessary and helpful? Why?
Answer:
China’s Anti-food Waste Law is designed to help establishing a long-term mechanism to prevent
food loss and waste. It is necessary and helpful for FLW reduction especially in the consumption
stage, where had no related regulations to restrict the behaviours of consumers and restaurants
before the promulgation of the law.
6. Are there any expectations that you might seek the helps from the operations management
researchers? (e.g., cooperation problems? Distribution problems? New technology application
problems? Government intervention problems? Demand forecasting problems?)
Answer:
The interviewees indicate they want to get the helps relating to FSC cooperation, transportation
and distribution issue, cold chain system, new technology application, and government
intervention.
7. Did you read our literature review paper? How do you think it might help the understanding
of current food loss and waste issue? Do you think the future direction is matching your concerns?
Answer:
Yes – all the interviewees. Most of the interviewees think it helps to better understand the current
research questions related to food loss and waste. They thought the future directions address their
concerns.
176
Appendix 2 – Selected Journals
Journal Title Field
Academy of Management Journal Management
Academy of Management Review Management
ACM Transactions on Information Systems OM
Administrative Science Quarterly Management
Specialty
Agricultural Economics
Journal
Specialty
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Journal
Annals of Operations Research OM
Specialty
Applied economic perspectives and policy
Journal
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Specialty
Economics Journal
Specialty
British Food Journal
Journal
Business Information Systems & Engineering OM
Communication Research OM
Communications of the ACM OM
Computers and Industrial Engineering OM
Computers and Operations Research OM
Decision Sciences OM
Decision Support Systems OM
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications OM
European Journal of Information Systems OM
European Journal of Operational Research OM
Specialty
European Review of Agricultural Economics
Journal
Specialty
Food Control
Journal
Specialty
Food Policy
Journal
Harvard Business Review Management
Health Care Management Science OM
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management OM
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems OM
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering OM
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics:
OM
Systems
IIE Transactions (Institute of Industrial Engineers) OM
Specialty
In: Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal
Journal
Information and Management OM
Information Processing and Management OM
Information Systems Journal OM
Information Systems Research OM
Interfaces OM
International Journal of Electronic Commerce OM
177
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems OM
International Journal of Human Computer Studies OM
International Journal of Information Management OM
International Journal of Operations and Production
OM
Management
International Journal of Physical Distribution and
OM
Logistics Management
International Journal of Production Economics OM
International Journal of Production Research OM
Specialty
Journal of Agricultural economics
Journal
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics OM
Journal of Business Logistics OM
Specialty
Journal of Cleaner Production
Journal
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management -
OM
JET-M
Specialty
Journal of Food Engineering
Journal
Journal of Information Technology OM
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing OM
Journal of Management Management
Journal of Management Information Systems OM
Journal of Management Studies Management
Journal of Operations Management OM
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management OM
Journal of Scheduling OM
Journal of Strategic Information Systems OM
Journal of Supply Chain Management OM
Journal of the Operational Research Society OM
Journal of Transport Geography OM
Journal of Web Engineering OM
Logistics Research OM
Management Science OM
Manufacturing and Service Operations Management OM
MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems OM
MIT Sloan Management Review Management
Naval Research Logistics OM
Omega OM
Operations Research OM
Operations Research Letters OM
OR Spectrum OM
Production and Operations Management OM
Research Policy Management
Strategic Management Journal Management
Supply Chain Management OM
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence OM
Transport Reviews OM
Transportation OM
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice OM
178
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
OM
Environment
Transportation Research Part E OM
Transportation Research, Part C: Emerging
OM
Technologies
Transportation Science OM
Specialty
Waste Management
Journal
World Wide Web OM
179
Appendix 3 – Consumer behaviour analysis
Refere Research
Contribution Key findings
nce Perspective
The factors of Provide a conceptual
(Abdelr
consumer framework to study Individual’s perception of FLW
adi,
behaviour consumer behaviour impact has an impact on FLW quantity
2018)
impacting FLW on FLW
The influence of
(Coder socio- Analyse contribution of
Sustainable consumers show a
oni and demographic consumers to circular
positive purchase intention on
Perito, and economy by purchasing
waste-to-value food
2020) psychological waste-to-value food
features
(Coşku
Consumer food Intention, attitudes, food taste,
n and Test an extended theory of
waste behaviour price consciousness have positive
Özbük, planned behaviour
in restaurants impacts on FLW reduction
2020)
Consumers’ purchasing
(Diaz- Connect food-related and
discipline, waste prevention
Ruiz et Food-related waste-related behaviours,
behaviours, and levels of
al., behaviours and environmental and
materialism are useful to direct
2018) materialism
predictors of FLW behaviour
(Gaiani Customer Explore the impact of
Seven profiles are identified that
et al., attitudes and eating, shopping, and
contribute to FLW
2018) behaviours storage behaviours
(Jagau The influence of Information campaigns stimulate
Provide a practical method
and behavioural consumer awareness and
to increase customers'
Vyraste interventions encourages consumers to buy
awareness of FLW
kova, and nudging on less, but no significant impact on
reduction
2017) students FLW quantity
Establish the link of
(Katt Price consciousness,
utilitarian
and Shopping- environmental concern, and
and hedonic shopping value
Meixne related factors health consciousness has a
as antecedents to FLW
r, 2020) positive effect on FLW reduction
reduction behaviour
Consumers prefer targeting
Verify consumer
(Kim et Consumer views leftover-reuse behaviour, using
expectations and the
al., on food waste technology and avoiding door-
effectiveness of food waste
2020) campaigns knocking is effective campaign
campaigns
strategy
(Lanfra The impact of Analyse customers'
The factors that impact FLW
nchi et customer eating behaviour considering their
180
al., behaviour on socio-demographic
2016) FLW characteristics
(McCar Inconsistency No significant difference in FLW
Focus on specific
thy and between behaviours between organic and
segmentation of customers
Liu, attitudes and non-organic or vegetarian and
(green customers)
2017) behaviours non-vegetarian customers
(Mondé
Analyse the relationship
jar- Marketing and sale strategies
Complexities of between individual habits,
Jiméne have a negative impact on the
FLW behaviour attitudes, marketing ploys,
z et al., FLW behaviour of individuals
and sales strategies
2016)
Provide a perspective to Location, employment, education
(Mattar Household
understand household level, beliefs, eating and shopping
et al., attitudes and
determinants of FLW in habits, and perceptions towards
2018) behaviours
developing countries recycling impact on FLW
Action related information
(Neubi Investigate how information significantly increases
Information
g et al., affects consumer food waste respondents’ intention while
impacts
2020) behaviour system information has no
significant effect FLW behaviour
Combine observations of Identification of multiple
(Parize organic, recyclable, and relationships between FLW and
The dynamics of
au et garbage waste production household shopping practices,
FLW at the
al., rates to survey results of food preparation behaviours,
household level
2015) FLW-related beliefs, waste management practices,
attitudes, and behaviours attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyles
(Princip
Assess the knowledge and Awareness of FLW reduction has
ato et Factors affecting
awareness of youths a positive impact on FLW
al., FLW reduction
concerning FLW reduction
2015)
(Ponis Consumer Household behaviours towards
Consider the shopping and
et al., behaviour that shopping and eating are important
eating habits in Greece.
2017) leads to FLW and should not be underestimated
The impact of Provide a practical method
(Pinto
students’ to increase students' Avoidable FLW can be reduced
et al.,
awareness on awareness of FLW by improving student awareness
2018)
FLW reduction
Mid-to-low income consumers
(Setti et Customer Analyse the main drivers of
purchase higher amounts of lower
al., attitude and FLW with a focus on
quality products and waste more
2016) behaviour individual income
food
(Setti et Measure the different The more upstream the phase, the
The relationship
al., phases of the food stronger the influence on FLW
between
2018) consumption cycle; identify generation in homes
181
consumers' food a set of consumers'
cycle and FLW behavioural patterns
(Stangh
Consumer
erlin et Provide a food waste Considerations about suboptimal
choice on
al., reduction strategy food are divergent
suboptimal food
2019)
Territorial Demographic and socio-economic
Consider factors at both
(Secon variability; individual characteristics, and
individual and contextual
di et al., Consumer attitudinal variables are strictly
levels as potential variables
2015) behaviour associated with customers'
associated with FLW
patterns behaviour towards FLW.
(Smith Provide a method to
and Food production estimate household-specific Production inefficiency is highly
Landry, inefficiency inefficiencies in food corelated to the FLW
2021) production
(Szabó-
Dominant types
Bódi et Investigate the impact of Higher income results in higher
of FLW and the
al., income FLW in general
impact factors
2018)
(Sheare Provide a practical method A simple behavioural intervention
The impact of
r et al., to FLW reduction (sticker has a positive and long-time
visual prompts
2017) prompts) effect on FLW reduction
(Von
Conduct an exploratory Young respondents and those
Kamek
Methods to analysis of the possibilities living in large households with
e and
reduce FLW to reduce household FLW families are more open to
Fischer,
via nudging changing their behaviour
2018)
(Talia Identify specific factors The level of knowledge and
Consumer
et al., leading to food waste in awareness about FLW is not
behaviour types
2019) rural areas satisfactory.
Low-income household shows
(Zhang Investigate the root cause of
The drivers of strong guilt for FLW, while high-
et al., FLW generation from a
FLW income consumers are concerned
2018) customer level
about the health risks
182
APPENDIX B
Appendix for Chapters 4 and 5
Notation
Symbol Definition
Parameter
b Unit subsidy
t Tax level
c Fix cost related to the distance
Increased carbon emission for all products owing to the PT
e
investment
λ0 The initial deterioration rate
pi Exogenous prices in period i , i = {1, 2,3}

β Unit transportation and storage cost
µ Expected yield
σ Standard deviation of yield
α The scaling parameter of qi
Increase in the psychological needs of consumers by off-season

h
products due to the adoption of PT
δ A discount rate for profits between the second and third stages
k The scale factor for PT investment
Decisions
γ The proportion of PT investment
λ The deterioration rate
qi The planting quantity
183
APPENDIX C
Appendix for Chapter 6
Table 1: Overview of the Consumer FW in Each Segment

E R D W
Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average
Before-lockdown 0% 40% 16% 5% 40% 19% 10% 50% 28% 15% 60% 35%
Lockdown 1 5% 30% 16% 5% 30% 22% 20% 60% 34% 30% 50% 31%
Lockdown 2 0% 20% 11% 10% 40% 21% 10% 40% 29% 30% 50% 30%
Table 2: Model Summary
Std. Error of the

Period R Adjusted R Square Estimate
a
Pre- .638 .308 .1207
lockdown
Lockdown 1 .702b .431 .1005
Lockdown 2 .779c .560 .0884
a. Predictors: (Constant), Unconsumed_before, Spend/person_before, Salvage_before,
Enticing discount_before
b. Predictors: (Constant), Unconsumed_lockdown1, Spend/person_lockdown1,
Salvage_lockdown1, Enticing discount_lockdown1
c. Predictors: (Constant), Unconsumed_lockdown2, Spend/person_lockdown2,
Salvage_lockdown2, Enticing discount_lockdown2
Table 3: ANOVAa
Sum of
Period Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Pre- Regression .044 1 .044 7.806 .005b
lockd Residual 1.943 343 .006
own Total 1.987 344
Lockd Regression 2448.837 3 816.279 8.075 .001c
own 1 Residual 2527.025 25 101.081
Total 4975.862 28
Lockd Regression 3021.669 3 1007.223 12.897 0.000d
own 2 Residual 1952.469 25 78.099
Total 4974.138 28
a. Dependent Variable: Reported Wastage
b. Predictors: (Constant), Spend/person_before, Salvage_before, Enticing discount_before
c. Predictors: (Constant), Spend/person_lockdown1, Salvage_lockdown1, Enticing discount_lockdown1
d. Predictors: (Constant), Spend/person_lockdown2, Salvage_lockdown2, Enticing discount_lockdown2
184
APPENDIX D
Appendix – Ethics approval for the surveys
Office of the Vice-Chancellor

Office of Research Strategy and Integrity (ORSI)
The University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand
Level 11, 49 Symonds Street
Telephone: 64 9 373 7599
Extension: 83711
humanethics@auckland.ac.nz
UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND HUMAN PARTICIPANTS ETHICS COMMITTEE

(UAHPEC)
12-Nov-2019
MEMORANDUM TO:
Dr Subhamoy Ganguly, PhD candidate Na Luo, Prof. David Robb
Graduate School of Management
Re: Application for Ethics Approval (Our Ref. 024042): Approved
The Committee considered the application for ethics approval for your study entitled
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables - Shopping Habits.
We are pleased to inform you that ethics approval has been granted for a period of
three years.
The expiry date for this approval is 12-Nov-2022.
Completion of the project: In order that up-to-date records are maintained, you
must notify the Committee
once your project is completed.
Amendments to the project: Should you need to make any changes to the project,
please complete an
Amendment Request form in InfoEd, giving full details along with revised
documentation. If the project changes
significantly, you are required to submit a new application to UAHPEC for approval.
Funded projects: If you received funding for this project, please provide this
approval letter to your local
Faculty Research Project Coordinator (RPC) or Research Project Manager (RPM) so
that the approval can be
notified via a Service Request to the Research Operations Centre (ROC) for activation
of the grant.
The Chair and the members of UAHPEC would be happy to discuss general matters
relating to ethics approvals.
If you wish to do so, please contact the Ethics Administrators at
humanethics@auckland.ac.nz in the first
185
instance.
Additional information:
1. Do not forget to complete the 'approval wording' on the PISs, CFs and/or
advertisements and emails, giving
the dates of approval and the reference number. This needs to be completed before
you use the documents or
send them out to your participants.
Please quote Protocol number 024042 on all communication with the UAHPEC
regarding this application.
(This is a computer generated letter. No signature required.)
UAHPEC Administrators
University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee
c.c. Head of Department / School, Graduate School of Management
Ms Na
186
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Accorsi, R., Cascini, A., Cholette, S., Manzini, R., Mora, C. 2014. Economic and
environmental assessment of reusable plastic containers: A food catering supply
chain case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 88-101.
Ahumada, O. and Villalobos, J. R. 2011. A tactical model for planning the production
and distribution of fresh produce. Annals of Operations Research, 190, 339-358.
Akkas, A., Gaur, V. 2022. Reducing food waste: an operations management
research agenda. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 1-15.
Akkas, A., Gaur, V., and Simchi-Levi, D. 2019. Drivers of product expiration in
consumer packaged goods retailing. Management Science, 65(5), 2179-2195.
Akkas, A., Sahoo, N. 2020. Reducing product expiration by aligning salesforce
incentives: A Data‐driven Approach. Production and Operations Management,
29(8), 1992-2009.
Akkaya, D., Bimpikis, K, Lee, H. 2021. Government Interventions to Promote
Agricultural Innovation. Manufacturing & service operations management, 23
(2), 437-452.
Ala-Harja, H., Helo, P. 2014. Green supply chain decisions – Case-based performance
analysis from the food industry. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 69, 97-107.
Ali, M. S., Moktadir, M. A., Kabir, G., Chakma, J., Rumi, M. J. U., Islam, M. T. 2019.
Framework for evaluating risks in food supply chain: Implications in food
wastage reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 786-800.
Alizamir, S., Iravani, F., Mamani, H. (2019) An Analysis of Price vs. Revenue
Protection: Government Subsidies in the Agriculture Industry. Management
Science, 65(1):32-49.
Ambler, K., de Brauw, A., Godlonton, S. 2018. Measuring postharvest losses at the
farm level in malawi. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 62(1), 139-160.
Amicarelli, V. and Bux, C. 2021. Food waste in Italian households during the Covid-
19 pandemic: a self-reporting approach. Food Security, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 25-
37.
An, K., Ouyang, Y. 2016. Robust grain supply chain design considering post-harvest
loss and harvest timing equilibrium. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, 88, 110-128.
Arenas-Gaitán, J., Peral-Peral, B., and Reina-Arroyo, J. 2022. Food-related lifestyles
across generations. British Food Journal, Vol. 124, pp. 1485-1501.
Aronson, J. 1995. A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis. The Qualitative Report,
187
Vol. 2 (1), pp. 1-3.
Arroyo, P. E., Liñan, J., and Martínez, J. V. 2021. Who really values healthy food?.
British Food Journal, Vol. 123 No. 2, pp. 720-738.
Ata, B., Lee, D., and Sönmez, E. 2019. Dynamic volunteer staffing in multicrop
gleaning operations. Operations Research, 67(2), 295-314.
Aung, M.M., Chang, Y.S. 2014. Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and
quality perspectives, Food control, 39, 172-184.
Ayvaz-Çavdaroğlu, N., Kazaz, B., and Webster, S. 2021. Incentivizing farmers to
invest in quality through quality-based payment. Production and Operations
Management, 30 (10), 3812-3830.
Babbitt, C. W., Babbitt, G. A., and Oehman, J. M. 2021. Behavioural impacts on
residential food provisioning, use, and waste during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 315-325.
Bai Q., Xu, J., and Chauhan, S.S. 2020. Effects of sustainability investment and risk
aversion on a two-stage supply chain coordination under a carbon tax policy.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 142, 106324.
Bakshi,N. and Gans, N. 2010. Securing the containerized supply chain: analysis of
government incentives for private investment. Management Science,
56(2):219-233.
Banasik, A., Kanellopoulos, A., Claassen, G. D. H., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M., van
der Vorst, Jack G.A.J. 2017. Closing loops in agricultural supply chains using
multi-objective optimization: A case study of an industrial mushroom supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 183, 409-420.
Banasik, A., Kanellopoulos, A., Claassen, G.D.H., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., and van
der Vorst, J.A.J. 2017. Assessing alternative production options for eco-efficient
food supply chains using multi-objective optimization. Annals Operations
Research, 250, 341-362.
Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M. J., Olsen, T. L., Zhang, A. (2018). Agribusiness supply
chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models. Omega, 79,
21-42.
Belavina, E., Girotra, K., Kabra, A. 2017. Online grocery retail: Revenue models and
environmental impact. Management Science, 63(6), 1781-1799.
Bellemare, M. F., Çakir, M., Peterson, H. H., Novak, L., Rudi, J. 2017. On the
measurement of food waste. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
99(5), 1148-1158.
Beres, B.L., Cárcamo, H.A., Bremer, E. 2009. Evaluation of Alternative Planting
Strategies to Reduce Wheat Stem Sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) Damage to
Spring Wheat in the Northern Great Plains. Journal of economic entomology,
102(6), 2137-2145.
188
Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U., Hellweg, S. 2013. Quantifying food losses and the
potential for reduction in Switzerland. Waste management, 33(3), 764-773.
Beullens, P., Ghiami Y. 2021. Waste reduction in the supply chain of a deteriorating
food item – Impact of supply structure on retailer performance. European
Journal of Operational Research, head-of-print.
Bonadonna, A., Matozzo, A., Giachino, C., Peira, G. 2019. Farmer behaviour and
perception regarding food waste and unsold food. British Food Journal, 121(1),
89-103.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2012. Thematic analysis. The Handbook of Research
Methods in Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Brulard, N., Cung, V., Catusse, N., Dutrieux, C. 2019. An integrated sizing and
planning problem in designing diverse vegetable farming systems. International
Journal of Production Research, 57(4), 1018-1036.
Buisman, M. E., Haijema, R., Akkerman, R., Bloemhof, J. M. 2019. Donation
management for menu planning at soup kitchens. European Journal of
Operational Research, 272(1), 324-338.
Burgos, D., Ivanov, D. 2021. Food retail supply chain resilience and the COVID-19
pandemic: A digital twin-based impact analysis and improvement directions.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 152,
102412.
Bustos, C. A., and Moors, E. H. 2018. Reducing post-harvest food losses through
innovative collaboration: Insights from the Colombian and Mexican avocado
supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 1020-1034.
Bustos, C. A., Moors, E. H. 2018. Reducing post-harvest food losses through
innovative collaboration: Insights from the Colombian and Mexican avocado
supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 1020-1034.
Cakar, B., Aydin, S., Varank, G., Ozcan, H.K. 2020. Assessment of environmental
impact of FOOD waste in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118846.
Cattaneo, A., Federighi, G., Vaz, S. 2021. The environmental impact of reducing food
loss and waste: A critical assessment. Food Policy, 98, 101890.
Cequea, M.M., Neyra, J.M.V., Schmitt, V.G.H., and Ferasso, M. 2021. Household
food consumption and wastage during the covid-19 pandemic outbreak: A
comparison between peru and brazil. Sustainability, 13(14), 7583.
Chaboud, G., Moustier, P. 2021. The role of diverse distribution channels in reducing
food loss and waste: The case of the Cali tomato supply chain in Colombia. Food
Policy, 98, 101881.
Champions 12.3. 2001. SDG target 12.3 on food loss and waste: 2021 progress report.
Available: https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2021-
09/21_WP_Champions_Progress%20Report_v5.pdf [Accessed 20/05/2022].
189
Chávez, M.M.M., Sarache, W., Costa, Y. 2018. Towards a comprehensive model of
a biofuel supply chain optimization from coffee crop residues. Transportation
research. Part E: Logistics and transportation review, 116, 136-162.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N., and Stepner, M. 2020. “Real-Time
Economics: A new platform to track the impacts of COVID-19 on people,
Businesses, and Communities Using Private Sector Data. Working paper no.
w27280, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Cohen, M.C., Lobel, R., Perakis, G. 2015. The impact of demand uncertainty on
consumer subsidies for green technology adoption. Management Science,
62(5), 1235-1258.
Choi, T.M., Wallace, S.W., Wang, Y. 2018. Big data analytics in operations
management. Production and Operations Management, 27(10), 1868–1883.
Christensen, F.M., Solheim-Bojer, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., Steger-Jensen, K.,
2021. Developing new forecasting accuracy measure considering Product’s shelf
life: effect on availability and waste. Journal of cleaner production, 288, 125594.
Coderoni, S., Perito, M. A. 2020. Sustainable consumption in the circular economy.
An analysis of consumers’ purchase intentions for waste-to-value food. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 252, 119870.
Corrado, S., Ardente, F., Sala, S., Saouter, E. 2017. Modeling of food loss within life
cycle assessment: From current practice towards a systematization. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 140, 847-859.
Corrado, S., Sala, S. 2018. Food waste accounting along global and European food
supply chains: State of the art and outlook. Waste management, 79, 120-131.
Coşkun, A. and Özbük, R. M. Y. 2020. What influences consumer food waste
behaviour in restaurants? An application of the extended theory of planned
behaviour. Waste Management, 117, 170-178.
Damiani, M., Pastorello, T., Carlesso, A., Tesser, S., Semenzin, E. 2021. Quantifying
environmental implications of surplus food redistribution to reduce food waste.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125813.
Darlington, R., Rahimifard, S. 2007. Hybrid two-stage planning for food industry
overproduction waste minimization. International Journal of Production
Research, 45(18-19), 4273-4288.
De Clercq, M., Vats, A., Biel A. 2018. Agriculture 4.0 - the future of farming
technology. Oliver Wyman (February). Available:
https://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/v2/publications/
2018/February/Oliver-Wyman-Agriculture-4.0.pdf. [Accessed 23/09/2020]
Demirhan D., Jacob, V. S., and Raghunathan, S. 2007. Strategic IT investments: the
impact of switching cost and declining IT cost. Management Science, 53(2), 208-
226.
190
Derqui, B., Fernandez, V. 2017. The opportunity of tracking food waste in school
canteens: Guidelines for self-assessment. Waste management, 69, 431-444.
Derqui, B., Grimaldi, D., Fernandez, V. 2020. Building and managing sustainable
schools: The case of food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 243, 118533.
Despoudi, S., Papaioannou, G., Saridakis, G., and Dani, S. 2018. Does collaboration
pay in agricultural supply chain? An empirical approach. International Journal
of Production Research, 56, 4396-4417.
Ding, M., Ross, W. T., Rao, V. R., 2010. Price as an indicator of quality: implications
for utility and demand functions. Journal of Retailing, 86 (1), 69-84.
Do, Q., Ramudhin, A., Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., and Li, D. 2021. A systematic
review of research on food loss and waste prevention and management for the
circular economy. International Journal of Production Economics, 239, 108209.
Dong, C., Shen, B., Chow, P. S., Yang, L., & To Ng, C. (2016). Sustainability
investment under cap-and-trade regulation. Annals Operations Research, 240(2),
509-531.
Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K., Pfarrer, M.D. 2007. A content analysis of the content
analysis literature in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and
methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5-34.
Dye, C. and Yang, C. 2016. Optimal dynamic pricing and preservation technology
investment for deteriorating products with reference price effects. Omega. 62,
52-67.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.
Eriksson, M., Strid, I. Hansson, P. A. 2015. Carbon footprint of food waste
management options in the waste hierarchy–a Swedish case study. Journal of
European Commission report. 2017. Food waste accounting. Available:
https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2018-07/fw_lib_fwm_food-waste-
accounting_2017.pdf [Accessed 16/03/2022].
European Commission, E., 2021. Circular economy indicators: information.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy/indicators.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2011. Global food losses and food waste
- Extent, causes and prevention. Available:
http://www.fao.org/3/mb060e/mb060e01.pdf [Accessed 23/05/2022].
FAO. 2015. Food wastage footprint and climate change. Available: www.fao.org/3/a-
bb144e.pdf [Accessed 20/09/2020]
FAO. 2016. FAO activities on food waste measurement and SDG reporting, FAO:
Brussels, Belgian.
191
FAO. 2018. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Available:
http://www.fao.org/3/i9553en/i9553en.pdf [Accessed 23/07/2020]
FAO. 2020a. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Available:
http://www.fao.org/3/ca9692en/ca9692en.pdf [Accessed 23/08/2020]
FAO. 2020b. Impacts of coronavirus on food security and nutrition in Asia and the
Pacific: building more resilient food systems. Available:
http://www.fao.org/3/ca9473en/CA9473EN.pdf [Accessed 23/08/2020]
FAO. 2020c. Addressing the impacts of COVID-19 in food crises. Available:
http://www.fao.org/3/ca8497en/CA8497EN.pdf [Accessed 23/08/2020]
FAO. 2021. Save food: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction.
Available: http://www.fao.org/save-food/en/ [Accessed 23/06/2021]
FAO. 2009. Rome, Italy, FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009.
Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Liu, Y. 2019. Barriers to circular food supply chains in
China. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 24(5), 677-696.
Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thürer, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. 2019. Circular supply
chain management: A definition and structured literature review. Journal of
Feng, Z., Xiao, T., Robb, D.J. 2021. Environmentally responsible closed-loop
supply chain models with outsourcing and authorization options. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 278,123791.
Fikar, C. 2018. A decision support system to investigate food losses in e-grocery
deliveries. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 117, 282-290.
Filimonau, V. and Gherbin, A. 2017. An exploratory study of food waste management
practices in the UK grocery retail sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167,
1184-1194.
Food Policy Research Institute. 2016. Measuring food loss and waste. Available:
https://www.ifpri.org/blog/measuring-food-loss-and-waste [Accessed
21/08/2020]
Foodbank. 2016. 59 Organizations Fighting Food Loss and Waste. Available:
https://foodtank.com/news/2016/07/fighting-food-loss-and-waste [Accessed
21/05/2021]
Gaiani, S., Caldeira, S., Adorno, V., Segrè, A., and Vittuari, M. 2018. Food wasters:
Profiling consumers’ attitude to waste food in Italy. Waste Management, 72, 17-
24.
Ganguly, S. and Robb, D. J. 2022. An analytical model to characterize consumption
and wastage of fresh fruit and vegetables in households. European Journal of
Operational Research, 300, 151-163.
Garcia-Herrero, I., Hoehn, D., Margallo, M., Laso, J., Bala, A., Batlle-Bayer, L.,
192
Aldaco, R. 2018. On the estimation of potential food waste reduction to support
sustainable production and consumption policies. Food Policy, 80, 24-38.
García-Herrero, L., Costello, C., De Menna, F. Schreiber, L., Vittuari, M. 2021.
Eating away at sustainability. Food consumption and waste patterns in a US
school canteen. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123571.
García-Herrero, L., De Menna, F., Vittuari, M. 2019. Food waste at school. The
environmental and cost impact of a canteen meal. Waste Management. 100, 249–
258.
Gardas, B. B., Raut, R. D., and Narkhede, B. 2018. Evaluating critical causal factors
for post-harvest losses (PHL) in the fruit and vegetables supply chain in India
using the DEMATEL approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 47-61.
Garrone, P., Melacini, M., and Perego, A. 2014. Opening the black box of food waste
reduction. Food policy, 46, 129-139.
Garrone, P., Melacini, M., Perego, A., Sert, S. 2016. Reducing food waste in food
manufacturing companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 1076-1085.
Gerini, F., Alfnes, F., and Schjøll, A. 2016. Organic- and animal welfare-labelled
eggs: competing for the same consumers?. Journal of Agricultural Economics,
67, 471-490.
Ghinoi, S., Silvestri, F., Steiner, B. 2020. Toward the creation of novel food waste
management systems: A network approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246,
118987.
Glover, W.J., Liu, W. H., Farris, J. A., Van Aken, E. M. 2013. Characteristics of
established kaizen event programs: an empirical study. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 33, 1166-1201.
Govindan, K. 2018. Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply
chain: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Production Economics,
195, 419-431.
Grunow, M., and Piramuthu, S. 2013. RFID in highly perishable food supply chains–
remaining shelf life to supplant expiry date? International Journal of Production
Economics 2013, 146, 717-727.
Guda, H., Dawande, M., Janakiraman, G., and Rajapakshe,T. 2021. An economic
analysis of agricultural support prices in developing economies. Production
and Operations Management, 30 (9), 3036-3053.
Haass, R., Dittmer, P., Veigt, M., and Lütjen, M. 2015. Reducing food losses and
carbon emission by using autonomous control-A simulation study of the
intelligent container. International Journal of Production Economics, 164, 400-
408.
Hafliðason, T., Ólafsdóttir, G., Bogason, S., Stefánsson, G. 2012. Criteria for
temperature alerts in cod supply chains. International Journal of Physical
193
Distribution and Logistics Management, 42(4), 355-371.
Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C., Magid, J. 2014. Addressing
food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, 49, 294-301.
Hamilton, S.F., Richards, T. 2019. Food policy and household food waste. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101(2), 597-611.
Hazen, B. T., Russo, I., Confente, I., and Pellathy, D. 2021. Supply chain management
for circular economy: conceptual framework and research agenda. International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 510-537.
Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A., Katajajuuri, J., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H. 2016.
Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector. Waste Management,
56, 446-453.
Herbon, A., Khmelnitsky, E. 2017. Optimal dynamic pricing and ordering of a
perishable product under additive effects of price and time on demand. European
Journal of Operational Research, 260(2), 546-556.
History of the COVID-19 Alert System. 2021. Unite Against COVID-19.
https://covid19.govt.nz/about-our-covid-19-response/history-of-the-covid-19-
alert-system/
HLPE. 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A
report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the
Committee on World Food Security, Rome 2014. Available:
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3901e.pdf [Accessed 26/02/2022].
Hu, M., Liu, Y., Wang, W. 2019. Socially Beneficial Rationality: The Value of
Strategic Farmers, Social Entrepreneurs, and For-Profit Firms in Crop Planting
Decisions. Management Science, 65(8): 3654-3672
Holweg, C., Teller, C. Kotzab, H. 2016. Unsaleable grocery products, their residual
value and in store logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, 46, 634-658.
Hong, Z. and Guo, X. 2019. Green product supply chain contracts considering
environmental responsibilities. Omega, 83, 155-166.
Hsu, P.H., Wee, H.M., and Teng, H.M. 2010. Preservation technology investment for
deteriorating inventory. International Journal of Production Economics, 124,
388-394.
Huang, H., He, Y., Li, D. 2018. Pricing and inventory decisions in the food supply
chain with production disruption and controllable deterioration. Journal of
cleaner production, 180, 280-296.
Irani, Z., Sharif, A. M., Lee, H., Aktas, E., Topaloğlu, Z., van't Wout, T., Huda, S.
2018. Managing food security through food waste and loss: Small data to big
data. Computers and Operations Research, 98, 367-383.
Jagau, H. L., Vyrastekova, J. 2017. Behavioural approach to food waste: An
194
experiment. British Food Journal, 119(4), 882-894.
Janssen, A. M., Nijenhuis-de Vries, M. A., Boer, E. P., and Kremer, S. 2017. Fresh,
frozen, or ambient food equivalents and their impact on food waste generation
in Dutch households. Waste Management, 67, 298-307.
Janssen, L., Claus, T., and Sauer, J. 2016. Literature review of deteriorating inventory
models by key topics from 2012 to 2015. International Journal of Production
Economics, 182, 86-112.
Janssen, L., Diabat, A., Sauer, J., Herrmann, F. 2018. A stochastic micro-periodic
age-based inventory replenishment policy for perishable goods. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 118, 445-465.
Janssen, L., Sauer, J., Claus, T., and Nehls, 2018. U. Development and simulation
analysis of a new perishable inventory model with a closing days constraint
under non-stationary stochastic demand. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
118, 9-22.
Jia, J.D., Zhang, D.K., Zhang, Y.X., Kong, L.X., Zhang, P.Y. 2013. Development
Report of Chinese Agricultural Products Circulation Industry, 1st ed., Social
Sciences Academic Press: Beijing, China, 2013, pp. 150-176. (In Chinese).
Jonkman, J., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., Bloemhof, J.M. 2018. I Integrating harvesting
decisions in the design of agro-food supply chains, European Journal of
Operational Research, 276, 247-258.
Kaipia, R., Dukovska-Popovska, I., and Loikkanen, L. 2013. Creating sustainable
fresh food supply chains through waste reduction. International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 43(3), 262-276.
Kaushal, N. and Muchomba, F. M. 2015. How consumer price subsidies affect
nutrition. World Development. Available at:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19404/w19404.pdf
Katare, B., Serebrennikov, D., Wang, H. H., Wetzstein, M. 2017. Social-optimal
household food waste: Taxes and government incentives. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 99, 499-509.
Kazaz B, Webster S. 2011. The impact of yield-dependent trading costs on pricing
and production planning under supply uncertainty. Manufacturing & Service
Operations Management, 13(3), 404-417.
Khan, S. A. R., Ponce, P. 2021. Investigating the effects of the outbreak of COVID-
19 on perishable food supply chains: an empirical study using PLS-SEM.
International Journal of Logistics Management, ahead-of-print. DOI
10.1108/IJLM-12-2020-0496
Kim, J., Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, S., Knox, K., Burke, and K., Bogomolova, S. 2020.
Consumer perspectives on household food waste reduction campaigns. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 243, 118608.
195
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., and Hekkert, M. 2017. Conceptualizing the circular
economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 127, 221-232.
Koester, U. 2014. Food loss and waste as an economic and policy problem.
Intereconomics, 49, 348-354.
Kourmentza, C., Economou, C. N., Tsafrakidou, P., Kornaros, M. 2018. Spent coffee
grounds make much more than waste: Exploring recent advances and future
exploitation strategies for the valorization of an emerging food waste stream.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 980-992.
Krishnan, R., Agarwal, R., Bajada, C., Arshinder, K. 2020. Redesigning a food supply
chain for environmental sustainability - An analysis of resource use and
recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118374.
Kuiper, M., Cui, H. D. 2021. Using food loss reduction to reach food security and
environmental objectives - A search for promising leverage points. Food Policy,
98, 101915.
Kumse, K., Suzuki, N., Sato, T., and Demont, M. 2021. The spillover effect of
direct competition between marketing cooperatives and private intermediaries:
Evidence from the Thai rice value chain. Food policy, 101, p.102051
Lam, C. M., Iris, K. M., Medel, F., Tsang, D. C., Hsu, S. C., and Poon, C. S. 2018.
Life-cycle cost-benefit analysis on sustainable food waste management: The case
of Hong Kong International Airport. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 751-
762.
Lee, D., Sönmez, E., Gómez, M. I., Fan, X. 2017. Combining two wrongs to make
two rights: Mitigating food insecurity and food waste through gleaning
operations. Food Policy, 68, 40-52.
Lee, D., Tongarlak, M. H. 2017. Converting retail food waste into by-product.
European Journal of Operational Research, 257(3), 944-956.
Lee, K. C. L. 2018. Grocery shopping, food waste, and the retail landscape of cities:
The case of Seoul. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 325-334.
Levi, R., Singhvi, S., Zheng, Y. 2022. Artificial Shortage in Agricultural Supply
Chains. Manufacturing & service operations management, 24(2), 746-76.
Li, B., Yin, T., Udugama, I.A., Dong, S.L., Yu, W., Huang, Y.F., Young, B. 2020.
Food waste and the embedded phosphorus footprint in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 252, 119909.
Li, G., He, X., Zhou, J., and Wu, H. 2018. Pricing, replenishment and preservation
technology investment decisions for non-instantaneous deteriorating items.
Omega, 000, 1-13.
Li, Q., Yu, P., Wu, X. Shelf life extending packaging, inventory control and grocery
retailing. 2017. Production and Operations Management, 26, 1369-1382.
196
Liljestrand, K. 2017. Logistics solutions for reducing food waste. International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 47(4), 318-339.
Liu, A., Zhu, Q., Xu, L., Lu, Q., Fan, Y. 2021. Sustainable supply chain management
for perishable products in emerging markets: An integrated location-inventory-
routing model. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, 150, 102319.
Liu, C., Bunditsakulchai, P., and Zhuo, Q. 2021. Impact of covid-19 on food and
plastic waste generated by consumers in Bangkok. Sustainability, 13(16), 8988.
Liu, G., Zhang, J., Tang, W. 2015. Joint dynamic pricing and investment strategy
for perishable foods with price-quality dependent demand. Annals of
Operations Research, 226, 397-416
Liu, K. M., Lin, S. H., Hsieh, J. C., Tzeng, G. H. 2018. Improving the food waste
composting facilities site selection for sustainable development using a hybrid
modified MADM model. Waste Management, 75, 44-59.
Liu, L., Zhao, L., Ren, X. 2019. Optimal preservation technology investment and
pricing policy for fresh food. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 135, 746-
756.
Luo, N., Olsen, T., Liu, Y., and Zhang, A. 2022. Reducing food loss and waste in
supply chain operations. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 162, 102730.
Lütke Entrup, M., Günther, H. O., Van Beek, P., Grunow, M., and Seiler, T. 2005.
Mixed- Integer Linear Programming approaches to shelf-life-integrated planning
and scheduling in yoghurt production. International Journal of Production
Research, 43, 5071-5100.
Ma, P., Wang, H., and Shang, J. 2013. Contract design for two-stage supply chain
coordination: Integrating manufacturer-quality and retailer-marketing efforts.
International Journal of Production Economics, 146(2), 745-755.
Macheka, L., Spelt, E. J., Bakker, E. J., van der Vorst, J. G., Luning, P. A. 2018.
Identification of determinants of postharvest losses in Zimbabwean tomato
supply chains as basis for dedicated interventions. Food control, 87, 135-144.
Macheka, L., Spelt, E., van der Vorst, J. G., and Luning, P. A. 2017. Exploration of
logistics and quality control activities in view of context characteristics and
postharvest losses in fresh produce chains: A case study for tomatoes. Food
Control, 77, 221-234.
Maiyar, L. M., Thakkar, J. J. 2019. Environmentally conscious logistics planning for
food grain industry considering wastages employing multi objective hybrid
particle swarm optimization. Transportation Research. Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 127, 220-248.
Mangla, S. K., Kazancoglu, Y., Ekinci, E., Liu, M., Özbiltekin, M., Sezer, M. D. 2021.
Using system dynamics to analyze the societal impacts of blockchain technology
197
in milk supply chainsrefer. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 149， 102289.
Mangla, S. K., Sharma, Y. K., Patil, P. P., Yadav, G., Xu, J. 2019. Logistics and
distribution challenges to managing operations for corporate sustainability:
Study on leading indian diary organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238,
117620.
Martin-Rios, C., Demen-Meier, C., Gössling, S., Cornuz, C. 2018. Food waste
management innovations in the foodservice industry. Waste management, 79,
196-206.
Mattar, L., Abiad, M. G., Chalak, A., Diab, M., and Hassan, H. 2018. Attitudes and
behaviours shaping household food waste generation: Lessons from Lebanon.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1219-1223.
McCarthy, B., Kapetanaki, A.B., and Wang, P. 2020. Completing the food waste
management loop: Is there market potential for value-added surplus products
(VASP)?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120435.
Menna, F.D., Dietershagen, J., Loubiere, M., Vittuari, M. 2018. Life cycle costing of
food waste: A review of methodological approaches. Waste Management, 73, 1-
13.
Michalec, A., Fodor, M., Hayes, and E., Longhurst, J. 2018. Co-designing food waste
services in the catering sector. British Food Journal, 120, 2762-2777.
Mogale, D. G., Cheikhrouhou, N., Tiwari, M. K. 2019. Modelling of sustainable food
grain supply chain distribution system: A bi-objective approach. International
Journal of Production Research, 58(18), 1-24.
Mogale, D. G., Kumar, M., Kumar, S. K. Tiwari, M. K. 2018. Grain silo location-
allocation problem with dwell time for optimization of food grain supply chain
network. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
111, 40-69.
Mogale, D. G., Kumar, S. K., Márquez, F. P. G., Tiwari, M. K. 2017b. Bulk wheat
transportation and storage problem of public distribution system. Computers and
Industrial Engineering, 104, 80-97.
Mogale, D.G., Dolgui, A., Kandhway, R., Kumar, S.K., Tiwari, M.K. 2017a. A multi-
period inventory transportation model for tactical planning of food grain supply
chain. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 110, 379-394.
Mookerjee, S., Cornil, Y., Hoegg, J. 2021. From waste to taste: how “Ugly” labels
can increase purchase of unattractive produce. Journal of Marketing, 85(3), 62-
77
Muriana, C. 2015. Effectiveness of the food recovery at the retailing stage under shelf
life uncertainty: An application to Italian food chains. Waste management, 41,
159-168.
198
Neuendorf, K. A. 2019. Content analysis and thematic analysis. In P. Brough (Ed.),
Research methods for applied psychologists: Design, analysis and reporting (pp.
211-223). Routledge.
Olsen, T.L., Tomlin, B. 2020. Industry 4.0: Opportunities and challenges for
operations management. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management,
22(1):113-122.
Orgut, I. S., Ivy, J., Uzsoy, R., Wilson, J. R. 2016. Modeling for the equitable and
effective distribution of donated food under capacity constraints. IIE
Transactions, 48(3), 252-266.
Östergren, K., Gustavsson, J., Bos-Brouwers, H., Timmermans, T., Hansen, O.J.,
Møller, H., Anderson, G., O’Connor, C., Soethoudt, H., Quested, T., Easteal, S.
2014. FUSIONS definitional framework for food waste. Wageningen: FUSIONS
Project.
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J.K., Wright, N., and Bin Ujang, Z.
2014. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food
surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106-115.
Pauls-Worm, K. G., Hendrix, E. M., Alcoba, A. G., and Haijema, R. 2016. Order
quantities for perishable inventory control with non-stationary demand and a fill
rate constraint. International Journal of Production Economics, 181, 238-246.
Pettigrew, A. 1988. The Management of Strategic Change. Blackwell, Oxford.
Pinto, R. S., dos Santos Pinto, R. M., Melo, F. F. S., Campos, S. S., and Cordovil, C.
M. D. S. 2018. A simple awareness campaign to promote food waste reduction
in a University canteen. Waste Management, 76, 28-38.
Plazzotta, S., Cottes, M, Simeoni, P., and Manzocco, L. 2020. Evaluating the
environmental and economic impact of fruit and vegetable waste valorisation:
The lettuce waste study-case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262, 121435.
Qian, X. 2021. Production planning and equity investment decisions in agriculture
with closed membership cooperatives. European journal of operational
research, 294(2), 684-699.
Qian, X., T. Olsen. 2020. Operational and financial decisions within proportional
investment cooperatives. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management,
22(3), 545-561.
Quested, T., Johnson, H. 2009. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK. Waste
and Resources Action Programme (WRAP).
Raak, N., Symmank, C., Zahn, S., Aschemann-Witzel, J., and Rohm, H. 2017.
Processing-and product-related causes for food waste and implications for the
food supply chain. Waste Management, 61, 461-472.
Raassens, N., Haans, H., and Mullick, S. 2021. Surviving the hectic early phase of
the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study to the supply chain strategies of
199
food service firms in times of a crisis. International Journal of Logistics
Management, ahead-of-print. DOI 10.1108/IJLM-01-2021-0013.
Reardon, T., Chen, K., Minten, B., and Adriano, L. 2012. The Quiet Revolution in
Staple Food Value Chains: Enter the Dragon, the Elephant, and the Tiger. Asian
Development Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute:
Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 2012, pp. 286-290.
Reddy, R. H., Kumar, S. K., Fernandes, K. J., Tiwari, M. K. 2017. A Multi-agent
system based simulation approach for planning procurement operations and
scheduling with multiple cross-docks. Computers and Industrial Engineering,
107, 289-300.
Redlingshöfer, B., Coudurier, B., Georget, M. 2017. Quantifying food loss during
primary production and processing in France. Journal of Cleaner Production,
164, 703-714.
Rey, D., Almi’ani, K., Nair, D. J. 2018. Exact and heuristic algorithms for finding
envy-free allocations in food rescue pickup and delivery logistics.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 112, 19-
46.
Ribeiro, I., Sobral, P., Peças, P., and Henriques, E. 2018. A sustainable business
model to fight food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 262-275.
Rijpkema, A. W., Rossi, R., Jack, G. A. J. van der Vorst, J. 2014. Effective sourcing
strategies for perishable product supply chains. International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 44(6), 494-510.
Roe, B. E., Bender, K., and Qi, D. 2021. The impact of COVID-19 on consumer food
waste. Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, 43 (1), 401-411.
Rogerson, M., Parry, G.C. 2020. Blockchain: case studies in food supply chain
visibility. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(5), 601-614.
Salemdeeb, R., Vivanco, D. F., Al-Tabbaa, A., zu Ermgassen, E. K. 2017a. A holistic
approach to the environmental evaluation of food waste prevention. Waste
management, 59, 442-450.
Salemdeeb, R., Ermgassen, E. K., Kim, M. H., Balmford, A., Al-Tabbaa, A. 2017b.
Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a
comparative analysis of food waste management options. Journal of cleaner
production, 140, 871-880.
Scherhaufer, S., Moates, G., Hartikainen, H., Waldron, K., Obersteiner, G. 2018.
Environmental impacts of food waste in Europe. Waste management, 77, 98-
113.
Secondi, L., Principato, L., and Laureti, T. 2015. Household food waste behaviour in
EU-27 countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy, 56, 25-40.
Setti, M., Banchelli, F., Falasconi, L., Segrè, A., and Vittuari, M. 2018. Consumers'
200
food cycle and household waste. When behaviours matter. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 185, 694-706.
Sgarbossa, F. and Russo, I. 2017. A proactive model in sustainable food supply chain:
Insight from a case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 183,
596-606.
Shearer, L., Gatersleben, B., Morse, S., Smyth, M., and Hunt, S. 2017. A problem
unstuck? Evaluating the effectiveness of sticker prompts for encouraging
household food waste recycling behaviour. Waste Management, 60, 164-172.
Sheppard, P., Garcia-Garcia, G., Stone, J., Rahimifard, S. 2020. A complete decision-
support infrastructure for food waste valorisation. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 247, 119608.
Simms, C., Trott, P., Hende, E. v. d., Hultink, E. J. 2020. Barriers to the adoption of
waste-reducing eco-innovations in the packaged food sector: A study in the UK
and the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118792.
Song, G., Semakula, H. M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P. 2018. Chinese household food waste
and its’ climatic burden driven by urbanization: A bayesian belief network
modelling for reduction possibilities in the context of global efforts. Journal of
Song, J.S., van Houtum, G.J., Van Mieghem, J.A. 2020. Capacity and Inventory
Management: Review, Trends, and Projections. Manufacturing and Service
Operations Management, 22(1), 36-46.
Song, Y., Fan, T., Tang, Y., Xu, C. 2021. Omni-channel strategies for fresh produce
with extra losses in-store. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 148, 102243.
Soto-Silva, W.E., Nadal-Roig, E., González-Araya, M.C., Pla-Aragones, L.M. 2016.
Operational research models applied to the fresh fruit supply chain. European
Journal of Operational Research, 251(2), 345-355.
Soysal, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M., Haijema, R., van der Vorst, J. G. 2015.
Modeling an Inventory Routing Problem for perishable products with
environmental considerations and demand uncertainty. International Journal of
Production Economics, 164, 118-133.
Stiglitz, J. E., 1987. The causes and consequences of the dependence of quality on
price. Journal of Economic Literature, 25 (1), 1-48.
Sundgren, C. 2020. Supply chain structures for distributing surplus food. The
International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(4), 865-883.
Svanes, E., Johnsen, F.M. 2019. Environmental life cycle assessment of production,
processing, distribution and consumption of apples, sweet cherries and plums
from conventional agriculture in Norway. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238,
1-15.
201
Tang, C.S., 2006. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. International
Journal of Production Economics, 103, 451-488.
Teller, C., Holweg, C., Reiner, G., and Kotzab, H. 2018. Retail store operations and
food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 981-997.
Thamagasorn, M. Pharino, C. 2019. An analysis of food waste from a flight catering
business for sustainable food waste management: A case study of halal food
production process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 845-855.
The Profit Experts, 2011. The 2011 retail profit protection report. Available:
https://www.prlog.org/11378377-the-2011-retail-profit-protection-report.html
[Accessed 26/03/2022].
The World Food Program, 2020. Global report on food crises, Available:
https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-
0000138913/download/?_ga=2.17488825.1613391178.1653115471-
1876664565.1653115471 [Accessed 26/03/2022].
Timmer C. P. 1989. Food price policy: The rationale for government intervention.
Food policy, 14(1), 17-27.
Tonini, D., Albizzati, P. F., Astrup, T. F. 2018. Environmental impacts of food waste:
Learnings and challenges from a case study on UK. Waste Management, 76, 744-
766.
Tostivint, C., de Veron, S., Jan, O., Lanctuit, H., Hutton, Z. V., Loubière, M. 2017.
Measuring food waste in a dairy supply chain in Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 145, 221-231.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. 2004. Linking theory to practice: A grand challenge for
management research in the 21st century? Organization Management Journal,
1(1), 10-14.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2022. Food Loss and Waste 2030
Champions. Available: https://www.usda.gov/foodlossandwaste/champions
[Accessed 26/03/2022].
USDA, 2013. How Transportation Costs Affect Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Prices.
Available:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45165/41077_err160.pdf
[Accessed 26/06/2022].
U.S. EPA, 2020. Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors
Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) Organic Materials Chapters
(PDF).
U.S. EPA. 2022. United States 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/united-states-2030-food-
loss-and-waste-reduction-goal#footnote1 [Accessed 26/03/2022].
UN environment programme, 2021. Food waste index report.
202
https://www.unep.org/resources/report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021
[Accessed 26/05/2022].
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2021. UNEP Food Waste Index
Report 2021. Available: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/unep-food-
waste-index-report-2021 [Accessed 28/06/2021]
United Nations, 2020. Increased attention to food loss and waste. Available:
https://www.un.org/en/observances/end-food-waste-day/background [Accessed
16/03/2022].
United Nations, 2022. Stop Food Loss and waste, for the people, for the planet.
Available: https://www.un.org/en/observances/end-food-waste-day [Accessed
18/05/2022].
United Nations. 2021. The challenge of reducing food loss and waste during COVID-
19. Available: https://www.un.org/en/observances/end-food-waste-day
[Accessed 26/06/2021]
United Nations. 2022. Sustainable Development: The 17 Goals. Available:
https://sdgs.un.org/goals [Accessed 02/03/2022].
Validi, S., Bhattacharya, A., Byrne, P.J. 2014. A case analysis of a sustainable food
supply chain distribution system: A multi-objective approach. International
Journal of Production Economics, 152, 71-87.
Wang, C., Chen, X. 2017. Option pricing and coordination in the fresh produce supply
chain with portfolio contracts. Annals of Operations Research, 248(1-2), 471-
491.
Wang, O. and Scrimgeour, F. 2022. Consumer adoption of online-to-offline food
delivery services in China and New Zealand. British Food Journal, 124, 1590-
1608.
Wang, X. and Li, D. 2012. A dynamic product quality evaluation based pricing model
for perishable food supply chains. Omega, 40, 906-917.
Wassmer, U. 2010. Alliance Portfolios: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of
Management, 36(1), 141-171.
Wesana, J., De Steur, H., Dora, M. K., Mutenyo, E., Muyama, L., Gellynck, X. 2018.
Towards nutrition sensitive agriculture. Actor readiness to reduce food and
nutrient losses or wastes along the dairy value chain in Uganda. Journal of
cleaner production, 182, 46-56.
Wheeler, A. R., Shanine, K. K., Leon, M. R., and Whitman, M. V. 2014. Student-
recruited samples in organizational research: A review, analysis, and guidelines
for future research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87,
1-26.
Widodo, K. H., Nagasawa, H., Morizawa, K., Ota, M. 2006. A periodical flowering-
harvesting model for delivering agricultural fresh products. European Journal of
203
Operational Research, 170(1), 24-43.
Wikström, F., Williams, H., Venkatesh, G. 2016. The influence of packaging
attributes on recycling and food waste behaviour – An environmental
comparison of two packaging alternatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137,
895-902.
Willersinn, C., Möbius, S., Mouron, P., Lansche, J., Mack, G. 2017. Environmental
impacts of food losses along the entire Swiss potato supply chain-Current
situation and reduction potentials. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 860-870.
WWF-UK. 2021. Driven to Waste: The Global Impact of Food Loss and Waste on
Farms. UK: WWF-UK. Available:
https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/
wwf_uk__driven_to_waste___the_global_impact_of_food_loss_and_
waste_on_farms.pdf [Accessed 16/05/2022].
Yang, Y., Chi, H., Tang, O., Zhou, W., and Fan, T. 2019. Cross perishable effect on
optimal inventory preservation control. European Journal of Operational
Research, 276, 998-1012.
Yu, M., Nagurney, A. 2013. Competitive food supply chain networks with application
to fresh produce. European Journal of Operational Research, 224(2), 273-2.
Yu, Y., Jaenicke, E. C. 2020. Estimating food waste as household production
inefficiency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 102(2), 525-547.
Yu, Y., Xiao, T., Feng, Z. 2020. Price and cold-chain service decisions versus
integration in a fresh agri-product supply chain with competing retailers.
Annals of Operations Research, 287(1), pp. 465-493.
Zhang, A., Wang, J. X., Farooque, M., Wang, Y., Choi, T. M. 2021. Multi-
dimensional circular supply chain management: A comparative review of the
state-of-the-art practices and research. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 155, 102509.
Zhang, Y., Jiang, Y. 2017. Robust optimization on sustainable biodiesel supply chain
produced from waste cooking oil under price uncertainty. Waste management,
60, 329-339.
Zokaei, A. K., Simons, D. W. 2006. Value chain analysis in consumer focus
improvement A case study of the UK red meat industry. International Journal
of Logistics Management, 17 (2), 141-162.
204

Paper 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reducing Food Loss and Waste in Supply Chain Operations -

The Impact of Government Intervention and Consumer

a critical objective for the world.

Historically, operations management scholars have paid less attention to FLW

reduction in contrast to other streams of research in FSC management. This thesis

respectively. In particular, we investigate the impact of government intervention and

consumer behaviour on FLW reduction in the context of COVID-19. To analyse the

from the perspective of operations management. This framework helps to

the role of government interventions in preservation technology adoption and FLW

been further investigated from the consumer end in this thesis.

framework to systematically examine FLW issues within FSCs, which helps to

comprehensively understand FLW occurrence in FSCs. Paper II presents a review of

research on FLW from the perspective of operations management. This research

provides a projection of future research opportunities. Paper III formulates optimisation

models to identify the role of government interventions in preservation technology

which contributes to household FLW literature by providing a framework that integrates

external impacts, consumer segmentation to reflect on waste management, and the

possible applications of the proposed framework. Overall, this thesis provides

implications on FLW reduction in FSC operations.

To my parents and my aunties who love, support, and encourage me.

To my daughter and son who give their unconditional love to me.

which helped me to overcome my postpartum depression. In the fourth year of my PhD

for being my supervisor.

much from being the GTA of Subh’s course.

experience in my PhD journey.

gave me lots of valuable comments and helped me to improve my research ability.

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... x

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................xii

1.1 Research Motivation ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Theoretical Background ...................................................................................................... 5

2. Literature Review and Research Directions ......................................................................... 15

2.1 Motivation ......................................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Review Methodology ........................................................................................................ 18

2.3 Sample Statistics ............................................................................................................... 20

2.4 Research Questions in FLW Studies ................................................................................. 22

2.5 Research Themes .............................................................................................................. 27

2.6 Future Research Directions ............................................................................................... 44

2.7 Brief Summary .................................................................................................................. 57

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 59

3.2 Various Types of FSCs ..................................................................................................... 60

3.3 Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts of FLW ................................................... 62

3.4 FLW Occurrences and Possible Causes ............................................................................ 66

3.5 Measures to Reduce FLW in the Field of OM .................................................................. 74

3.6 Methodologies to Analyse FLW ....................................................................................... 76

3.7 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 82

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 83

4.2 Relevant Literature ............................................................................................................ 88

4.4 Basic Model ...................................................................................................................... 96

4.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 114

5.1 Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 117

5.3 Extension 2 – Proportional PT Investment Decision ...................................................... 123

5.4 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 134

5.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 136

6.1 Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 138

6.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 140

6.3 Method ............................................................................................................................ 144

6.4 Findings........................................................................................................................... 151

6.5 Implications..................................................................................................................... 163

6.6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 166

7.1. Summary of this thesis ................................................................................................... 168

7.2 Contributions................................................................................................................... 170

7.3 Future directions and limitations ..................................................................................... 171

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 173