Food Waste Management: Solving the Wicked Problem [1st ed. 2020] 978-3-030-20560-7, 978-3-030-20561-4

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xxix
Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste (Elina Närvänen, Nina Mesiranta, Malla Mattila, Anna Heikkinen)....Pages 1-24
Front Matter ....Pages 25-25
Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review (Lisanne van Geffen, Erica van Herpen, Hans van Trijp)....Pages 27-55
Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability Meets Cost-Effectiveness (Anna de Visser-Amundson, Mirella Kleijnen)....Pages 57-87
Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets (Christine Moser)....Pages 89-112
Front Matter ....Pages 113-113
The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement: Turning Sustainable Ideas into Business (Johanna F. Gollnhofer, Daniel Boller)....Pages 115-139
Distributed Agency in Food Waste—A Focus on Non-human Actors in Retail Setting (Lotta Alhonnoro, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen, Henna Syrjälä)....Pages 141-167
Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer: A Socio-Ecological Approach to Food Waste in Environmental Design (Ellen Burke, N. Claire Napawan)....Pages 169-191
Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste: Aligning and Leveraging Systems and Design Thinking (Danielle Lake, Amy McFarland, Jody Vogelzang)....Pages 193-221
Front Matter ....Pages 223-223
Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns: A Visual Analysis (Ulla-Maija Sutinen)....Pages 225-256
From Scarcity to Abundance: Food Waste Themes and Virtues in Agrarian and Mature Consumer Society (Outi Uusitalo, Tuomo Takala)....Pages 257-288
Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste Reduction in Finnish Media Discourse (Liia-Maria Raippalinna)....Pages 289-317
Front Matter ....Pages 319-319
Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste (Trevor M. Fowles, Christian Nansen)....Pages 321-346
Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms into Marketable Products (Christine M. Kowalczyk, Brian J. Taillon, Laura Hearn)....Pages 347-366
Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens (Fabio de Almeida Oroski)....Pages 367-387
ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction at City and Regional Levels in the EU (Samuel Féret)....Pages 389-414
From Measurement to Management: Food Waste in the Finnish Food Chain (Hanna Hartikainen, Inkeri Riipi, Juha-Matti Katajajuuri, Kirsi Silvennoinen)....Pages 415-439
Back Matter ....Pages 441-455

Citation preview

Edited by Elina Närvänen · Nina Mesiranta Malla Mattila · Anna Heikkinen

Food Waste Management Solving the Wicked Problem

Food Waste Management

Elina Närvänen · Nina Mesiranta · Malla Mattila · Anna Heikkinen Editors

Food Waste Management Solving the Wicked Problem

Editors Elina Närvänen Tampere University Tampere, Finland

Nina Mesiranta Tampere University Tampere, Finland

Malla Mattila Tampere University Tampere, Finland

Anna Heikkinen Tampere University Tampere, Finland

ISBN 978-3-030-20560-7 ISBN 978-3-030-20561-4  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 Chapters 1, 2, 12 and 16 are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). For further details see license information in the chapters. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

Food waste—as the editors and contributors to this excellent volume demonstrate—is a wicked problem. It brings many of the tensions and failures of existing food systems into sharp relief. Recent estimates suggest that between 30 and 50% of global food production never reaches a human stomach. At the same time, many people worldwide do not have access to sufficient calories or nutrition on a daily basis. Consumers in affluent nations waste almost as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa. Wasting food carries significant economic costs ($680 billion in industrialised countries and $310 billion annually in developing countries). The environmental implications are similarly arresting: if food waste were a country, it would be the world’s 3rd highest emitter of greenhouse gases after the USA and China. When food goes to waste, so too do all of the resources (water, energy, land, labour) that went into its production. Increasing clarity regarding these economic, social and environmental consequences has established the issue as a key priority for governments and their populations across the world. It is very easy to forget that food waste was not really on the agenda 10–15 years ago. A post-war food regime of sufficiency and surplus (at least in the Global North) had rendered it culturally and politically v

vi      Foreword

invisible. A corollary of this is that academic perspectives on food waste are very much in their infancy. Early studies focused on quantifying food waste and evaluating the impacts of different solutions. These were quickly followed by more critically engaged studies that questioned the orthodoxy of measurement and modelling. To date, and with few ­exceptions, there has been too little interaction between these two bodies of work. More generally, the literature on food waste remains somewhat disjointed. Individual studies tend to focus on a single point in the food chain (e.g. processing, retail, final consumption) or clearly defined geographical locations. The net result of this fragmentation is that the development of innovative and evidence-based approaches to managing food waste has been painfully slow. This collection responds to these limitations and establishes exciting new directions in food waste scholarship. By clearly and systematically conceptualising food waste as a wicked problem, the editors present a framework that helps move beyond the divisions that have stymied the field thus far. Put briefly, wicked problems are characterised as uncertain, as relentless and as crosscutting. Food waste clearly meets of these criteria. Acknowledging this is an essential prerequisite for meaningful discussion about how best to manage it. For example, critical social science perspectives highlight the difficulty of defining precisely what food waste is. Given the old adage of “what gets measured, gets managed”, it is vital that these complexities are confronted. It is even more important that embracing ambiguity and uncertainty does not give way to inertia. No matter how food waste is defined, it still needs managing. Similarly, the effective management of food waste requires ongoing action and intervention. In much the same way that it is more appropriate to talk about promoting rather than achieving sustainable development, solutions for food waste reduction must be attuned to the processual, dynamic and relentless nature of food waste generation. Most importantly, the contributions to this volume collectively address the crosscutting nature of food waste. It cuts across points in the food chain, it cuts across national borders, it cuts across a diverse range of stakeholders, it cuts across a number of policy agendas, and it cuts across academic disciplines. It follows that any effort to manage food waste must cut across the very same silos.

Foreword     vii

There is an argument that it is precisely these characteristics—those associated with “wicked problems”—that have driven the issue in national and global policy arenas. The proliferation of quantitative data concerning the extent and location of the problem has certainly focused attention and mobilised a diverse range of stakeholders. The dynamic and fluid nature of the problem means that it occupies a privileged position in relation to a “perfect storm” of related issues (e.g. austerity, food price inflation, climate change). Indeed, there is already widespread recognition that food waste is a system-wide challenge requiring a sustained and coordinated effort across disparate actors and organisations. It may not be too hyperbolic to suggest that this is a unique opportunity, a moment in which responses to the challenges of food waste reduction could set the standard for managing future societal transitions. Regrettably, the development and implementation of concrete and practical solutions have not been forthcoming. These remain an urgent priority, and this book represents an important step forward. The individual contributions to this volume are united in their solution orientation. Together they provide an essential resource for researchers and practitioners who are interested in taking cutting-edge ideas and translating them into action. Ancoats, Manchester, UK

David M. Evans

Preface

This book Food Waste Management: Solving the Wicked Problem seeks to find solutions to the crucial sustainability challenge of reducing food waste. The book presents research-based solutions and practical insights for the multifaceted food waste problem, involving environmental, economic, social and ethical considerations. The book is a multidisciplinary effort which was initiated by the editors as part of a three-year research project “Consumer-citizens as active reducers of food waste” (Wastebusters) at Tampere University, Finland, during 2016–2019. This project has studied food waste reduction from the perspectives of consumption practices, networks of actors, meanings and discourses as well as market solutions. This edited book covers all these perspectives by bringing together insights from international food waste researchers who represent various disciplines. The common thread throughout the chapters is how the wicked problem of food waste can be solved at various levels of society. This solution-oriented approach of the book offers a much-needed contribution to food waste research. The book is a valuable resource for researchers and educators in many different fields including consumer research, sustainability research, environmental research, food studies and business management. ix

x      Preface

Furthermore, it provides insights and implications for policymakers, business developers, managers and executives, environmental designers, sustainability consulting agencies as well as social movement activists and influencers… and for all those interested in addressing this problem. The introductory chapter presents a framework for this book. The book is arranged into four parts. The first part focuses on changing the behaviour of actors at distribution and consumption levels. The second part examines how actors and activities are connected within systems. The third part focuses on how sociocultural meanings are constituted. The final part showcases innovative, practical solutions to food waste reduction. As editors, we would like to acknowledge and warmly thank a number of people for their input in this book project. First, we thank all the authors for their valuable contributions to this book. Your effort and cooperation as authors and peer reviewers have enabled this book to provide such varied and inspiring perspectives to the problem of food waste. We are also grateful to Professor David Evans for his support to this project and for his insightful foreword. We also wish to thank a number of colleagues who helped us as invited reviewers: Maria Antikainen, Minna Autio, Ciara Beausang, Marie Hebrok, Hanna-Mari Ikonen, Ari Jokinen, Marjo Siltaoja, Krista Willman and Mika Yrjölä. We are also thankful for the two research assistants, doctoral students Outi Koskinen and Taru Lehtokunnas, who helped us in technicalities and other issues assigned to them during this project. Janice Rayment at Roundhouse Indexing has provided her expertise in indexing the book for which we are also thankful. Further, we are thankful to Editor Madeleine Holder and Editorial Assistant Gabriel Everington at Palgrave Macmillan for providing us help in all kinds of questions throughout the publication process. We are also indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions for our book proposal. Their encouraging comments helped us to structure our ideas towards the final book. Finally, we want to thank the Emil Aaltonen Foundation for providing financial support for our “Wastebusters” research project during 2016–2019 as well as the Finnish Foundation for Economic Education

Preface     xi

for supporting this book project. We are thankful for the Faculty of Management and Business at the Tampere University, Finland, for providing us facilities for executing the research project. We also express our gratitude to our colleagues for their help and guidance in finalising this book. Tampere, Finland March 2019

Elina Närvänen Nina Mesiranta Malla Mattila Anna Heikkinen

Contents

1

Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste 1 Elina Närvänen, Nina Mesiranta, Malla Mattila and Anna Heikkinen

Part I Changing the Behaviour of Actors at Distribution and Consumption Levels 2

Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review 27 Lisanne van Geffen, Erica van Herpen and Hans van Trijp

3

Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability Meets Cost-Effectiveness 57 Anna de Visser-Amundson and Mirella Kleijnen

4

Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets 89 Christine Moser xiii

xiv      Contents

Part II  Connecting Actors and Activities Within Systems 5

The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement: Turning Sustainable Ideas into Business 115 Johanna F. Gollnhofer and Daniel Boller

6

Distributed Agency in Food Waste—A Focus on Non-human Actors in Retail Setting 141 Lotta Alhonnoro, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

7

Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer: A Socio-Ecological Approach to Food Waste in Environmental Design 169 Ellen Burke and N. Claire Napawan

8

Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste: Aligning and Leveraging Systems and Design Thinking 193 Danielle Lake, Amy McFarland and Jody Vogelzang

Part III  Constituting Sociocultural Meanings 9

Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns: A Visual Analysis 225 Ulla-Maija Sutinen

10 From Scarcity to Abundance: Food Waste Themes and Virtues in Agrarian and Mature Consumer Society 257 Outi Uusitalo and Tuomo Takala 11 Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste Reduction in Finnish Media Discourse 289 Liia-Maria Raippalinna

Contents     xv

Part IV  Innovating Practical Solutions 12 Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste 321 Trevor M. Fowles and Christian Nansen 13 Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms into Marketable Products 347 Christine M. Kowalczyk, Brian J. Taillon and Laura Hearn 14 Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens 367 Fabio de Almeida Oroski 15 ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction at City and Regional Levels in the EU 389 Samuel Féret 16 From Measurement to Management: Food Waste in the Finnish Food Chain 415 Hanna Hartikainen, Inkeri Riipi, Juha-Matti Katajajuuri and Kirsi Silvennoinen Index 441

Notes on Contributors

Lotta Alhonnoro,  M.Sc. (Economics) is finishing her doctoral degree in Marketing in the School of Marketing and Communication at the University of Vaasa, Finland. Her dissertation focuses on food waste, building on practice research and actor-network theory to understand the complex network of food waste. She has published various articles, including a book chapter on retail food waste in the book Seven Deadly Sins in Consumption (published by Edward Elgar Publishing). Daniel Boller is doctoral student in marketing at the University of St. Gallen, at the Institute for Customer Insight, Switzerland, and visiting student researcher at Stanford Graduate School of Business, USA. His research is primarily concerned with consumer decision-making in computer-mediated environment. Ellen Burke is Assistant Professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, USA. She designs and writes on resilience and regeneration in urban contexts, including food systems, novel ecologies, landscape performance technologies, and community-based environmental justice projects. She has published articles on sustainable food systems in Landscape Research, and the xvii

xviii      Notes on Contributors

Avery Review and her research investigations have been funded by ArtPlace America and the Landscape Architecture Foundation. Fabio de Almeida Oroski is Full Professor and Researcher at the Postgraduate and Graduate Programs in Food, Chemical and Biochemical Engineering at School of Chemistry of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. His main research topics are food waste reduction and valorisation; sustainable sociotechnical transitions focusing on bioeconomy; technological innovation management and business model innovation studies. Anna de Visser-Amundson is Doctorate Candidate at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, School of Business and Economics, the Netherlands, and a Research Fellow in Marketing at Hotelschool The Hague, the Netherlands. Her current research focuses on nudging to reduce food waste and the marketing of “rescued-based” food as one of the solutions to reduce food waste. Her work has been published in the Journal of Tourism Futures, Hospitality Management and Hospitality Technology and in numerous conference proceedings. Samuel Féret is senior project manager at CIHEAM-IAMM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies) in Montpellier, France. He coordinated the ECOWASTE4FOOD project in 2017–2018 which aims at supporting eco-innovations that contribute to prevent food waste at city and regional levels. Samuel Féret has an extensive experience in EU networks and policies dedicated to agriculture, rural development and interactive innovation. He has a postgraduate degree in sociology, innovation and risks. Trevor M. Fowles  is Ph.D. student in the Department of Entomology and Nematology at University of California, Davis, USA, who specialises on insect breeding, bioconversion of industrial food wastes and use of secondary insect-derived compounds. He completed a bachelor’s in biology at San Diego State University in 2011 before joining Campbell’s Tomatoes Seed Breeding Division, where he bred tomatoes, peppers and other row crops. Johanna F. Gollnhofer is Associate Professor at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Her research is mainly located in the area of food waste from theoretical and practical perspectives. Her work

Notes on Contributors     xix

is published in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management and the Journal of Macromarketing. Hanna Hartikainen, M.Sc. from Luke, Natural Resources Institute Finland, is experienced in quantitative and qualitative data collection methods and analysis. Her main fields of expertise are food waste and the environmental impacts of food. She is currently focusing her research on mechanisms that boost sustainable consumption and production, especially collaborative methods, service design and communication. Laura Hearn  is co-founder of Glean LLC, an innovative, agricultural start-up focused on creating sustainable, simple and honest label foods out of fresh fruits and vegetables. Her prior experience includes serving as the marketing director for Nash Produce, one of the largest cucumber and sweet potato processing facilities in the USA. She is a graduate of the College of Management at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC, USA. Anna Heikkinen, Ph.D. is University Lecturer of Management and Organisations at the Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Finland. Her research interests include sustainable development in and around organisations, urban nature and discourse analysis. Her work has been published in edited volumes and international journals, such as Journal of Business Ethics, Business Communication Quarterly and International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies. She has also co-edited this book. Juha-Matti Katajajuuri, M.Sc. is Senior Scientist at Luke, Natural Resources Institute Finland. He has expertise in several areas, especially in sustainable and responsible production and consumption, the circular economy related to the food system and food waste, and assessment of the environmental impacts of food and packaging systems. Mirella Kleijnen  is Full Professor in Customer Experience Management at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, School of Business and Economics, the Netherlands. Her current research interests include adoption versus resistance towards innovation, customer experience management, digital marketing and more recently health marketing.

xx      Notes on Contributors

Her work has been published in several academic journals, among which Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Services Research, International Journal of Management Reviews, Journal of Interactive Marketing and Journal of Retailing. Christine M. Kowalczyk  holds a Ph.D. from the University of Memphis and is Associate Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at the College of Business at East Carolina University in Greenville, NC, USA. Her research focuses on branding, celebrities and non-traditional advertising as well as the impact of public policy on these topics. Danielle Lake is the Director of Design Thinking and Associate Professor at Elon University, USA. Her scholarship bridges research on design thinking and wicked problems with the public engagement movement, seeking methods that foster more inclusive, just, and resilient individuals and communities. These commitments have led to cross-institutional research examining the challenges of place-based collaborative engagement projects surrounding issues of food justice, crime and community, and educational attainment. She is the recipient of the John Saltmarsh Award for Emerging Leaders in Civic Engagement and the John Lachs award for Public Philosophy. Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen holds a Ph.D. in Marketing and is Associate Professor in the School of Marketing and Communication at the University of Vaasa, Finland. Her research interests focus on cultural consumer research, food-related consumption and sustainable consumption. She has published, for example, in Journal of Consumer Culture, Research in Consumer Behavior: Consumer Culture Theory and Qualitative Market Research. She has co-edited the book Seven Deadly Sins in Consumption (published by Edward Elgar Publishing). Malla Mattila, Ph.D. currently works as University Instructor (Master’s Degree Programme in Leadership for Change) at the Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Finland. Her research interests include food waste reduction, sociomateriality, sustainable business models, and networked innovation and commercialisation processes. She has published her research in such scholarly periodicals as Time & Society, Journal of Cleaner Production,

Notes on Contributors     xxi

IMP Journal and International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. She has also co-edited this book. Amy McFarland  is Assistant Professor of Food and Agriculture in the Meijer Honors College of Grand Valley State University, USA, jointly appointment in Environmental Studies. She has an interdisciplinary academic background with a Ph.D. in horticulture and researches ­sociocultural influences on and from agriculture and the environment. She works closely with students and faculty from across the university to create a learning laboratory at the student farm, the Sustainable Agriculture Project where students apply skills learned in the classroom. Nina Mesiranta, Ph.D. is currently Postdoctoral Researcher in the Wastebusters research project focusing on food waste reduction at the Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Finland. Her research interests are also related to interpretive consumer research, especially consumer online shopping experiences and social media. She has published, for instance, in Journal of Cleaner Production, Time & Society, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services and Advances in Consumer Research. She has also co-edited this book. Christine Moser is Assistant Professor of Organization Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. In her research, she is among others interested in how food (waste) is organised. She studies corporate social responsibility and offline and online collaboration and knowledge sharing. Her research has been published among others in New Media and Society, Research in the Sociology of Organizations and Information Systems Journal. She is a guest editor for Organization Studies and has recently co-edited a volume of Research in the Sociology of Organization. Elina Närvänen, Ph.D. is University Lecturer of Marketing at the Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Finland. She is the leader of the Wastebusters research project, focused on the reduction of food waste (2016–2019). Her research interests are related to consumer research, particularly from a sociocultural perspective. She has studied consumption and brand communities, sustainable consumption practices, food consumption and qualitative research methodologies.

xxii      Notes on Contributors

Her research has been published in, for example, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Service Management, European Journal of Marketing and Consumption Markets & Culture. She has also co-edited this book. Christian Nansen is Associate Professor in the Department of Entomology and Nematology, at University of California, Davis, USA. He specialises in applied insect ecology, IPM and remote sensing. Nansen completed his Ph.D. in Zoology at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, before joining the UC Davis faculty in 2014. He has also held faculty positions at Texas A&M, Texas Tech and most recently at the University of Western Australia. N. Claire Napawan is Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture + Environmental Design at the University of California, Davis, USA. Her research focuses on urban public open spaces and their contribution to urban resilience, including the development of new techniques for integrating urban communities with their built environments. She has published articles on sustainable food systems in Spaces and Flows: Journal of Urban and Extra-Urban Studies, Landscape Research and Journal of Urbanism. In 2015, she was awarded the top honour of Vanguard by Next City, a non-profit organisation tasked with promoting sustainable cities. Liia-Maria Raippalinna, M.A. is Ph.D. student of Ethnology and Anthropology at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her doctoral dissertation investigates food waste reduction and consumer responsibility in Finnish media discourse and among consumer-citizens. Interested in environmental issues, she is a member of the School of Resource Wisdom, University of Jyväskylä. Inkeri Riipi,  M.Sc. is from Luke, Natural Resources Institute Finland. Her area of expertise includes qualitative data collection and participatory methods. She has experience in sustainable and responsible food production and consumption, food waste and environmental management. Kirsi Silvennoinen,  M.Sc. is from Luke, Natural Resources Institute Finland. Her field of expertise is the ecology of food systems, and she is currently finalising her Ph.D. concerning food waste in households and the hospitality sector.

Notes on Contributors     xxiii

Ulla-Maija Sutinen  is Doctoral Researcher and University Instructor at the Faculty of Management and Business at Tampere University, Finland. Her research interests revolve around interpretive consumer research, sustainable consumption and social marketing, which are also the main themes of her doctoral dissertation. Her work has been published in Journal of Cleaner Production, Time & Society and The International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research. Henna Syrjälä  works as Assistant Professor in the School of Marketing and Communication, University of Vaasa, Finland, and holds the title of Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Her research focuses on cultural and transformative consumer research. She has published in Journal of Business Research, Journal of Consumer Culture and Research in Consumer Behavior: Consumer Culture Theory. She has co-edited the books Seven Deadly Sins in Consumption (Edward Elgar Publishing) and Multifaceted Autoethnography (Nova Science Publishing). Brian J. Taillon holds a Ph.D. from New Mexico State University, USA, and is Assistant Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at the College of Business at East Carolina University in Greenville, NC, USA. His research interests include marketing communications, consumer behaviour and retailing. He is especially interested in consumer responses to mental imagery in advertising. Tuomo Takala,  Ph.D. is Professor of Management and Leadership at the Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics, Finland. Professor Takala conducts research by using qualitative research methods. One of his current projects is “Power of charisma and storytelling”. In his research, he also focuses on business ethics and corporate responsibility. Outi Uusitalo, Ph.D. is Professor of Marketing at the Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics, Finland. Her current research delves into consumer behaviour, sustainable marketing and consumption, services marketing and management, places and spaces of consumption, and consumers’ financial well-being. She is leading the Sustainable Business Research Group at the University of Jyväskylä.

xxiv      Notes on Contributors

Lisanne van Geffen is Ph.D. at the Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group of Wageningen University, the Netherlands. Her research focus lies on understanding the mechanisms behind avoidable food waste in households. She takes an inclusive perspective by focusing on individual, social and societal factors driving food waste. Erica van Herpen  is Associate Professor at the Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group of Wageningen University, the Netherlands. Her research focuses on consumer evaluation, use of and choice from (food) assortments. She examines consumer decisions in retail settings, studying how the presentation of products and of the store itself affect consumer behaviour, and how consumers can be stimulated to buy more healthful and/or more sustainable products. Additionally, her research centres on how household practices regarding the food assortment at home influence food waste. Hans van Trijp is Chair and Full Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. He received his Ph.D. in Marketing at Wageningen University and has combined his job in Academia with an affiliation in food industry for many years. His research focuses on marketing and consumer behaviour, primarily from a “social” marketing perspective, namely how these insights can be used and extended to the case of consumption and production of healthy and sustainable products. Jody Vogelzang  is Assistant Professor at Grand Valley State University, USA, and a registered dietitian with a Ph.D. in health services and a specialisation in community health. Her research focuses on the complexity of poverty, specifically as it manifests in food insecurity and hunger. She has been involved in Design Thinking at Grand Valley State University for the past three years and has presented at national conferences on the adaptability of this process in solving multi-layered complex problems. Vogelzang is the recipient of the Excellence in Practice Award in Public Health Nutrition from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 2.1 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.7 Fig. 3.8 Fig. 3.9 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2

Framework for solving the wicked problem of food waste 6 Household food management. Dashed lines indicate food movement between stages, solid lines indicate waste 29 Social norms nudges (Study A) 71 Average food wasted per day during the experiment (Study A) 72 Average food wasted per day of the week during the experiment (Study A) 73 Daily food wastage (Study A) 74 Pre-commitment nudge (Study B) 76 Reminder smileys (Study B) 77 Average food wasted per day during the experiment (Study B) 78 Average food wasted per day of the week during the experiment (Study B) 79 Daily food wastage (Study B) 80 Google search request for ‘dumpster diving’ (own composition) 124 Bread packages marked with discount sticker buried underneath new products 154 The waste trolley 160 xxv

xxvi      List of Figures

Fig. 7.1

Residential sanitary sewer overflows in San Jose, 2009–2011 (Image created by Brett Snyder and N. Claire Napawan on behalf of the City of San Jose 2014–2015 and used here with permission of the copyright owners) Fig. 7.2 Community co-designed graphics, illustrating connections between kitchens and city infrastructure (Image created by Brett Snyder and N. Claire Napawan on behalf of the City of San Jose 2014–2015 and used here with permission of the copyright owners) Fig. 7.3 Social media content related to #FOGWASTE (Image created by Brett Snyder and N. Claire Napawan on behalf of the City of San Jose 2014–2015 and used here with permission of the copyright owners) Fig. 8.1 Design thinking process Fig. 9.1 Phases of data generation Fig. 9.2 Economical consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola) Fig. 9.3 Environmental consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola) Fig. 9.4 Ethical consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola) Fig. 9.5 Childlike consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola) Fig. 9.6 Uninformed consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola) Fig. 9.7 Active consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola) Fig. 11.1 Number of articles featuring the discourses of consumer mobilisation Fig. 12.1 Two adult black Soldier flies. Adults live only a couple of weeks, while they mate and lay eggs (a). Black soldier fly larvae on restaurant waste (b). Once growing to their full size, larvae exhibit self-extraction behaviours and move away from their food source

182

184

185 205 233 238 240 241 244 245 246 297

325

List of Figures     xxvii

Fig. 12.2 Typical business process for insect-based bioconversion of food waste. Note that value can be extracted from both the elimination of waste and downstream materials, such as insect protein (biomass), oils, frass, and pharmaceutical ingredients (Image is modified from an original design by www.eawag.ch/ and licensed under CC BY 2.0.) Fig. 12.3 Representative process for production of insect biodiesel Fig. 14.1 A group of proposed questions about type of organisation and business model components Fig. 14.2 Four business model types of food waste reducing apps Fig. 15.1 Food waste innovations matrix (Source Ecowaste4food) Fig. 15.2 Microwave vacuum dryer at MicroFood company (Credit S. Féret) Fig. 15.3 A.S.O.P. “Dimitra” facilities in Velventos (Credit S. Féret) Fig. 15.4 Meal tray at Avignon hospital (Credit S. Féret) Fig. 15.5 Waste sorting in a Catalan school canteen (Credit Waste Agency of Catalonia) Fig. 16.1 Quality standard for food waste data collection in Finland

330 334 373 384 397 401 403 405 407 419

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 5.1 Table 9.1 Table 9.2 Table 9.3 Table 10.1 Table 10.2 Table 12.1 Table 12.2 Table 14.1 Table 15.1 Table 16.1 Table 16.2

Potential interventions against household food waste Models of behavioural change Businesses that incorporate the anti-food waste idea Description of data Assumptions related to orientation Assumptions related to agency Summary of data Changing themes and virtues of food waste in different times Some insects used for bioconversion, the different wastes that they can be fed, and the final products Examples of insect bioconversion companies. Reduction rates estimated from a Feed Conversion Ratio of 1.7 and 68% moisture content of extracted larvae Brief description of selected food waste reducing apps Cases for food waste reduction List of what needs to be considered in future questionnaires (Luke 2018b; Joensuu et al., forthcoming) Data collection methods and the desired sample sizes for each step of the food chain

38 63 129 235 242 247 268 279 326 331 375 399 425 434 xxix

1 Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste Elina Närvänen, Nina Mesiranta, Malla Mattila and Anna Heikkinen

The Wicked Problem of Food Waste There is an increasing political and scientific consensus about the need to reduce global food waste. In 2015, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 set the target of “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including postharvest losses” (United Nations 2015). This target stems from a broad understanding of the negative consequences of food losses and waste, E. Närvänen (*) · N. Mesiranta · M. Mattila · A. Heikkinen  Tampere University, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] N. Mesiranta e-mail: [email protected] M. Mattila e-mail: [email protected] A. Heikkinen e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_1

1

2     E. Närvänen et al.

including the waste of land, water and energy, while causing unnecessary emissions of greenhouse gases. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has estimated that food losses and waste account for more than 10% of global energy consumption (FAO 2017). Hence, food waste is a major contributor to climate change. Furthermore, wasting food is a moral concern, since it impacts global food security and increases the gap between affluent and lowincome people. Food produced for human consumption is wasted at the same time as a large part of the global population suffers from hunger and malnutrition. From an economic point of view, inefficiencies accrue from food losses and waste for both organisations such as farms, food manufacturers, retailers and restaurants and households. Food waste can be characterised as a “wicked problem” (Närvänen et al. 2019), which are defined as unstructured, cross-cutting and relentless (Weber and Khademian 2008; see also Rittel and Webber 1973). We elaborate on these characteristics of food waste as a wicked problem in this introduction for the book Food Waste Management: Solving the Wicked Problem. Firstly, food waste is an unstructured problem, because its precise causes and effects are difficult to identify, and there is no shared problem definition. Even though there is now a growing body of research focussing on food waste quantification and measurement (see, e.g., Parfitt et al. 2010; Thyberg et al. 2015; Xue et al. 2017; see Hartikainen et al., Chapter 16) as well as its key antecedents (see, e.g., AschemannWitzel et al. 2015; Porpino et al. 2015; Stancu et al. 2016), there is no unified agreement on the definition of food waste. Some definitions take into account both food loss and waste (Buzby et al. 2014; Gustavsson et al. 2011) throughout the food system, while others highlight dimensions such as edibility versus inedibility or avoidability versus unavoidability (see, e.g., Blichfeldt et al. 2015; Papargyropoulou et al. 2014; Katajajuuri et al. 2014). In this book, we adopt a broad perspective and consider all types of food surplus, loss and waste within the food system. Even though food waste can be defined in various ways, a solution orientation is essential. One approach for evaluating the different types of solutions is the food waste hierarchy. It refers to the order of preference for action

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     3

suggested by governmental bodies and political institutions both in the European Union (EU) (ECA 2016; Papargyropoulou et al. 2014) and in the United States (US) (EPA, n.d.). The primary focus should be on actions that prevent food waste from occurring. The second most preferred measures are those that utilise surplus food or potential food waste for feeding people, that is, mainly food donations. If this is not possible, the next level suggests food waste should be used as an animal feed. The bottom levels, or least preferred actions, relate to recycling food waste into compost or converting it into biogas or biodiesel. The least preferred option is the disposal of food waste into landfills or by incineration. It must, however, be noted that no solution can solve the whole problem (Weber and Khademian 2008), and, hence, each solution also changes how the problem of food waste is perceived. The solutions for tackling the food waste problem—such as reducing it at the source, distributing it to people in need and reusing it to feed animals—may also compete with each other (Mourad 2016). For instance, depending on the solution, food waste can be seen as a problem to be addressed, as food or as a resource for further processing. Furthermore, the boundary between food and waste is often negotiable in everyday life, and, hence, for actors attempting to reduce food waste, the phenomenon is always context-bound and dynamic (Mattila et al. 2018b). Secondly, food waste is also a cross-cutting problem as it involves many stakeholders in the food system from farm to fork (Parfitt et al. 2010). However, according to statistics, in the developed world, food waste occurs mainly at the end of the food chain: by food distribution and especially households (Bräutigam et al. 2014). According to the FAO (Gustavsson et al. 2011), the total estimate of food losses and waste is about one-third of edible food produced, or 1.3 billion tonnes per year. In the developed countries, more than 40% of food waste emerges at the retail and consumption levels. In developing countries, in contrast, most of the food losses and waste occur in the post-harvest and processing stages. Also, food waste-related scientific research has focussed mainly on the developed countries and downstream food waste, especially on the consumer or household level, but also on retailers, hotels and restaurants (see, e.g., Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2015, 2016;

4     E. Närvänen et al.

Filimonau and Gherbin 2017; Garrone et al. 2014; Graham-Rowe et al. 2014; Papargyropoulou et al. 2016; Parfitt et al. 2010). Many of the suggested solutions for reducing food waste in the literature have focussed on changing the attitudes and behaviour of individuals (see van Geffen et al., Chapter 2), for example through awareness-raising informational campaigns (for a review, see Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2017; Quested et al. 2013; see Sutinen, Chapter 9). More recently, other types of interventions such as those based on behavioural economics (Wansink 2018; see de VisserAmundson and Kleijnen, Chapter 3) and design thinking or technological innovations (Hebrok and Boks 2017; see Burke and Napawan, Chapter 7; Lake et al., Chapter 8) have been suggested to complement the informational interventions. Some countries, such as South Korea, have even utilised public policy interventions through regulations that are intended to reduce household food waste and increase its recycling. In South Korea, households are now charged based on the food waste they have produced, and regulations have been recently amended to enable converting the resulting food waste with the help of insects into animal feed (Bagherzadeh et al. 2014; Jackson 2018; see Fowles and Nansen, Chapter 12). In addition to behaviour change, some existing solutions concern organisations’ strategies, such as linking food waste reduction with corporate social responsibility (CSR) (see Moser, Chapter 4). Many retailers have in recent years started to voluntarily reduce their food waste by, for instance, donating food to charities and food banks, or redirecting their waste to be used for biofuel production. Furthermore, retailers occupy a critical intermediary position (Welch et al. 2018) and thus can impact their own food waste but also that of other actors, such as farmers and consumers (see Gollnhofer and Boller, Chapter 5; Alhonnoro et al., Chapter 6). Some European countries, such as France and Italy, have also set legal obligations for retailers to donate food (Vaqué 2017). Different policy-level solutions regarding retailer food waste have been identified, including awareness campaigns and changing legislation, norms and standards related to labelling, product standards and food donation (Gruber et al. 2016).

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     5

However, in developing solutions for food waste reduction, it must be acknowledged that even though food distributors and households may produce the greatest amount of (quantifiable) food waste, they should not be held exclusively responsible for its emergence (Evans 2011). Instead, food waste occurs at the intersection of several influences across the food system. These include the myriad ways in which food is, for instance, produced, transported, processed, packaged and stored on the supermarket shelves and at home. For instance, at the consumer level, many routines and contexts influence the emergence of food waste, not only those directly related to the disposal of food (Evans 2014). Various value trade-offs characterise food waste as a wicked problem—actors must often balance between different societal values (Cappellini 2009; Cappellini and Parsons 2012; Evans 2012a, b; Devin and Richards 2018; Welch et al. 2018). The ethical values and principles connected with food waste that influence actors’ perceptions of the problem have a significant impact on the suggested solutions and how they are mobilised by actors (see Uusitalo and Takala, Chapter 10; Raippalinna, Chapter 11). Finally, food waste represents a relentless problem, which cannot be solved once and for all (Weber and Khademian 2008). Wicked problems require various actors to be engaged in solving them through different activities and at different levels. In addition to the aforementioned political momentum, both private and public as well as third sector organisations are involved in innovating solutions for the problem of food waste (see Kowalczyk et al., Chapter 13; Féret, Chapter 15). The food bank system, distributing surplus food from retailers to those in need, has existed for decades and operates globally through different formats. However, traditionally it has been organised by the third sector and has not aimed directly at reducing food waste but rather at solving food insecurity (Galli et al. 2019; Lohnes and Wilson 2018). In recent years, food waste reduction has started to generate interest in the business sphere as well. Food waste reduction and prevention has generated various opportunities for new innovations. ReFED (2018)—a multistakeholder non-profit dedicated to reducing food waste in the US— has reported that in the US alone, more than $125 million venture capital and private equity funding was invested in food waste start-ups

6     E. Närvänen et al.

during the 10 first months of 2018. In Europe, the Food Waste Innovation Network (FoodWIN)—an online platform for food waste innovators and entrepreneurs established in 2014—has over 200 members around Europe that work in the domain of food waste (FoodWIN, n.d.). In the US, ReFED currently lists over 400 non-profit and forprofit organisations throughout the US in their innovator database. Many of the new business models that operate in the field of food waste prevention and reduction are based on utilising the benefits of digitalisation and the platform economy (Mattila et al. 2018a; see de Almeida Oroski, Chapter 14). Furthermore, often the new innovations question and renew the institutional elements, such as norms, symbols and practices, related to food waste emergence (Baron et al. 2018). Also, a “community” perspective has been adopted, wherein food banks and social supermarkets are perceived as key actors in reducing food waste (Michelini et al. 2018). This book applies diverse perspectives to reducing food waste (see Fig. 1.1). The chapters in Part I focus on the level of individual actors and how their behaviour can be changed to address the problem. The chapters in Part II focus more on how actors and activities are

Fig. 1.1  Framework for solving the wicked problem of food waste

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     7

connected at the system level—how food waste reduction is diffused and enacted within different social and material contexts. The chapters in Part III highlight the different sociocultural discourses framing food waste reduction efforts, especially in the media. Furthermore, the chapters in the book’s final section, Part IV, introduce cross-cutting cases of food waste reduction. The book is a multidisciplinary project, combining research from the social sciences including business studies, consumer research, marketing, media studies, design thinking and environmental research. What is common to the chapters of the book is a strong focus on the solutions needed to reduce and prevent food waste. In the book, food waste management is perceived as a multilevel, multi-actor effort to prevent and reduce food waste through various solutions. In our view, it may include, for instance, enacting food management skills at households, stores and restaurants, managing supply and demand for food at all levels and, finally, managing what happens after food becomes inedible to humans. Hence, it is not only a technical solution related to handling waste. As the framework illustrates, food waste management requires shared responsibility of all actors at multiple levels from everyday life to policy level.

Managing Food Waste Reduction—Introducing the Book’s Chapters Part I—Changing the Behaviour of Actors at the Distribution and Consumption Levels The first part of the book addresses the practices and strategies for reducing food waste in households, supermarkets and professional kitchens. Since retailers and consumers have been identified in many studies as producing the most food waste, the majority of previous academic food waste research concerns these actors. The perspective of behavioural change is interested in questions such as: How can people’s food waste-related behaviours be changed? What kinds of interventions

8     E. Närvänen et al.

are most effective? What kinds of everyday practices prevent food waste and how can these practices be encouraged? Studies focussing on consumer food waste have drawn broadly from two different perspectives: individual and societal (see also Hebrok and Boks 2017). Within the individual perspective, consumers’ decisionmaking processes, motivations, attitudes and behaviours have been studied extensively, utilising, for instance, the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Block et al. 2016; Graham-Rowe et al. 2015). Studies have called for informational campaigns and interventions to change the behaviour of individual consumers (for a review, see Hebrok and Boks 2017). However, it has also been argued that informational campaigns on their own are not very effective, and many different kinds of interventions, including those that target both the antecedents and the consequences of food waste behaviour, are needed (Stöckli et al. 2018). In addition, positive meanings related to food waste reduction, such as creativity and aesthetics, have been suggested as beneficial especially in social media campaigns (Närvänen et al. 2018b). Secondly, the societal perspective to food waste reduction has drawn from sociology and criticised some of the basic assumptions involved in the individual perspective (Evans 2012a; Southerton and Yates 2015). These include questioning the ability of changes in attitude to impact people’s behaviour. Food waste is not a behaviour that people perform intentionally. Rather, it is the consequence of a variety of everyday life practices taking place in social and material contexts that influence how people act (Evans 2011). Many studies have drawn from the practice-theoretical view—analysing the ways in which food waste can be reduced by changing the elements of everyday practices such as materials, meanings and competences (Närvänen et al. 2013, 2016; Mattila et al. 2018b; Hebrok and Heidenstrøm 2019). Furthermore, the societal perspective draws attention to the active agency of people in reducing food waste. Consumers may be perceived as active agents rather than passive targets of initiatives such as educational campaigns (Närvänen et al. 2018a). Examples of active consumer–citizenship initiatives and movements include freegans or dumpster divers (Gollnhofer 2017), volunteer “foodsavers” (Schanes and Stagl 2019) and food bloggers (Närvänen et al. 2013). The individual and societal perspectives

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     9

have so far remained quite separate, even though they complement each other and could provide new insights on driving sustainable change at the level of individual actors. In Chapter 2, Lisanne van Geffen, Erica van Herpen and Hans van Trijp build an integrative review of the existing literature to evaluate the drivers and constraints for behavioural change to reduce consumer food waste. The aim of the chapter is to offer suggestions and guidelines for interventions to prevent behaviours that lead to food waste. Van Geffen et al. encourage practitioners to focus on two kinds of interventions: those that focus on goal setting and those that focus on goal striving. In Chapter 3, Anna de Visser-Amundson and Mirella Kleijnen study nudging as a strategy for food waste reduction in professional kitchens and the significance of pre-commitment and setting of social norms to promote the behavioural change of employees. They argue that costefficiency and waste prevention can be compatible goals while still providing service excellence. The empirical results demonstrate that ­changing the choice architecture at the professional kitchens has an impact on food waste. In Chapter 4, Christine Moser builds on practice theory and discusses managers’ food waste reduction practices in supermarkets. She illustrates how supermarket managers enact a set of practices to reduce food waste in order to engage in micro-level CSR. Moser’s analysis identifies the practices of monitoring food waste, sharing knowledge and collaborating with external stakeholders as relevant in attempting to reduce supermarket food waste. The chapter also contains practical suggestions for managing food waste at the retail level.

Part II—Connecting Actors and Activities Within Systems The second part of the book focusses on the interconnections of actors and activities while making the effort to reduce food waste. This part is interested in questions such as: How are different actors in the food system connected with each other? How do these relations and interdependencies help in understanding food waste reduction at the systems level? How can different perspectives be combined to create crossdisciplinary insight and innovative solutions?

10     E. Närvänen et al.

Food waste studies have recognised the need to analyse the food system as a whole instead of focussing only on single predefined actors (see, e.g., Garrone et al. 2014; Göbel et al. 2015; Halloran et al. 2014; Parfitt et al. 2010). However, often the linear metaphor of a “food chain” is used to describe how food waste emerges at different stages of food production and consumption. Food waste does not always emerge in this linear way: the root causes of, for example, retailer and consumer food waste may lie elsewhere in the system (Alexander et al. 2013). Furthermore, the power relations between different actors, such as farmers and retailers, influence food waste: while retailers claim to reduce food waste, their standards create it elsewhere in the system (Devin and Richards 2018). On the other hand, actors may also facilitate other actors’ food waste reduction, such as when retailers improve the packaging, pricing strategies and communications targeted at consumers in order to affect a change in household food waste (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2016). These interdependencies and complex relations between the actors and activities in the food system are seldom identified. Exceptions to this include studies that have addressed global and intersectoral connections in food waste reduction by adopting a food systems approach (Galli et al. 2019), food waste regime approach (Gille 2012) and service ecosystem perspective (Baron et al. 2018). These studies highlight that in order to accomplish systemic change towards sustainability, institutional structures need to be disrupted. Technological innovations or isolated, stand-alone solutions will not be enough to accomplish systemic change. The chapters of this section of the book discuss the interdependencies of actors and activities in the food (waste) system from various perspectives, including the public/private, visible/invisible and human/non-human. In Chapter 5, Johanna Gollnhofer and Daniel Boller show how the business practice of selling ugly fruit has its roots in the German anti-food waste movement and activism. After dumpster divers had increased the awareness of retail food waste, food-sharing organisations started to collaborate with retailers. Finally, retailers started to monetise these anti-food waste practices by selling ugly fruit and vegetables.

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     11

The chapter shows how the seemingly distinct interests of actors can co-evolve in the quest to solve systemic challenges. In addition to acknowledging human actors and their interconnected relationships, some studies have emphasised the critical role of various objects and materials in the wicked problem of food waste, such as domestic technologies, foodstuffs and food containers (Evans 2018; Waitt and Phillips 2016; Watson and Meah 2012; Mattila et al. 2018b; Hebrok and Heidenstrøm 2019). These studies posit that food and waste are to be considered lively (more-than-human) matters. As such, they contain negotiable boundaries and, consequently, ephemeral “becomings”. Thus, the studies argue that transformations of food into waste and ways to mitigate these occurrences need to be understood in relation to multiple, continual and complex movements among various interconnected human and non-human actors. Recently, this metaphorical systems view has been extended to a retail setting (Midgley 2019). In Chapter 6, Lotta Alhonnoro, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä present a novel approach to the issue by focussing on the interactions of various heterogeneous actors in a supermarket’s bread and bakery section, and how they may—or may not—generate food waste. The study shows that employees’ everyday working practices involve several situations and activities in which multiple human and non-human actors together engage in negotiating and setting boundaries between saleable and non-saleable bread and bakery products and, further, between food and waste. Without giving careful attention to various materials, the many ways to influence food waste reduction in the retail setting may be ignored. The following two chapters in this part move from focussing on a single site such as a retailer to analysing how practices traditionally perceived to take place in one site, such as the home, are actually connected to larger systems, such as the sewer system. Both Chapters 7 and 8 criticise the ability of stand-alone techno-scientific interventions to solve the wicked problem of food waste. In Chapter 7, Ellen Burke and N. Claire Napawan assess the role of environmental design in addressing food waste and suggest a socioecological approach to environmental design to create effective solutions to food waste. They utilise different approaches: urban metabolism,

12     E. Närvänen et al.

community resilience and participatory design as well as ecofeminism to discuss the case of #FOGWASTE—a project commissioned by the City of San Jose, California, in the US—educating and activating citizens in the context of liquid food waste (fats, oils and grease). Burke and Napawan argue for a more fluid approach to environmental design where the interdependence of domestic practices, urban infrastructure and natural systems is recognised. In Chapter 8, Danielle Lake, Amy McFarland and Jody Vogelzang discuss how systems thinking and design thinking can be combined to develop interventions to reduce food waste. Drawing insights from these approaches, the authors suggest ten strategies for change agents (e.g. activists, policymakers, purchasing agents and restaurant managers) to plan and implement resilient interventions. The authors illustrate these strategies by analysing a case of a transdisciplinary living lab, “Wealth from Waste”, in two universities in Sydney, Australia. In the case, the students, faculty members and industry representatives were invited to co-create interventions that fit the proposed strategies. All in all, the authors argue for solutions that are transdisciplinary, holistic and systematic.

Part III—Constituting Sociocultural Meanings The third part of the book presents a sociocultural view of food waste reduction. The view directs attention to the various meanings, understandings, discourses and values that are constructed, maintained and reconstructed in the society. These sociocultural meanings of food waste allow for understanding how the issue is interlinked with the development of the society. Consequently, the sociocultural view is interested in questions such as: How do the meanings of food waste evolve and vary? Why, in different spatial and temporal contexts, might food waste be seen as a key challenge for humanity, a business opportunity or a non-issue? What are the consequences of such views? The sociocultural view is grounded in the linguistic turn originating from social sciences and in social constructionism (Berger and Luckmann 1966). According to the social constructionist tradition,

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     13

social reality is created and maintained by humans in social interactions. Furthermore, social activity is seen as a linguistic and discursive process constructing social phenomena with material consequences (Burr 1995; Crotty 1998). The particular appeal of focussing on language use and accepting the material consequences of such activity is that this approach, basically, offers possibilities for understanding the origins of and motivations for actions (Heikkinen et al. 2017; Joutsenvirta 2009). This approach also allows for the intended and unintended consequences of language use to be scrutinised. Thus, the research interest becomes located on how certain ways of talking about and understanding food waste may facilitate or hinder the efforts of steering corporate or consumer behaviour (Evans et al. 2012; Joutsenvirta 2009). To sum up, the sociocultural view of food waste builds on two focal notions. First, language is not a transparent medium to “reality”; rather, language constructs, maintains and recreates social realities. Second, meanings and discourses are viewed as constituting and being constituted by the social and cultural norms, values and habits related to practices of food waste reduction. Previous research on food waste utilising the sociocultural perspective has been scattered among different disciplines, such as sociology, marketing and consumer research, management and organisation studies and environmental policy research (for a discussion, see Evans et al. 2012). Culturally and linguistically oriented food waste literature has examined, firstly, how food waste can be defined. This means studying how the edibility or inedibility of food is culturally and socially constructed; that is, how food is re-conceptualised as waste (Blichfeldt et al. 2015; Brunori et al. 2013; Campbell et al. 2017; Evans 2011, 2012b; Evans et al. 2012; Thompson and Haigh 2017). Secondly, and building on the first point, attention has been paid to the consequences and significance of food waste understandings. This approach seeks to explicate the sociocultural—including the political, economic and ideological— relationships in which food waste is embedded (Evans et al. 2012). In research, this means asking how the ways of talking about and understanding food waste are linked to the actions of individuals, groups, organisations and society at large (Närvänen et al. 2016). While there has been increased attention on the sociocultural view of food waste,

14     E. Närvänen et al.

research is still limited in understanding how societal actors, media, marketing professionals, managers and consumers, among others, describe and explain the issues of food waste and food waste reduction. The three articles in this book make an insightful contribution to this area of research. The third part of the book consists of three chapters that examine the sociocultural meanings of food waste in different texts. The socio­ cultural view brings forth the non-places along with the places, such as supermarkets and households, where food waste meanings are constructed. Previous research on non-places has examined, for instance, reality television programmes (Thompson and Haigh 2017) and public discourse taking place in the entertainment media, popular press and news media (Frye and Fox 2015). In this part, the focus is particularly on non-places, such as consumer educational campaign material and media texts. In Chapter 9, Ulla-Maija Sutinen examines what kinds of assumptions about consumers are constructed in the visual material of food waste campaigns. This chapter builds on the social marketing and consumer behaviour change literatures and utilises semiotic analysis to explicate the visual materials of 14 food waste campaigns organised in Finland and Sweden. Sutinen presents six assumptions about consumers reflecting the assumed orientation and agency of consumers. The chapters suggest that currently the cognitive approach emphasising the rationality of consumers prevails in the campaigns and that change in consumer behaviour can be advanced by constructing campaigns that also utilise affective, conative and sociocultural approaches. Food waste meanings are often discussed in relation to the ethical, moral and value-laden aspects of food waste (Thompson and Haigh 2017), CSR and power (Devin and Richards 2018). Chapter 10 by Outi Uusitalo and Tuomo Takala focusses on the societal values, virtues and practices that foster food waste reduction. The chapter sheds light on the so far scarcely researched socio-philosophical and ethical issues underlying food waste behaviour in the food chain. Uusitalo and Takala analyse Finnish media texts and show how virtues related to food waste practices have manifested themselves in agrarian (1885–1917) and mature consumer society (2008–2017). This chapter highlights how

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     15

ethical principles can underpin our understanding of food waste and how food chain actors’ virtues can guide practices towards more sustainable ways of handling excess food. Another focal topic related to the sociocultural approach is the responsibilisation and mobilisation of consumers (Evans et al. 2017). Continuing with a focus on Finnish media texts, Chapter 11 by LiiaMaria Raippalinna analyses how consumers are mobilised for food waste reduction in media discourse. The chapter builds on governmentality studies and practice theoretical approach to sustainable consumption. By using critical discourse analysis, Raippalinna analyses the discursive construction of food waste and consumers in the leading Finnish newspaper during 2010–2017. The findings present three discourses of consumer mobilisation: scientific-political discourse, home economics discourse and the discourse of new urban food culture. Raippalinna argues that any transformation of consumer food waste practices requires that media discourse integrates and normalises food waste prevention and reduction as a part of all media discourses and genres.

Part IV—Innovating Practical Solutions The fourth and final part of this book includes five chapters showcasing various types of practical solutions and innovations to food waste reduction and prevention. In Chapter 12, Trevor M. Fowles and Christian Nansen discuss how utilising various insects to process food waste— that is, insect-based bioconversion—can provide a solution to turn food waste into valuable materials. This process—offering viable business opportunities as well—allows food waste to be converted into animal feed and food for people as well as into secondary industrial compounds such as biofuel or pharmaceuticals. After conversion, the leftover waste can be further used, for example, as a soil amendment. Even though not encouraging prevention of food waste per se, insect-based bioconversion is an example of a solution that diverts food waste back into different levels of the food waste hierarchy. In Chapter 13, Christine Kowalczyk, Brian J. Taillon and Laura Hearn present another opportunity for waste reduction in the often

16     E. Närvänen et al.

neglected farming industry where food waste has become a problem, also creating economic losses for farmers. In their article, they discuss the benefits of gleaning—recovering farm produce left behind after harvesting due to, for example, strict cosmetic standards—and how the challenges of a more traditional gleaning model (where volunteers glean farm produce for charities and food banks) can be overcome through introducing a gleaning business model. To continue with solutions that are enabled more by technology, in Chapter 14, Fabio de Almeida Oroski analyses the business models of various applications designed to sell or donate surplus food on digital platforms. As reusing surplus food for human consumption is often a race against time (before the food becomes unfit for humans), digital platforms bring together and can facilitate transactions between those actors with a supply of surplus food (e.g. restaurants, retailers and consumers) and those that require surplus food (e.g. food banks and charities). As de Almeida Oroski illustrates, digital platforms and applications can be beneficial for both non-profit and for-profit organisations. The final two chapters in the fourth part concentrate on implementing food reduction and prevention policies in practice. In Chapter 15, Samuel Féret discusses the EU-funded ECOWASTE4FOOD project through which local and regional authorities from seven EU c­ ountries collaborate by sharing and exchanging experiences on food wastereducing innovations in their regions. As a result of this and local stakeholder collaboration, the project helps the partners in designing action plans for their regions in order to comply with food reduction policy targets set by the EU. In his article, Féret introduces examples from various regions and from various levels of the food waste hierarchy, including also those preventing food waste. In Chapter 16, Hanna Hartikainen, Inkeri Riipi, Juha-Matti Katajajuuri and Kirsi Silvennoinen, on the other hand, focus on the approaches to and challenges of implementing EU food waste measurement and monitoring in practice. They discuss how this EU-level policy can best be implemented for monitoring food waste in various parts of the food chain in Finland, but also how monitoring quantities of food waste helps to direct action for food waste reduction.

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     17

Conclusions Food waste research has gradually moved from focussing on understanding the phenomenon and measuring it towards less actor-centric, more holistic approaches. This book represents this development as it combines research from multiple fields and a variety of theoretical perspectives, as well as provides practical insights about the issue. Since food waste is a wicked problem, it is important to adopt a holistic view. The chapters of this book discuss different levels where change is needed: actors, systems and sociocultural and institutional structures. This introductory chapter introduces a framework that incorporates the chapters and their relations to each other in solving the wicked problem of food waste. Accordingly, it highlights the need for interconnected, multilevel solutions that go beyond single actors and activities within predefined silos of the food system. Furthermore, even though food waste can be perceived as a resource, the solutions (such as conversion to biogas) should not increase the demand for food waste. Instead, preferable solutions should create incentives to prevent it from emerging. The framework also operates as a platform for future research related to food waste, hopefully inspiring researchers to adopt new avenues focussed on ensuring its prevention. In addition to the solutions provided by this book, we argue that solving the wicked problem of food waste will require both incentives and sanctions. Reducing and preventing food waste needs to be considered as positive—on the assumption that appeals to guilt seldom spur action. However, remaining at the level of individual actors will not be sufficient as the impactful solutions may lie elsewhere than where the food waste occurs. Furthermore, there needs to be regulatory pressure to sanction behaviours leading to food waste as, despite being aware of the problem, actors might not own the problem. In managing food waste, we need active change agents to develop and implement solutions at different levels of the food system as well as more holistically between systems. The current food system faces a variety of wicked problems, of which food waste is just one. A sustainable future requires the critical evaluation and transformation of the food system as a whole. We hope that this book will provide research-based

18     E. Närvänen et al.

insights and solutions for these change agents and inspire them to act as well as mobilise others in the quest to battle against the wicked problem of food waste.

References Alexander, C., Gregson, N., & Gille, Z. (2013). Food waste. In A. Murcott, W. Belasco, & P. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of food research (pp. 471– 484). London: Bloomsbury. Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer-related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability, 7(6), 6457–6477. Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I., & Normann, A. (2016). Consumerrelated food waste: Role of food marketing and retailers and potential for action. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 28(3), 271–285. Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I. E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M. B., Grønhøj, A., et al. (2017). Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste—A multiple case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 33–45. Bagherzadeh, M., Inamura, M., & Jeong, H. (2014). Food waste along the food chain. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 71. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrcmftzj36-en. Accessed on 19.3.2019. Baron, S., Patterson, A., Maull, R., & Warnaby, G. (2018). Feed people first: A service ecosystem perspective on innovative food waste reduction. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 135–150. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Blichfeldt, B. S., Mikkelsen, M., & Gram, M. (2015). When it stops being food: The edibility, ideology, procrastination, objectification and internalization of household food waste. Food, Culture & Society, 18(1), 89–105. Block, L. G., Keller, P. A., Vallen, B., Williamson, S., Birau, M. M., Grinstein, A., et al. (2016). The squander sequence: Understanding food waste at each stage of the consumer decision-making process. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 292–304.

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     19

Bräutigam, K. R., Jörissen, J., & Priefer, C. (2014). The extent of food waste generation across EU-27: Different calculation methods and the reliability of their results. Waste Management and Research, 32(8), 683–694. Brunori, G., Malandrin, V., & Rossi, A. (2013). Trade-off or convergence? The role of food security in the evolution of food discourse in Italy. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 19–29. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge. Buzby, J. C., Farah-Wells, H., & Hyman, J. (2014). The estimated amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States. EIB-121. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin Number 112. http://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43833/43680_eib121.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Campbell, H., Evans, D., & Murcott, A. (2017). Measurability, austerity and edibility: Introducing waste into food regime theory. Journal of Rural Studies, 51, 168–177. Cappellini, B. (2009). The sacrifice of re-use: The travels of leftovers and family relations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8(6), 365–375. Cappellini, B., & Parsons, E. (2012). Practising thrift at dinnertime: Mealtime leftovers, sacrifice and family membership. The Sociological Review, 60, 121–134. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage. Devin, B., & Richards, C. (2018). Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 199–210. ECA. (2016). Combating food waste: An opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain. European Court of Auditors. Special report no 34/2016. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_ 34/SR_FOOD_WASTE_EN.pdf. Accessed on 22.2.2019. EPA. (n.d.). Food recovery hierarchy. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recoveryhierarchy. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the consumer—Once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429–440.

20     E. Närvänen et al.

Evans, D. (2012a). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56. Evans, D. (2012b). Binning, gifting and recovery: The conduits of disposal in household food consumption. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(6), 1123–1137. Evans, D. (2014). Food waste: Home consumption, material culture and everyday life. London: Bloomsbury. Evans, D. M. (2018). Rethinking material cultures of sustainability: Commodity consumption, cultural biographies and following the thing. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43(1), 110–121. Evans, D., Campbell, H., & Murcott, A. (2012). A brief pre-history of food waste and the social sciences. The Sociological Review, 60(2_suppl), 5–26. Evans, D., Welch, D., & Swaffield, J. (2017). Constructing and mobilizing ‘the consumer’: Responsibility, consumption and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(6), 1396–1412. FAO. (2017). The future of food and agriculture—Trends and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/ a-i6583e.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Filimonau, V., & Gherbin, A. (2017). An exploratory study of food waste management practices in the UK grocery retail sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1184–1194. FoodWIN. (n.d.). Network. https://foodwin.org/network/. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Frye, J., & Fox, R. (2015). The rhetorical construction of food waste in US public discourse. Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5(4), 43–57. Galli, F., Cavicchi, A., & Brunori, G. (2019). Food waste reduction and food poverty alleviation: A system dynamics conceptual model. Agriculture and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09919-0. Garrone, P., Melacini, M., & Perego, A. (2014). Opening the black box of food waste reduction. Food Policy, 46, 129–139. Gille, Z. (2012). From risk to waste: Global food waste regimes. The Sociological Review, 60(2_suppl), 27–46. Göbel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P., & Ritter, G. (2015). Cutting food waste through cooperation along the food supply chain. Sustainability, 7(2), 1429–1445. Gollnhofer, J. F. (2017). The legitimation of a sustainable practice through dialectical adaptation in the marketplace. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(1), 156–168.

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     21

Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D. C., & Sparks, P. (2014). Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 84, 15–23. Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D. C., & Sparks, P. (2015). Predicting household food waste reduction using an extended theory of planned behaviour. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101, 194–202. Gruber, V., Holweg, C., & Teller, C. (2016). What a waste! Exploring the human reality of food waste from the store manager’s perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(1), 3–25. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste—Extent, causes and prevention. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C., & Magid, J. (2014). Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy, 49, 294–301. Hebrok, M., & Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design—An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 151, 380–392. Hebrok, M., & Heidenstrøm, N. (2019). Contextualising food waste prevention—Decisive moments within everyday practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1435–1448. Heikkinen, A., Kujala, J., Laine, M., & Mäkelä, H. (2017). Discourse analysis as a method for business ethics and corporate responsibility research. In P. H. Werhane, E. Freeman, & S. Dmytriyev (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of research approaches to business ethics and corporate responsibility (pp. 138– 153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, B. (2018). Don’t waste that banchan: Where South Korea’s food waste goes. Korea Exposé. https://www.koreaexpose.com/banchan-south-koreafood-waste/. Accessed on 18.3.2019. Joutsenvirta, M. (2009). A language perspective to environmental management and corporate responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(4), 240–253. Katajajuuri, J. M., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2014). Food waste in the Finnish food chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 322–329. Lohnes, J., & Wilson, B. (2018). Bailing out the food banks? Hunger relief, food waste, and crisis in Central Appalachia. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(2), 350–369. Mattila, M., Mesiranta, N., Heikkinen, A., & Turunen, S. (2018a). Creating value from food waste: Case ResQ Club. In A. K. Dey & T. Thatchenkery

22     E. Närvänen et al.

(Eds.), Advances in social change leadership & organizational decision making (pp. 13–22). New Delhi: Bloomsbury Publishing India. Mattila, M., Mesiranta, N., Närvänen, E., Koskinen, O., & Sutinen, U. M. (2018b). Dances with potential food waste: Organising temporality in food waste reduction practices. Time & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/09614 63X18784123. Michelini, L., Principato, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2018). Understanding food sharing models to tackle sustainability challenges. Ecological Economics, 145, 205–217. Midgley, J. L. (2019). Anticipatory practice and the making of surplus food. Geoforum, 99, 181–189. Mourad, M. (2016). Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: Competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 461–477. Närvänen, E., Mattila, M., & Mesiranta, N. (2019). Consumer-citizens as leaders of change: Case food waste. In A. Kangas, J. Kujala, A. Heikkinen, A. Lönnqvist, H. Laihonen, & J. Bethwaite (Eds.), Leading change in a complex world: Transdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 263–280). Tampere: Tampere University Press. Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., & Hukkanen, A. (2013). From waste to delicacy: Collective innovation in food disposition practices through blogging. Advances in Consumer Research, 41, 316–320. Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., & Hukkanen, A. (2016). The quest for an empty fridge. In B. Cappellini, D. Marshall, & E. Parsons (Eds.), The practice of the meal: Food, families and the market place (pp. 208–219). Abingdon: Routledge. Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., & Mattila, M. (2018a). Roles of consumer-citizens in food waste reduction. Kulutustutkimus.Nyt, 12(1–2), 20–32. Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., Sutinen, U., & Mattila, M. (2018b). Creativity, aesthetics and ethics of food waste in social media campaigns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 102–110. Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. Papargyropoulou, E., Wright, N., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J., Padfield, R., & Ujang, Z. (2016). Conceptual framework for the study of food waste generation and prevention in the hospitality sector. Waste Management, 49, 326–336.

1  Introduction: A Framework for Managing Food Waste     23

Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081. Porpino, G., Parente, J., & Wansink, B. (2015). Food waste paradox: Antecedents of food disposal in low income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(6), 619–629. Quested, T. E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., & Parry, A. D. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 43–51. ReFED. (2018). 2018 U.S. food waste investment report: Trends in private, public, and philanthropic capital. https://www.refed.com/downloads/ReFED2018-US-Food-Waste-Investment-Report.pdf. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Schanes, K., & Stagl, S. (2019). Food waste fighters: What motivates people to engage in food sharing? Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1491–1501. Southerton, D., & Yates, L. (2015). Exploring food waste through the lens of social practice theories: Some reflections on eating as a compound practice. In K. M. Ekström (Ed.), Waste management and sustainable consumption: Reflections on consumer waste (pp. 133–149). London: Routledge. Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite, 96, 7–17. Stöckli, S., Niklaus, E., & Dorn, M. (2018). Call for testing interventions to prevent consumer food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 445–462. Thompson, K., & Haigh, L. (2017). Representations of food waste in reality food television: An exploratory analysis of Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares. Sustainability, 9(7), 1139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071139. Thyberg, K. L., Tonjes, D. J., & Gurevitch, J. (2015). Quantification of food waste disposal in the United States: A meta-analysis. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(24), 13946–13953. United Nations. (2015). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. A/RES/70/1. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp? symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Vaqué, L. G. (2017). French and Italian food waste legislation: An example for other EU member states to follow? European Food and Feed Law Review, 12(3), 224–233.

24     E. Närvänen et al.

Waitt, G., & Phillips, C. (2016). Food waste and domestic refrigeration: A visceral and material approach. Social and Cultural Geography, 17(3), 359–379. Wansink, B. (2018). Household food waste solutions for behavioral economists and marketers. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24(5), 500–521. Watson, M., & Meah, A. (2012). Food, waste and safety: Negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. The Sociological Review, 60, 102–120. Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334–349. Welch, D., Swaffield, J., & Evans, D. (2018). Who’s responsible for food waste? Consumers, retailers and the food waste discourse coalition in the United Kingdom. Journal of Consumer Culture. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469540518773801. Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Van Herpen, E., Stenmarck, Å., et al. (2017). Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(12), 6618–6633.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Part I Changing the Behaviour of Actors at Distribution and Consumption Levels

2 Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review Lisanne van Geffen, Erica van Herpen and Hans van Trijp

Introduction Why do people waste food at home and how can it be prevented? Answers to these questions are relevant, as most food in the developed world is wasted at consumer level (Stenmarck et al. 2016). Stimulating people to lower their food waste levels is challenging and requires a thorough understanding of the behavioural drivers and obstacles to change. In general terms, there are two perspectives one can take to understand behavioural change; an individualistic or a societal perspective. Whereas the former focusses on understanding individuals’ motivation to aim for change and the implementation of this aim, L. van Geffen (*) · E. van Herpen · H. van Trijp  Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] E. van Herpen e-mail: [email protected] H. van Trijp e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_2

27

28     L. van Geffen et al.

the latter focusses on understanding the influences of societal structure (e.g. modern society) on steering collectives of people to change behaviour. This chapter takes an individualistic perspective and reviews literature on drivers and constraints for individuals to reduce their household food waste. Insights from the societal perspective can be found elsewhere (e.g. Butler et al. 2014; Halkier 2013; Hargreaves 2011). Practitioners have already implemented interventions, usually awarenessraising campaigns, to stimulate food waste reduction at home (e.g. Love Food Hate Waste, Stop Spild Af Mad, Zu gut für die Tonne). These campaigns are impressive in their outreach and multifaceted nature and several have shown to be (in part) successful (Stöckli et al. 2018). Yet, in most cases these campaigns lack a theoretical basis, proper monitoring and effectiveness measures, making it impossible to deduce which elements drive behavioural change (see, e.g., Stöckli et al. 2018). This is unfortunate as setting up interventions is time consuming and costly and the incorporation of empirical insights is likely to increase the potential for success. Therefore, this chapter will translate the reviewed insights on the drivers and constraints for behavioural change into guidelines and suggestions for interventions with impact. This chapter does not contain new data, but instead contributes to recent work (e.g. Hebrok and Boks 2017; Stöckli et al. 2018), by making a distinction between interventions that steer towards setting an intention to lower food waste levels and interventions that steer towards implementing such an intention. This distinction will improve effective intervention development, as people in different stages towards (deliberate) behavioural change are best served by different types of interventions. People without a set intention to lower food waste levels will benefit most from interventions that stimulate intention setting and not from those that stimulate intention implementation and vice versa.

Why Do People Waste Food in Their Households? Put simply, household food waste results from buying more food than is consumed. Yet, food is rarely discarded directly after shopping. Rather, it is discarded after performing a complex set of behaviours, each of

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     29

Fig. 2.1  Household food management. Dashed lines indicate food movement between stages, solid lines indicate waste

which increases the likelihood to waste (Principato 2018; Quested et al. 2013) (see Fig. 2.1). Understanding these household management behaviours helps to identify what interventions should target. This section first discusses the behaviours linked to food waste and then focusses on its drivers.

Behaviours Leading to Food Waste Planning: Food management starts before food has even entered the household, namely when people decide what to buy. Meal planning and using a (mental) shopping list containing the products (and quantities) needed, are known to reduce food waste (Jörissen et al. 2015; Principato 2018; Stancu et al. 2016; Stefan et al. 2013; Van Geffen, Sijtsema, et al. 2016). This is because planning increases purchasing accuracy (Quested et al. 2013), thus preventing the purchase of surplus foods. However, there are also some indications that too much planning can lead to waste. Namely, in cases when it makes people do not want to deviate from their planning in order to avoid spoilage.

30     L. van Geffen et al.

Shopping: How people behave in store influences their food waste levels. People who tend to buy impulsively (e.g. make spontaneous purchases that happen without much contemplation (Beatty and Ferrell 1998)) tend to waste more (Parizeau et al. 2015; Stefan et al. 2013). People who are price oriented and/or have an attraction to special offers are suggested to also waste more (Roodhuyzen et al. 2017), but recent research confirms the contrary; they seem to waste less (Jörissen et al. 2015; Koivupuro et al. 2012; Williams et al. 2012; WRAP 2014). Storing: How food is stored (e.g. storage organisation and temperature or light intensity) affects consumers’ overview of what they have in stock as well as food shelf life (Quested et al. 2011). Adequate storing practices are linked to reduce food waste into lower food waste levels (Evans 2012; Farr‐Wharton et al. 2014; Quested and Luzecka 2014; Van Geffen et al. 2017), as they help accurate purchasing and prolong the time food can be eaten safely. Preparing: Preparing relates to the processing (e.g. cooking) of food products. An often-reported cause for food waste is cooking too much unintentionally. This can be reduced by carefully measuring quantities before cooking (Quested and Murphy 2014; Van Geffen et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2012). Additionally, general cooking skills are needed to avoid accidents, such as burning the food (Evans 2011). Consumption: This stage refers to the storing and consumption of leftovers. Obviously, saving and eating leftovers are behaviours that lead to less food waste (Stancu et al. 2016; Van Geffen et al. 2017). Leftovers can be placed back into storage and can subsequently be transformed into a new meal, eaten directly or discarded. The behaviours described above are known to influence the level of food waste at home directly and indirectly. It is important to note that food is not always moved through all stages in a linear manner. It can also bypass some stages or be placed back into an earlier stage. For instance, ready-made meals can be bought and eaten directly and leftovers can be put back into storage. Ideally, people would improve their household management behaviours as soon as they realise their effectiveness in food waste reduction. Yet, in reality, people already know that these behaviours have the potential to reduce waste (Van Geffen, Sijtsema, et al. 2016; WRAP 2014),

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     31

but nevertheless do not alter their behaviours. This raises the question whether people are not willing to perform these behaviours and/or whether they are unable to do so. These two questions are central in the next sections.

Drivers of Behaviours Leading to Food Waste Behavioural change is a multiphase (iterative) process whereby people change their behaviour because they are internally or externally motivated to do so (Bamberg 2013; Nielsen 2017). Goal-directed behavioural change consists of two stages: goal setting and goal striving (Nielsen 2017). Goal setting refers to understanding why some people are motivated to prevent food waste while others are not (Bamberg 2013), whereas goal striving refers to the implementation of intentions to change. Setting an intention to change a behaviour does not equal actually performing it (Sheeran and Webb 2016) because people have multiple (food-related) goals they aim to act upon; these include ensuring that all household members have enough to eat, eat safe foods and enjoy eating (Hebrok and Boks 2017). At the same time, people only have a limited amount of time, cognitive capabilities and money to allocate to food purchases (Mann et al. 2013) and therefore need to make choices on which goals to act upon. Food waste prevention is not easily prioritised over these other goals, as it is characterised by limited direct personal benefits, except for acting upon moral values (Steg et al. 2014). Food prices are relatively low and the social and environmental effects of food waste per household are small and distant. In contrast, several other food-related goals have strong personal (and sometimes direct) benefits such as spending little time on food shopping and cooking (gain goals), or food enjoyment (hedonic goals). People act more easily upon hedonic and gain goals than on normative ones (Steg et al. 2014). Therefore, people will implement a goal to lower waste levels more easily, when they simultaneously can act upon other valued goals and without spending too many resources (e.g. turning leftovers into tasty new meals in a short a amount of time). For this, people need abilities (i.e. skills and knowledge sets) and opportunities

32     L. van Geffen et al.

(i.e. aspects from the environment) (Ölander and Thogersen 1995; Rothschild 1999). If abilities and/or opportunities are lacking, people will be restricted in lowering their food waste levels effectively and efficiently. Therefore, stimulating people to change their daily routines will only be successful if these constraints are understood and overcome. First, we will discuss in more detail what drives goal setting and subsequently which abilities and opportunities are helpful for goal striving.

Goal Setting: Motivation to Change There are reasons to believe that people do not want to waste food (Roodhuyzen et al. 2017), as they consider it a waste of money (Abeliotis et al. 2014; Neff et al. 2015; Rispo et al. 2015) and morally wrong (Abeliotis et al. 2014; Graham-Rowe et al. 2014). Consequently, it makes people feel guilty (Abeliotis et al. 2014; Graham-Rowe et al. 2014; Neff et al. 2015; Stancu et al. 2016). Yet, this does not mean that people consciously set a goal to reduce their waste levels, as this goals’ importance should be seen relative to their other valued goals. Several aspects influence how important a certain goal is, that is attitude, problem awareness, behavioural influence and responsibility as well as social norms. These aspects will be discussed in turn. Attitude: How problematic a person finds it to waste food is reflected by his or her thoughts and feelings (e.g. guilt) towards the issue. Attitude has been shown to be a strong predictor of intention (Ajzen 2011) and thus goal setting. Attitude towards food waste is predominately negative (Roodhuyzen et al. 2017). Yet, the variation in attitude among individuals still influences how much food they waste. Thus, the more negative a persons’ attitude, the less food they waste (Stancu et al. 2016; Stefan et al. 2013; Van Geffen et al. 2017). Problem awareness: Problem awareness may influence attitudes and intentions as well as actual behaviour (Bamberg and Möser 2007; Principato 2018). In the case of food waste, people generally underestimate the scope and the consequences of global food waste levels on the environment and food distribution (Eurobarometer 2014; Secondi et al. 2015), and additionally they underestimate the amount of food they waste themselves (Abeliotis et al. 2014). This affects how much they waste, as greater problem

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     33

awareness is linked to more waste prevention behaviours (Principato et al. 2015) and lower waste levels (Stancu et al. 2016; Stefan et al. 2013; Williams et al. 2012). Although the latter has not been consistently found with regards to the awareness of the consequences of food waste, this did not always had a significant effect of waste levels (Van Geffen et al. 2017). Generally, awareness of economic consequences (i.e. the costs of their food waste) is often more important and more prevalent than awareness of social or environmental consequences (Graham-Rowe et al. 2014; Neff et al. 2015; Stancu et al. 2016; Van Geffen, Sijtsema, et al. 2016). Behavioural influence and responsibility: For a behavioural intention to be set, people need to be aware of their behavioural influence (Bamberg and Möser 2007; Klöckner and Blöbaum 2010). If this is absent, people tend to feel that their behaviour is insignificant (Fransson and Garling 1999). A lack of behavioural influence is a common issue with pro-environmental behaviours, where solutions (i.e. lowering the environmental impact of the food system by avoiding waste) are a consequence of the collective, rather than the individual. Another common issue with pro-environmental behaviours is that people do not feel responsible for being part of the solution. Due to this lack of perceived responsibility, no intention to change is formed (Nielsen 2017). To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet looked at the effect of behavioural influence or perceived responsibility on food waste levels. Social norms: There are two types of social norm beliefs that influence behaviour: the injunctive social norm and the descriptive social norm (Cialdini et al. 1991). The injunctive social norm refers to people’s beliefs of how others who are important to them think about food waste, that is, beliefs on how strongly these important others disapprove of waste behaviour. This social norm does not appear to convincingly influence household management behaviours (Stefan et al. 2013; Visschers et al. 2016) or waste levels (Van Geffen et al. 2017), but may influence intentions to prevent waste (Graham-Rowe et al. 2014; Russell et al. 2017; Stancu et al. 2016). The descriptive social norm refers to the beliefs that important others waste food or not. In other socially desirable behaviours, this norm strongly influences behaviour (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004; Goldstein et al. 2008), and a similar result is found with regard to food waste behaviours (Van Geffen et al. 2017), with a single exception (Graham-Rowe et al. 2015).

34     L. van Geffen et al.

In summary, people are more likely to set a goal to prevent food waste when it is considered important enough. This perceived importance is influenced by a person’s attitude, problem awareness, behavioural influence and responsibility as well as social norms.

Goal Striving: Abilities and Opportunities As already touched upon, there are two reasons why abilities and opportunities are needed to implement the goal to reduce food waste. First, they are vital to perform food waste preventing behaviours effectively and second, they can facilitate acting upon multiple (food-related) goals at once. The skill to plan accurately: Food waste is essentially acquiring more than needed. Planning (e.g. making shopping lists or measuring how much to cook) can prevent overbuying and overcooking, but only when people accurately predict how much is needed. Accurate planning is difficult as it involves incorporating many varying aspects, such as who will be joining the meals, which portion sizes are appropriate, which products will be fancied, which foods are in stock and what is the food’s current shelf-life status. People who feel more confident about their ability to plan accurately are more likely to perform behaviours that prevent food waste and waste less (Van Geffen et al. 2017). The knowledge to prolong shelf life: Most wasted foods are perishable, such as vegetables, fruits and bakery products (Quested et al. 2011). The shelf life of these foods is influenced by how they are stored, for example at ambient temperature or cooled (fridge/freezer). Even though people often feel confident about their storing abilities, they frequently store products incorrectly (Plumb et al. 2013). For example, people tend to maintain the temperature of their refrigerator too high (AschemannWitzel et al. 2015) or do not use the product’s packaging to prolong its shelf life (Plumb et al. 2013). This can lead to foods losing their flavour or spoiling sooner than necessary (Quested et al. 2011). This makes consumption less likely as people find taste and looks important. The skill to estimate food safety: People often feel insecure about their ability to estimate food edibility (Brook-Lyndhurst 2011; Farr‐Wharton et al. 2014) and tend to overestimate food safety risks (Grunert 2005),

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     35

causing foods to be perceived as unsafe before they actually are (Grunert 2005; Tsiros and Heilman 2005). This reduces the likelihood that foods are eaten, as it reduces the number of mealtimes that occur before the food is spoilt or perceived as spoilt. People are risk averse when it comes to food safety, but also dislike discarding edible foods. This (paradoxically) often results in people leaving their potentially unsafe foods in the fridge, until they are certain the food is spoilt (Evans 2012). Date labels are a guideline for estimating food safety. Unfortunately, many people are confused about these labels and erroneously believe that use-by and best-before dates have a similar meaning (GrahamRowe et al. 2014; Terpstra et al. 2005). Additionally, date labels are often unclear and difficult to find on the package, which further increases confusion (ICF 2018). Recent insights confirm that the different types of date labels increase the likelihood that foods are wasted (Wilson et al. 2017). Another way to estimate food safety is to rely on the smell, taste or look of the food. This behaviour is known to reduce waste levels (Terpstra et al. 2005) and is therefore seen as a useful skill to advocate. There are more strategies to estimate food safety than the two discussed here (e.g. relying on days after purchasing or opening). Interestingly, people who use many different methods are more likely to waste food (Parizeau et al. 2015). This may be caused by a higher tendency to classify foods as waste (Parizeau et al. 2015), but may also reflect risk averseness with regard to food-borne illness. Correcting the misperceptions regarding date labels, as well as improving people’s ability to estimate food safety based on their own senses, is likely to lower waste levels (Quested et al. 2011; Terpstra et al. 2005). The skill to cook (creatively): Adequate cooking skills lower waste levels. These skills lead to fewer cooking accidents (Evans 2011) and simplify using all foods in time, including leftovers (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2015). With improved cooking skills, people are more able to create tasty dishes, making it easier to prevent food waste. Thus, people who perceive their cooking skills as adequate have less household food waste (Van Geffen et al. 2017). Dynamic lifestyle: People often lack time to perform food waste preventing behaviours due to demanding lifestyles. They feel pressure to balance multiple goals both related and unrelated to food, such as

36     L. van Geffen et al.

raising children, work, social activities and household chores (Evans 2012; Quested and Luzecka 2014; Watson and Meah, 2012). It is found that experiencing time pressure is linked to higher waste levels (Mallinson et al. 2016). Additionally, day-to-day life can be unpredictable, making planning inaccurate (Evans 2012; Watson and Meah 2012). Unforeseen work or leisure activities as well as changes in the plans of household members (and their appetites) can increase uncertainties. As a result, even motivated and skilled individuals may not implement food waste preventing behaviours, or implement them but without the desired results. Available food supply: Perishable food products can vary in quality, which makes taste and remaining shelf life unpredictable. This uncertainty increases the cognitive resources needed to prevent waste, if prevention is possible at all. Another aspect that influences waste levels is the portion sizes offered in the shops. In some cases, the desired portion size is not present, or only at a higher per-unit price. Both options encourage people to buy more than needed (Quested and Luzecka 2014). If sizes are too large, this also has an indirect effect on waste generation, as individuals are more willing to accept waste from larger packaging sizes (Wilson et al. 2017). Accessibility of shops: Another food infrastructure aspect is accessibility. The geographical density of shops around the household combined with their opening hours may influence food waste levels. Households without easy access to shops are more likely to waste as they need to buy larger quantities in one go, increasing the likelihood to buy more than needed (Abeliotis et al. 2014; Evans 2011). Equipment at home: It is assumed that the availability and size of storage equipment (i.e. fridge, freezer and storage boxes) at home influence waste levels. More possibilities to store food in an appropriate way may increase the likelihood that food is eaten before becoming spoilt. Yet, the opposite may also occur as people with more storage space may be likely to stock too much food. These effects may cancel each other out, which would account for the reported non-significant effects (Van Geffen et al. 2017), although more research is needed to confirm this. Additionally, kitchen appliances (e.g. blenders or toasters) can lower

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     37

food waste levels as they provide the opportunity to turn old, disliked products into tasty ones (Mattila et al. 2018). To summarise, abilities and opportunities can hinder or support people to reduce their waste levels effectively and efficiently. In particular, abilities can help people to act upon food waste prevention and other valued goals simultaneously, for instance when they are able to plan accurately, prolong shelf life, estimate food safety and cook creatively. Opportunities can hinder or support people in preventing food waste, as they influence the amount of resources needed to perform the corresponding behaviours. These refer to lifestyle dynamics, food supply availability, shop accessibility and equipment at home.

Interventions to Facilitate Behavioural Change In the previous sections, the behaviours causing food to become waste and the drivers of these behaviours have been discussed. These are important first steps in the development of effective interventions, as they identify which problematic behavioural aspects should be changed. Another important aspect is deciding which intervention design is most suitable, as some interventions are more suited to move people towards goal setting, whereas others are more suited to facilitate goal implementation (see Table 2.1).

Interventions to Encourage Setting the Goal to Reduce Waste Levels For self-initiated change to occur, people need to be convinced that their food waste-related behaviours are problematic. This is why many practitioners have set up information campaigns discussing the consequences of food waste. Yet, there are also other ways to steer people towards intention setting (Abrahamse and Matthies 2012; Stöckli et al. 2018). Interventions can manipulate people’s affective feelings towards food waste (emotional appeal), manipulate the social norms surrounding food waste behaviours

Goal striving

Goalintention setting

Abilities

• Campaigning to raise awareness of general food waste consequences • Campaigning to raise awareness of benefits of prevention • Information of which behaviour to change Emotional appeal • Campaigning to elicit emotions with regard to food waste campaigns Social influences • Normalising food waste prevention • Normalising specific food waste preventing behaviours (e.g. eating leftovers) Commitment • Encouraging people to set the goal to reduce waste • Encouraging people to perform a particular food waste preventing behaviour Regulations • Subsidies for low food waste levels • Privileges for low food waste levels • Praise for low food waste levels • Monetary penalties for high food waste levels Prompts • Reminders to prevent food waste (e.g. in supermarkets, on packaging or in fridges) Implementation • Encouraging people to set implementation goals (if-then scenarios) to intention perform a particular food waste preventing behaviour setting Instructions Providing tips to increase and tricks on: abilities • Meal planning • Storage information • Estimating food safety • Cooking creatively Feedback • Providing feedback on own waste levels (e.g. smart bins) • Launching a competition to reduce food waste

Information campaigns

Motivation

Table 2.1  Potential interventions against household food waste

(continued)

Opportunities

38     L. van Geffen et al.

Making it easy

Table 2.1  (continued)

Motivation Opportunities

• Providing • Planning apps appropriate • Measuring cups packaging sizes • Smart fridge at appropriate prices • Improving food shelf life • Placing more appropriate packaging sizes in places easy to access • Encouraging placing kitchen appliances (blender, toaster) in places easy to access

Abilities

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     39

40     L. van Geffen et al.

(social influences) or that make the issue of food waste more salient (commitment). A different type of intervention to change behaviour is regulation, which can induce a behavioural change by changing the costs and benefits related to food waste (prevention). Information campaigns: In an attempt to encourage people to reduce their food waste levels, practitioners often make use of informational interventions, in particular campaigns (Stöckli et al. 2018). These campaigns focus on informing people about the consequences of food waste (e.g. environmental damage associated with food waste) and the benefits of prevention. These information campaigns are run to increase problem awareness, with the subsequent intention to reduce waste levels. Awareness and concern about an issue are essential parts of behavioural change (Klöckner and Blöbaum 2010). However, it is often insufficient when used in isolation (Abrahamse et al. 2005; Osbaldiston and Schott 2012). People are already concerned about the issue, therefore, solely further raising problem awareness will most likely have little effect. The effectiveness of information campaigns can be increased when combined with other interventions such as commitment and prompts (Stöckli et al. 2018). These additional interventions help people to prioritise food waste prevention over their other goals. Its effectiveness can further be enhanced by tailoring the message to a specific target audience (Van den Broek et al. 2017). People with strong biosphere values are more likely to respond to a message about the environmental benefits of food waste reduction than a message about the financial benefits, while the opposite seems to be true for people with more egocentric values (Van den Broek et al. 2017). Emotional appeal campaigns: Instead of spreading factual information to increase problem awareness and concern, campaigns can also target emotions (Peter and Honea 2012). It has to be taken into consideration that the relationship between emotional appeals and behavioural change is complex. It has been found that people who feel more guilty waste less food (Van Geffen et al. 2017). Therefore, it may seem effective to impress feelings of guilt upon people who waste food. However, one should be careful when using guilt appeals as they can backfire. Guilt appeals can successfully induce intention setting (Russell et al. 2017; Wonneberger 2018), as is the case with hope and pride appeals (Peter and Honea 2012).

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     41

Yet, emotional appeals that target guilt only seem to work for people who are concerned about the issue (Wonneberger 2018), but have not implemented the desired behaviour just yet (Peter and Honea 2012) or are not concerned about the issue. Once the behaviour is (sometimes) implemented, guilt appeals are ineffective (Russell et al. 2017), while optimism appeals are more effective (Peter and Honea 2012). The ineffectiveness of guilt appeals for people who have little concern about food waste seems a reflection of defensive processing (Agrawal and Duhachek 2010). People dislike being confronted with negative emotions and therefore tend to lower this negative emotional arousal quickly (Birau and Faure 2018; Liberman and Chaiken 1992). Birau and Faure (2018) recently confirmed this with regard to food waste behaviours, showing that guilt appeals appeared ineffective for people with little concern about food waste. Moreover, blaming the consumer decreased feelings of guilt and intentions to reduce waste and instead increased waste levels (Birau and Faure 2018). Social influences: An intervention type that has proven successful in increasing goal setting is influencing social norms. Perceived social norms related to the behaviour of others (i.e. descriptive norms) can steer people towards pro-environmental behaviours (Osbaldiston and Schott 2012). People prefer to conform to their social group (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004), and therefore they are more likely to reduce their waste levels if they feel their social group does so as well (Van Geffen et al. 2017). Social influences can be used in several ways: one can emphasise the normality of food waste prevention as well as more specific behaviours such as eating leftovers, when communicating about the issue. This emphasising can be done by making use of text, visuals or role models (Klöckner 2015). This intervention strategy has been applied by practitioners, but unfortunately without effectiveness measures in relation to household food waste (WRAP 2007). Empirical studies on other (pro-environmental) behaviours (Goldstein et al. 2008; Osbaldiston and Schott 2012; Schultz et al. 2007), including reducing food waste in out-of-home situations (Hamerman et al. 2018), have shown that it can be an effective intervention. Commitment: Commitment is giving a (public) pledge to change behaviour. This intervention has been shown to be relatively successful in changing behaviour (Abrahamse and Matthies 2012), in particular when pledges are public and specific (Klöckner and Matthies 2004).

42     L. van Geffen et al.

A study that combined commitment with informational interventions has confirmed that it can lower food waste levels (Schmidt 2016). A disadvantage of commitments is that this can be a costly intervention as each person needs to be approached individually. This could explain why only few practitioners have implemented this technique so far (Stöckli et al. 2018). Regulations: Another avenue for increasing motivation to reduce food waste levels is changing the current set of consequences and benefits linked to food waste and food waste prevention (Hebrok and Boks 2017). This strategy can increase the likelihood that people will prioritise food waste prevention over other goals. Changes in the pros and cons of food waste prevention can be made by implementing a separate food waste (organic waste) collection. The negative consequences can be increased by introducing (monetary) penalties for high food waste levels (Jereme et al. 2018). The benefits of reducing food waste can also be increased by subsidies, providing special privileges or praise (Reisch et al. 2013). Although governmental regulations can be effective in changing behaviours (Reisch et al. 2013; Reisch and Zhao 2017), a downside is that it is based on externally regulated motivation. Consequently, people tend to fall back into their old behaviours as soon as the external benefits or penalties are dropped (Steg et al. 2014).

Interventions to Encourage Goal Striving To facilitate the implementation of an intention to reduce food waste, different types of interventions can be applied (Abrahamse and Matthies 2012; Stöckli et al. 2018). These interventions focus less on increasing a person’s motivation, and more on reminding them of their intention to reduce food waste levels and on making acting upon this intention easier. The interventions differ in their tactics: some are reminders of intentions (prompts) or ways to make intention more specific (implementation intention setting). Other interventions are more procedural and teach people how to reduce food waste effectively (instructions), or help them by making it easier to perform the behaviours (making it easy) or to monitor the effect of their behaviours (feedback). These will be discussed in turn.

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     43

Prompts: Prompts are reminders for people to perform food waste preventing behaviours. They can be signs or written messages to encourage people to act appropriately. Prompts work best when they are worded politely (Stöckli et al. 2018), when they address a behaviour that is easy to perform and when they are placed at the location where the behaviour takes place (Abrahamse and Matthies 2012; Osbaldiston and Schott 2012). Prompts do not change people’s beliefs concerning food waste (Whitehair et al. 2013) and therefore work best for people who already intend to lower waste levels. Implementation intention setting: Implementation intention setting resembles commitment, but is more detailed. When setting an implementation intention, people specify when, where and how they will implement their intentions (Gallo and Gollwitzer 2007). Not everyone who is asked to set such an “if-then” plan does so (Sniehotta 2009), yet for individuals who do, the intervention is effective (Abrahamse and Matthies 2012; Bamberg 2013; Hagger and Luszczynska 2014). The effectiveness of implementation intentions is moderated by habit strength (Webb et al. 2009) and is more effective when it also includes means to promote motivation and efficacy to perform the behaviour (Hagger et al. 2014). Instructions to increase skills and knowledge: People like to receive instructions on how they can improve food handling (von Kameke and Fischer 2018). It is therefore not surprising that several interventions aim at increasing people’s abilities. In particular, the instructions focus on increasing skills and knowledge sets that enable people to reduce waste levels while also acting upon their other food-related aims (Stöckli et al. 2018). Such interventions can provide tips and tricks on how to plan a meal (Romani et al. 2018; Schmidt 2016), prolong shelf life, increase inventory overview, estimate food safety (Hebrok and Boks 2017; Terpstra et al. 2005) or cook creatively (Dyen and Sirieix 2016; Närvänen et al. 2018). Providing instruction has shown to be successful when used in isolation (Romani et al. 2018), but more effective when combined with other interventions, such as commitment and prompts (Osbaldiston and Schott 2012; Schmidt 2016). Feedback: Feedback means providing people with information about the amount of food they have wasted or saved. Previous literature on

44     L. van Geffen et al.

the effect of feedback has mostly focussed on energy consumption, with the use of smart metres. The type of feedback can differ and therefore also its effect (Abrahamse et al. 2005). For instance, providing continuous feedback seems to work better than giving it within a fixed time interval (daily or weekly). Additionally, the unit in which feedback is given seems to influence its effectiveness, for instance in kWh or in monetary value, as well as per day or accumulated over a period of time (Abrahamse et al. 2005). It is not yet clear how these results translate to food waste behaviours. Some scholars have attempted to mimic the studies on energy consumption by developing “smart bins” (Thieme et al. 2012). In these studies, providing feedback was not yet effective. In general, pro-environmental literature and feedback seem to be most effective for people who are already motivated (McKenzie-Mohr and Schultz 2014) and when the intervention is combined with other interventions (Stöckli et al. 2018). Competition: A different type of feedback is comparative feedback, where people do not (only) receive information on their own behaviour, but also on that of others. This comparative feedback can be combined with a competition element. Competition encourages people to compete against each other as individuals or households to perform a desired behaviour. Comparative feedback has shown to be effective in reducing energy consumption in the short and long term (Abrahamse et al. 2005). In the case of food waste, a study that combined feedback (by filling in a diary) with competition successfully lowered food waste levels in the short term (Nieuwenkamp 2013), but its long-term effects are unknown. Making it easy: Changing situational conditions can make it easier for people to perform food waste preventing behaviours. In the case of other (pro-environmental) behaviours, this strategy has been effective (e.g. placing recycling bins in a convenient location) (Osbaldiston and Schott 2012). Changing people’s in-home environment is challenging, but technical interventions may support food waste prevention, such as planning apps, measuring cups, smart fridges or advanced storing equipment or packaging (Bucci et al. 2010; Hebrok and Boks 2017). Additionally, adjustments in the shops may support food waste prevention, such as offering appropriate packaging sizes at appropriate prices

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     45

(Wilson et al. 2017), improving food shelf life or placing better-sized packages in places easier to access (Reisch and Zhao 2017). Other possibilities rely on people themselves altering their home environment, for instance by placing a blender so it is easy to access. These types of interventions make it easier to perform a behaviour, without significantly changing the choice structure. Interestingly, it can steer people into performing these desirable behaviours, without them even being motivated to do so (von Kameke and Fischer 2018). In the case of food waste, these interventions have not yet been investigated properly. Furthermore, even without these (technical) changes, just signalling that food waste prevention is easy may already support food waste reduction (Birau and Faure 2018).

Conclusion This chapter reviewed the latest insights on the drivers and constraints for behavioural change towards food waste reduction into guidelines and suggestions for interventions with impact. It made a distinction between interventions that encourage goal setting to reduce food waste levels and interventions that encourage goal striving. It can be concluded that it is difficult to motivate people to actively reduce their food waste levels, despite their strong negative perceptions towards this issue. This is primarily because of the nature of food waste prevention, as this normative goal is difficult to act upon when hedonic goals and gain goals are also activated. Therefore, to successfully steer people towards food waste reduction, interventions should not (solely) provide informational awareness-raising campaigns, as people are already concerned about the issue. Rather, people are best served by interventions that focus on making food waste prevention more salient (relative to their other valued goals), for instance by providing prompts or commitment. Additionally, interventions should focus on facilitating goal striving, by improving people’s abilities and opportunities to handle food effectively. Thus, interventions should enable people to handle food in such a way that they can prevent food waste while also acting upon their other valued goals, without the need to spend more resources.

46     L. van Geffen et al.

This could be done by providing people with instructions, as well as altering their surroundings to make food waste reducing behaviours easier to perform. To be certain which interventions will be most effective in reducing household food waste levels, we encourage scholars to further investigate the effectiveness of different (combinations of ) interventions. In order to do so, we want to stress the relevance and importance of incorporating monitoring and measurement methods when implementing an intervention, as only then the interventions’ effectiveness can be evaluated; for information on this issue see Van Herpen et al. (2016), Reynolds et al. (2019). Finally, it is important to note that this chapter has not discussed the variety of practicalities one should think about when setting up an intervention. It is out-of-scope to give a conclusive overview of all practicalities of concern, but for more information see Reynolds et al. (2019). However, an important issue we want to highlight is specifying the target audience in terms of (socio)demographics (Reynolds et al. 2019), as this identification will steer decisions on which communication channel should be used (e.g. social media, newspapers) as well as who/what should be the source of the intervention (e.g. government, retail, famous role model) (Klöckner 2015). Without taken this into account, one risks setting up potentially effective interventions which does not reach its appropriate audience. With the provided insights in this chapter we hope to have given guidelines to develop and implement effective intervention to reduce household food waste.

References Abeliotis, K., Lasaridi, K., & Chroni, C. (2014). Attitudes and behaviour of Greek households regarding food waste prevention. Waste Management and Research, 32(3), 237–240. Abrahamse, W., & Matthies, E. (2012). Informational strategies to promote pro-environmental behaviour: Changing knowledge, awareness and attitudes. In L. Steg, A. van den Berg, & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp. 223–232). Chichester: Wiley.

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     47

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291. Agrawal, N., & Duhachek, A. (2010). Emotional compatibility and the effectiveness of antidrinking messages: A defensive processing perspective on shame and guilt. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 263–273. Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113–1127. Aschemann-Witzel, J., Hooge, I. D. E., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., Kolle, S., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer behavior and food waste: Factors of relevance and potential for action for food marketers and food marketing research. Sustainability, 7, 6457–6477. Bamberg, S. (2013). Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: A stage model of self-regulated behavioral change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 151–159. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14–25. Beatty, S. E., & Ferrell, M. E. (1998). Impulse buying: Modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74(2), 169–191. Birau, M. M., & Faure, C. (2018). It is easy to do the right thing: Avoiding the backfiring effects of advertisements that blame consumers for waste. Journal of Business Research, 87, 102–117. Brook-Lyndhurst. (2011). Consumer insight: Date labels and storage guidance (WRAP report). http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Technical%20 report%20dates.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Bucci, M., Calefato, C., Colombetti, S., Milani, M., & Montanari, R. (2010). Fridge fridge on the wall: What can I cook for us all? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces—AVI ’10 (p. 415). https://flore.unifi.it/retrieve/handle/2158/433478/15465/Buccietal_revised. pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Butler, C., Parkhill, K. A., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014). Energy consumption and everyday life: Choice, values and agency through a practice theoretical lens. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3), 887–907. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591–621. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24(C), 201–234.

48     L. van Geffen et al.

Dyen, M., & Sirieix, L. (2016). How does a local initiative contribute to social inclusion and promote sustainable food practices? Focus on the example of social cooking workshops. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(6), 685–694. Eurobarometer. (2014). Attitudes of Europeans towards resource efficiency. Flash Eurobarometer 388. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/public_ opinion/flash/fl_316_en.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the consumer—Once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429–440. Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56. Farr-Wharton, G., Foth, M., & Choi, J. H. (2014). Identifying factors that promote consumer behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(6), 393–402. Fransson, N., & Garling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 369–382. Gallo, I. S., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2007). Implementation intentions: Control of fear despite cognitive load. Psicothema, 19(2), 280–285. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D. C., & Sparks, P. (2014). Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 84, 15–23. Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D. C., & Sparks, P. (2015). Predicting household food waste reduction using an extended theory of planned behaviour. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101, 194–202. Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 369–391. Hagger, M. S., Hardcastle, S. J., Chater, A., Mallett, C., Pal, S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2014). Autonomous and controlled motivational regulations for multiple health-related behaviors: Between- and within-participants analyses. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 2(1), 565–601.

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     49

Hagger, M. S., & Luszczynska, A. (2014). Implementation intention and action planning interventions in health contexts: State of the research and proposals for the way forward. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6(1), 1–47. Halkier, B. (2013). Sustainable lifestyles in a new economy: A practice theoretical perspective on change behavior campaigns and sustainability issues. In H. Brown, M. Cohen, & P. Vergragt (Eds.), Innovations in sustainable consumption: New economics, socio-technical transitions and social practices (pp. 209–228). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Hamerman, E. J., Rudell, F., & Martins, C. M. (2018). Factors that predict taking restaurant leftovers: Strategies for reducing food waste. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(1), 94–104. Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practicing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to proenvironmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99. Hebrok, M., & Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design—An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 151, 380–392. ICF. (2018). Market study on date marking and other information provided on food labels and food waste prevention. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ e7be006f-0d55-11e8-966a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Jereme, I. A., Siwar, C., Begum, R. A., Talib, B. A., & Choy, E. A. (2018). Analysis of household food waste reduction towards sustainable food waste management in Malaysia. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, 44(1), 86–96. Jörissen, J., Priefer, C., & Bräutigam, K. R. (2015). Food waste generation at household level: Results of a survey among employees of two European research centers in Italy and Germany. Sustainability (Switzerland), 7(3), 2695–2715. Klöckner, C. (2015). The psychology of pro-environmental communication— Beyond standard information strategies. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Klöckner, C. A., & Blöbaum, A. (2010). A comprehensive action determination model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(7491), 574–586. Klöckner, C. A., & Matthies, E. (2004). How habits interfere with norm-directed behaviour: A normative decision-making model for travel mode choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 319–327.

50     L. van Geffen et al.

Koivupuro, H., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J., Heikintalo, N., Reinikainen, A., et al. (2012). Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 183–191. Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(6), 669–679. Mallinson, L. J., Russell, J. M., & Barker, M. E. (2016). Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite, 103, 17–28. Mann, T., De Ridder, D., & Fujita, K. (2013). Self-regulation of health behavior: Social psychological approaches to goal setting and goal striving. Health Psychology, 32(5), 487–498. Mattila, M., Mesiranta, N., Närvänen, E., Koskinen, O., & Sutinen, U. M. (2018). Dances with potential food waste: Organising temporality in food waste reduction practices. Time & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/09614 63X18784123. McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Schultz, P. W. (2014). Choosing effective behavior change tools. Social Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 35–46. Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., Sutinen, U.-M., & Mattila, M. (2018). Creativity, aesthetics and ethics of food waste in social media campaigns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 102–110. Neff, R. A., Spiker, M. L., & Truant, P. L. (2015). Wasted Food: U. S. consumers’ reported awareness, attitudes, and behaviors. PLoS One, 1–16. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127881. Nielsen, K. S. (2017). From prediction to process: A self-regulation account of environmental behavior change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 189–198. Nieuwenkamp, M. K. (2013). Food Battle Reductie milieudruk voedselverspilling. Rijkswaterstaat/Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. https://www.afvalcirculair.nl/onderwerpen/helpdesk-afvalbeheer/publicaties/downloads-0/foodbattle-reductie/. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Ölander, F., & Thogersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18(4), 345–385. Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257–299.

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     51

Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Management, 35, 207–217. Peter, P. C., & Honea, H. (2012). Targeting social messages with emotions of change: The call for optimism. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2), 269–283. Plumb, A., Downing, P., & Parry, A. (2013). Consumer attitudes to food waste and food packaging. Barbury: Waste & Resources Action Programme. Principato, L. (2018). Food waste at consumer level: A comprehensive literature review. Springer. Principato, L., Secondi, L., & Pratesi, C. A. (2015). Reducing food waste: An investigation on the behaviour of Italian youths. British Food Journal, 117(2), 731–748. Quested, T. E., & Luzecka, P. (2014). Household food and drink waste: A people focus. WRAP. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/household-food-drinkwaste-people-focus. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Quested, T. E., & Murphy, L. (2014). Household food and drink waste: A product focus. WRAP. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/household-fooddrink-waste-people-focus. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Quested, T. E., Parry, A. D., Easteal, S., & Swannell, R. (2011). Food and drink waste from households in the UK. Nutrition Bulletin, 36(4), 460–467. Quested, T. E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., & Parry, A. D. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food waste behaviours. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 43–51. Reisch, L., Eberle, U., & Lorek, S. (2013). Sustainable food consumption: An overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 9(2), 7–25. Reisch, L., & Zhao, M. (2017). Behavioural economics, consumer behaviour and consumer policy: State of the art. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(02), 190–206. Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells … Jackson, P. (2019). Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions—What works and how to do better. Food Policy, 83, 7–27. Rispo, A., Williams, I. D., & Shaw, P. J. (2015). Source segregation and food waste prevention activities in high-density households in a deprived urban area. Waste Management, 44, 15–27.

52     L. van Geffen et al.

Romani, S., Grappi, S., Bagozzi, R. P., & Barone, A. M. (2018). Domestic food practices: A study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in reducing waste. Appetite, 121, 215–227. Roodhuyzen, D. M. A., Luning, P. A., Fogliano, V., & Steenbekkers, L. P. A. (2017). Putting together the puzzle of consumer food waste: Towards an integral perspective. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 68, 37–50. Rothschild, M. (1999). Carrots, sticks and promises: A conceptual framework for the management of public health and social issue behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 24–37. Russell, S. V., Young, C. W., Unsworth, K. L., & Robinson, C. (2017). Bringing habits and emotions into food waste behaviour. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 125, 107–114. Schmidt, K. (2016). Explaining and promoting household food waste-prevention by an environmental psychological based intervention study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 111, 53–66. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). Destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434. Secondi, L., Principato, L., & Laureti, T. (2015). Household food waste behaviour in EU-27 countries: A multilevel analysis. Food Policy, 56, 25–40. Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention—Behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518. Sniehotta, F. F. (2009). Towards a theory of intentional behaviour change: Plans, planning, and self-regulation. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14(2), 261–273. Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite, 96, 7–17. Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A. A., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2013). Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 375–381. Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Keizer, K., & Perlaviciute, G. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115. Stenmarck, Å., Jensen, C., Quested, T., & Moates, G. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. Fusions. https://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20 waste%20levels.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019.

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     53

Stöckli, S., Niklaus, E., & Dorn, M. (2018). Call for testing interventions to prevent consumer food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 445–462. Terpstra, M. J., Steenbekkers, L. P. A., Maertelaere, N. C. M., & Nijhuis, S. (2005). Food storage and disposal: Consumer practices and knowledge. British Food Journal, 107(7), 526–533. Thieme, A., Comber, R., Miebach, J., Weeden, J., Krämer, N., Lawson, S., & Olivier, P. (2012). “We’ve bin watching you”—Designing for reflection and social persuasion to promote sustainable lifestyles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2337– 2346). http://doi.org/10.1145/2208276.2208394. Tsiros, M., & Heilman, C. M. (2005). The effect of expiration dates on the purchasing behaviour for grocery store perishables. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 114–129. Van den Broek, K., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2017). Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric, economic and combined appeals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 145–156. Van Geffen, L., Van Herpen, E., & Van Trijp, H. (2016). Causes & determinants of consumers food waste—A theoretical framework. REFRESH. https://eu-refresh.org/causes-determinants-consumers-food-waste. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Van Geffen, L., Sijtsema, S. J., Díaz-Ruiz, R., Eisenhauer, P., Diedrich, A.-C., Újhelyi, K., & Van Trijp, H. (2016). National, qualitative insight on household & catering food waste. REFRESH. https://eu-refresh.org/ national-qualitative-insight-household-catering-food-waste. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Van Geffen, L., Van Herpen, E., & Van Trijp, H. (2017). Quantified consumer insights on food waste Pan-European research for quantified consumer food waste understanding. REFRESH. https://eu-refresh.org/ quantified-consumer-insights-food-waste. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I., Nijenhuis-de Vries, M., Holthuysen, N., & Kremer, S. (2016). Best practice assessment consumer level food waste. REFRESH.  https://eu-refresh.org/best-practice-assessment-consumer-levelfood-waste. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Visschers, V. H. M., Wickli, N., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Sorting out food waste behaviour: A survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 66–78.

54     L. van Geffen et al.

von Kameke, C., & Fischer, D. (2018). Preventing household food waste via nudging: An exploration of consumer perceptions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 32–40. Watson, M., & Meah, A. (2012). Food, waste and safety: Negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. Sociological Review, 60, 102–120. Webb, T. L., Sheeran, P., & Luszczynska, A. (2009). Planning to break unwanted habits: Habit strength moderates implementation intention effects on behaviour change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 507–523. Whitehair, K. J., Shanklin, C. W., & Brannon, L. A. (2013). Written messages improve edible food waste behaviors in a university dining facility. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(1), 63–69. Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 141–148. Wilson, N. L. W., Rickard, B. J., Saputo, R., & Ho, S. T. (2017). Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 35–44. Wonneberger, A. (2018). Environmentalism—A question of guilt? Testing a model of guilt arousal and effects for environmental campaigns. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(2), 168–186. WRAP. (2007). Understanding food waste—Key findings of WRAP’s recent research on the nature, scale and causes of household food waste. In The Waste and Resources Action Programme. http://www.carbonbaseddesign. co.uk/ciwm/papers/TS1AndrewParry.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. WRAP. (2014). Household food and drink waste in the UK 2012. In The Waste and Resources Action Programme. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/ household-food-and-drink-waste-uk-2012. Accessed on 26.2.2019.

2  Household Food Waste—How to Avoid It? An Integrative Review     55

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

3 Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability Meets Cost-Effectiveness Anna de Visser-Amundson and Mirella Kleijnen

Introduction Professional kitchens waste up to 20% of the food they purchase, much of which is avoidable waste (Boulden 2017). Chefs are generally aware of this problem and particularly of the financial impact of food waste on food costs (Perroni 2017). Yet, as a result of accepting food waste as an integral part of delivering excellent food service experiences, there is a significant gap between chefs’ attitudes towards food waste and the actual behaviour in the kitchen (Pirani and Arafat 2016). While cost reduction measures, in general, are often perceived as akin to trade off in service quality A. de Visser-Amundson (*)  Hotelschool The Hague, Hospitality Business School, The Hague, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] M. Kleijnen  School of Business & Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_3

57

58     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

(Rust and Huang 2012), recent research proposes that firms can in fact operate under a dual strategy of both cost-effectiveness and service quality to achieve so-called cost-effective service excellence (CESE) (Wirtz and Zeithaml 2018). Prior research shows that nudging is an effective strategy to reduce costs by triggering behavioural changes specifically targeting behaviour rather than providing information and cognitive appeals (Lehner et al. 2016; Thaler and Sunstein 2008; Vlaev et al. 2016). In that regard, nudging has the potential to break wasteful habits of kitchen employees and offers interesting opportunities for professional kitchens to reduce costs without impacting the service delivery. The objective of this chapter is to address nudging as a novel strategy in an employee context to stimulate food saving behaviours that reduce costs and facilitate the pursuit of CESE. The current guidelines for professional kitchens predominately focus on skills training and process management (Filimonau and Delysia 2019; Heikkilä et al. 2016; Hollins 2013; Strotmann et al. 2017). This requires rational and deliberate decision-making and resource allocation which, with all best intentions, is difficult to do as habits and pressures to perform kick-in. Hebrok and Boks (2017) support this and state “educating people may not reduce food waste because knowing and valuing is not enough to change norms and practices […] linked to food waste” (p. 383). Answering the need for a new strategy, nudging is a subtler approach that often appeals to unconscious mechanisms (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Indeed, by manipulating the behavioural context or simply changing the choice architecture, nudges can trigger people to make better choices for themselves, others and the environment in a more automatic and effortless manner. Aligned with empirical work showing that nudging is effective across numerous disciplines and settings (Dolan et al. 2010; Lehner et al. 2016; Vlaev et al. 2016; Wilson et al. 2016), prior research also demonstrates its usefulness in consumer food waste settings. For example, a nudge in the form of a sign on the breakfast buffet welcoming hotel guests back for more servings (to avoid them heaping up food), significantly reduced food left on their plates and hence the amount of food wasted (Kallbekken and Sælen 2013). Another study shows that nudging cafeteria guests to ask for smaller portions (without decreasing the price) doubled these requests and that asking for smaller portions is driven by feelings of guilt and shame (Jagau and Vyrastekova 2017)

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     59

and social awkwardness (Parizeau et al. 2015). Supporting those results, Whitehair et al. (2013) also show that (1) prompting socially correct behaviour regarding portion size and (2) providing group feedback about the group’s food waste behaviours triggered a 15% decrease in food waste at a university dining facility. In contrast, Bernstad (2014) shows that written messages have little influence on food waste separation. In support of other research (e.g. Dolan et al. 2010; Vlaev et al. 2016), she demonstrates that convenience as in making the “right things easy” makes a significant difference, such as providing extra bins to separate the waste. Yet a meta-analysis points out that these results are highly dependent on the type of message and social influence approaches (i.e. nudges) used (Abrahamse and Steg 2013). Thus, despite convincing evidence of the overall effects of nudges as behavioural interventions, more fine-grained insights are still needed in order to successfully execute nudging strategies. This research attempts to disentangle the effect of social norms and pre-commitment nudges on food waste reduction in a real-life setting. We do so in an underexplored employee context. Indeed, extant research on nudging is heavily biased towards the consumer perspective (e.g. Schubert 2017; Wilson et al. 2016), despite the insights offered by Abrahamse’s and Steg’s (2013) meta-analysis confirming that social nudge-type interventions are the most effective in an employee setting. In this chapter, we specifically show how nudges can be used strategically in managing the workforce to be more cost-efficient by saving more food from becoming waste. We thereby contribute to the scarce literature on nudging in a professional kitchen and food waste context (Lehner et al. 2016) as well as answer research calls to further explore how social influence triggers behavioural change in an employee and student setting (Abrahamse and Steg 2013). In doing so, we also demonstrate how nudging can be instrumental in operationalising a CESE strategy. In particular, by reporting empirical findings from two field studies using social norms and pre-commitment as nudges independently of each other in two different kitchens, we show how food waste can be significantly reduced while still delivering excellent service.

60     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

Cost-Effective Service Excellence The kitchen is a highly pressured environment, where competition is fierce on all levels, from mainstream to Michelin star restaurants (ArizaMontes et al. 2018). Chefs deal with real-time production and consumption driven by the perception that “you are only as good as your last meal” (Chiovera 2012). At the same time, consumers often demand superior experiences with a high level of customisation to specific needs. In the fear of losing business, offering abundance and variety are standard practices despite the waste and costs they might generate. Consider bread in restaurants, for example. It is unthinkable, even in the most modest restaurant, not to be offered fresh bread and preferably several varieties of it. Matching varying demand levels with such a perishable product is a difficult task and results in more than 200,000 breads being wasted every day in food service outlets in The Netherlands alone (Stuart and Jarosz 2017; Van Prooijen 2017). Such service operations (where the production and consumption occur simultaneously and at fluctuating levels of consumer demand, preferences and involvement) make it particularly difficult for restaurants to operate efficiently. Indeed, many restaurants struggle to achieve high productivity levels due to real-time production and lack of possibilities to standardise processes. This leaves many service organisations with a trade-off between costs and perceived service quality (Rust and Huang 2012) resulting in restaurants, in particular, to focus on customer satisfaction and accept lower efficiencies (thus higher costs).

Dual-Culture Strategy It is clear that it is difficult for many service organisations to accomplish CESE. It leaves many to a dichotomy of pursuing either a (1) customer satisfaction or (2) productivity focused strategy (Wirtz and Zeithaml 2018). Porter (1985) classically argued that straddling on both of these paths would leave companies “stuck in the middle”. Yet the pursuit and achievement of a dual-culture strategy—a combination of service excellence and low cost—yields higher financial returns than when only

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     61

focusing on one (Mittal et al. 2005). In addition, companies that have achieved CESE through a dual-culture strategy (e.g. Singapore Airlines) have also created a sustainable competitive advantage and are regularly awarded as “best in class” in their industries (Wirtz and Zeithaml 2018).

Organisational Ambidexterity An important enabler of a dual-culture strategy is organisational ambidexterity. Organisational ambidexterity refers to the company’s ability to pursue goals with conflicting dimensions, for example flexibility versus efficiency (Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008). There are two types of organisational ambidexterity that are interconnected and particularly dominant in achieving a dual-culture strategy: (1) leadership ambidexterity and (2) contextual ambidexterity (Wirtz and Zeithaml 2018). Ambidextrous leadership entails that management fully endorses two seemingly conflicting strategies and leads by example. Management should also contextualise both strategies (i.e. both low cost and the customer satisfaction) by installing processes and encourage behaviours that operationalise this dual focus (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004). Leadership ambidexterity in a professional kitchen means that the chef is explicitly advocating saving costs wherever possible. In particular, focus is on activities that do not affect the customer interface and negatively influence the guest experience in any way. In fact, the chef simultaneously obsesses about guest satisfaction and equally invests in creating more value for the guests. Chef Davide Oldani has embraced this strategy in his star Restaurante D’O (Nobel and Tobin 2013; Wirtz and Zeithaml 2018). For example, one of the most important elements in the dining experience is the explanation of the dish. The chefs are the perfect ambassadors of their own creations, so in restaurant D’O, the waiters have been eliminated from the process and the chefs take on this role. This does not only improve the customer experience, but also eliminates part of the highest costs in a hospitality environment (i.e. personnel costs).

62     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

Contextual ambidexterity specifically relates to the chef ’s capacity to align and adapt contextual elements like systems, processes and beliefs for individual employees to be able to “exercise their own judgment in dealing with conflicting demands” (Wirtz and Zeithaml 2018, p. 68). This implies that conflicting goals should not only be embraced by management, but also by the individual employee. As Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) point out, these goals should not be structurally separated in the organisation, but systematically embedded in such a way that individuals are supported and empowered to act in accordance with a dual strategy. Singapore Airlines for example has trained their cabin personnel to deviate from the standard food menu when needed and to prepare meals on the spot with ingredients available to accommodate unexpected requests from passengers (Heracleous and Wirtz 2014). While it is easy for firms to ingrain service excellence as a focus with individual employees, asking them to be cost-effective at the same time is a harder sell. Indeed, while “zero-waste is the food world’s latest favorite catchphrase, […] only a few restaurateurs are turning the trend into sustainable profits” (Parker 2018). Creating buy-in is more easily achieved when cost-efficiency measures target behaviour rather than cognitive appeals (e.g. information provision) only (Dolan et al. 2012). In particular, tapping into the choice architecture, that is the environment in which people make decisions, is proven to be more effective than solely relying on informational guidelines and rational decision-making (Lehner et al. 2016).

Towards Behavioural Change Despite these insights, many food waste reduction measures still rely on cognitive mental models to change behaviour (e.g. Hollins 2013; Strotmann et al. 2017). Originating from standard economic models, this approach assumes that people read and analyse information. Based on the benefits or risk reduction presented (e.g. financial benefits of wasting less food), people consequently act in a certain way (Vlaev et al. 2016). This rational model presumes that behaviour is primarily guided by a reflective and effortful system of thinking (Thaler and Sunstein 2008).

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     63

However, the dual process theory introduced by the “originators” of the concept of nudging, Thaler and Sunstein (2008), explains that behaviour is not only guided by a reflective thinking system but also an automatic system. Fast, effortless and often unconscious, automatic thinking influences behaviour in the context in which it is taking place. Thus, altering the context where for example kitchen personnel act can lead to “changing behaviour without changing minds” (Dolan et al. 2010). Kahneman (2011) in his seminal text, “Thinking, fast and slow”, refers to this as System 1 and System 2 of thinking. In this chapter, we align with Dolan and colleagues (2010) and refer to this as the context model and the cognitive model of behavioural change. Table 3.1 is adapted from these authors and provides a characterisation of these models along with illustrative food waste-related examples derived from Hollins (2013). Hollins (2013) specifically points out cognitive measures to be taken (Table 3.1) to reduce food waste out of which we have formulated examples of contextual food waste behaviours based on Dolan et al.’s (2010) definition of context-driven behaviours. For example, better menu planning is a cognitive exercise which can decrease food waste. However, such good intentions are only successful if more automatic and habit-driven behaviours like preparing the dish are also affected. Table 3.1  Models of behavioural change Model

Context model (System 1) Cognitive model (System 2)

System characteristics

Automatic Uncontrolled Effortless Emotional Fast Unconscious Preparing a dish Adjusting pace of working Standard ordering Accessing ingredients Cooking habits Plating by experience

Examples of use to reduce food waste

Reflective Controlled Effortful Deductive Slow Self-Aware Menu planning Demand forecasting Procurement procedures Food storage Food preparation Portion serving

Source Adapted from Dolan et al. (2010), Hollins (2013)

64     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

As can be seen from the examples in Table 3.1, the cognitive model requires significant dedication and motivation to do things differently whereas the context model is more effortless and automatic. A good example of both the context model and cognitive model is Matt Orlando, chef and owner of Amass in Copenhagen, Denmark (Mowery 2017). He runs not only one of Copenhagen’s most critically acclaimed dining places but Amass is also one of the world’s few zero-waste restaurants. Orlando’s leadership ambidexterity is pronounced in his obsession to reduce costs by treating products that others consider waste (e.g. vegetable tops) as resources. He has built a company culture where the most important food waste reduction measure is: The state of mind in which we work. It has become a sport in the kitchen, almost a competition, to see who can find the coolest way to up-cycle the by-products we are producing. When we look at a vegetable the first thing we ask ourselves is […] what trim will we produce and how can we process the trim from the carrot into something delicious? (Mowery 2017)

This is a good example of the context model where the prevailing social norms (i.e. state of mind and competition between employees to waste less food) guide employee behaviour (explained in more detail later in the chapter). However, the cognitive model is more dominant and precedes the context model here by careful deliberation, effort and skill in every stage, from menu planning to portion serving. As a result, Amass has reduced their food costs to 18% versus the industry average of 30–35% (Parker 2018). At the same time, Orlando is equally focused to provide an inventive and extraordinary dining experience that New York Times calls “a magnet for diners in the know” (Fabricant 2017). Contextual ambidexterity at Amass further allows the staff to explore different or new cooking processes like fermentation, drying and pickling. For example, in the fermentation room wine leftovers are turned into vinegar and various peels and trims are upcycled to become tastemakers rather than being discarded (Fabricant 2017; Mowery 2017). These and other methods, like “nose-to-tail” cooking where the entire animal is used for different purposes and for different dishes, have

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     65

generated important employee buy-in and allowed Orlando to create a dual-culture strategy and to achieve CESE. However, very few restaurants are able to achieve such a dedicated culture shift. For the majority of the market, the context model—relying on subtler and more unconscious cues to change behaviour—represents a more promising avenue to bridge good intentions of chefs to reduce food waste into actual behaviour. We suggest nudging as fruitful way to put the context model into action.

Nudging as a Vehicle for Behavioural Change Much of human behaviours are automatic and intuitive. This explains why information provision, which requires deliberation and cognitive effort, is often not enough to change behaviour (Lehner et al. 2016). Nudging, on the other hand, primarily taps into the context model of behavioural change. It is a method that entails making deliberate changes in the choice environment which “nudge” people to both behave and make more responsible and pro-social choices. A nudge is any change in the environment that steers people’s choices and behaviour in a predictable way without prohibiting available options or changing the economic incentives of the choice (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). As mentioned earlier, robust empirical evidence shows that nudges have bridged the attitude-behavioural gap in numerous contexts (e.g. Vlaev et al. 2016; Wilson et al. 2016). For example, when a nudge in the form of smaller plates is presented on a breakfast buffet, Kallbekken and Sælen (2013) demonstrate that consumers’ general intention to waste less food is nudged into actual behaviour. Thus, by triggering consumers to serve themselves less than they can finish (by providing smaller receptacles) (Kallbekken and Sælen 2013) or installing trayless canteens to avoid stacking food (Thiagarajah and Getty 2013), the amount of food left on the plates and trays decreases significantly. These are two examples of nudges that particularly zoom in on making it easier for consumers to behave in a more pro-social way, but there are also many other types of nudges.

66     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

Some other important ones are, for example, default rules, use of social norms, disclosure and pre-commitment strategies (see Sunstein 2014 or Vlaev et al. 2016 for a complete list). In this study, we implemented two types of nudges that align with the concepts of leadership and contextual ambidexterity, namely a (1) social norms nudge and a (2) pre-commitment nudge. Social norms work as a “guide” for people to behave in a normatively correct and accepted manner as they conform to what others do (Goldstein et al. 2008). In the case of the social norms nudge, the leader of the group is utilised to establish the social norm. This enables leadership ambidexterity and in turn facilitates a CESE approach. To facilitate contextual ambidexterity, a pre-commitment nudge is used. This nudge requires the kitchen staff to pre-commit to a specific behaviour at a certain time in future. This slight “process” nudge (i.e. context) is expected to increase the likelihood of future compliance with the desired behaviour (Sunstein 2014).

Social Norms Nudge Social norms are defined as “rules and standards that are understood by members of a group and that guide and/or constrain social behaviour without the force of law” (Cialdini and Trost 1998, p. 152). Using descriptive social norms as a nudge thereby entails providing informative cues about the normative behaviour and what others are doing to comply with that behaviour (Goldstein et al. 2008). Deviations from social norms have no legal consequences—it only impacts how a person feels about by not complying with the normative behaviour and how others react to the non-compliant behaviour (Cialdini and Trost 1998). Social norms develop through interactions with other people and can be both implicitly or explicitly stated (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004). Research further shows that social norms influence behaviour in both private (e.g. reusing the towel in a hotel room, see Goldstein et al. 2008) and public settings (e.g. revisiting the buffet, see Kallbekken and Sælen 2013). Abrahamse and Steg (2013) also find that social norms are particularly effective in an employee context. These settings allow for face-to-face interactions (where the social norms can be more explicitly

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     67

expressed) which, in comparison with only written messages, further reinforce the normatively accepted and expected behaviour (Abrahamse and Steg 2013). This is hence an important reason to include a social norms nudge in this research. There are many examples of how social nudges influence more moderate food consumption (see, e.g., Cruwys et al. 2015 for a review) and stimulate various types of resource conservation behaviours in hotels (e.g. Chang et al. 2016; Nisa et al. 2017 for reviews). Goldstein and colleagues (2008) illustrate, in particular, that when consumers are informed about how others behaved in the very same setting that they are currently in (e.g. that the previous guests in a specific hotel room participated in a hotel water conservation programme by hanging up their towel), their conformation to the social norm increased further. In a professional kitchen setting (the setting of our study), the “white” brigade is often a tightly knit team that closely works together. The social context is extremely important because well-functioning teams tend to rely not only on formal management but also on social structures (Sorgule 2016). Within that structure, the chef is central to the team. This hierarchy is not just defined by a structure, but also by skills, expertise and respect. The chef is regarded as the artist of the trade. Complying with the chef ’s vision and behaviour is important in order to fit in and to belong to the team (Morse 2002). Similar to how consumers react to other consumers’ behaviour in a specific context, reminding the staff in the kitchen what their chef is doing to reduce food waste is also expected to influence their actions to discard less and save more food. Research on social influence approaches supports this expectation by showing that “block leaders” and “modelling” are in fact the most effective forms of all social influence interventions (Abrahamse and Steg 2013). This entails that somebody from the same social network informs and “models” (showing by doing) the socially expected and accepted behaviour. In line with those research findings, we expect that implementing a social norms nudge using the chef and the community as role models will decrease the amount of food wasted by professional kitchen staff.

68     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

Pre-commitment Nudge Most people procrastinate to make decisions and find it difficult to achieve even the simplest goals, such as dietary objectives or prosocial behaviours. Research shows that this can be changed significantly by pre-committing to a specific behaviour (e.g. Baca-Motes et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2016). Making a commitment generally entails that an individual pledges to comply with a specific viewpoint or behaviour (Abrahamse and Steg 2013). Sunstein (2014) further describes a pre-commitment nudge as strategy whereby “people commit to a certain type of action” (p. 5) and preferable at a precise future moment in time. Commitments that are made public are usually more effective, but they do not need to be rewarded or penalty driven (Dolan et al. 2012). Indeed, publicly committed individuals are more likely to process information in accordance with their commitment. This means that they are likely to be influenced by information supporting their commitment and equally resistant to changes to their initial commitment (Abrahamse and Steg 2013). Even just signing a pre-commitment increases the probability that the goal will be achieved. Baca-Motes and colleagues (2012) show for example that hotel guests, who make a pre-commitment to behave in a sustainable manner during their stay (e.g. reusing the towel and switching off the light), comply significantly more with this behaviour than guests who did not make the same promise at check-in. This effect is triggered by an internal need to reduce cognitive dissonance between conflicting attitudes and beliefs from for example promising to do something and not following through later (Baca-Motes et al. 2012). It is a disharmonious state of mind driving people to restore consistency by balancing agreements with actual deeds (Cialdini 2007). To further increase the conformity to the commitment, the commitment message should be specific (Locke and Latham 2002). Previous research shows that message specificity reduces “the ambiguity about what needs to be accomplished” (Baca-Motes et al. 2012, p. 1072). In a professional kitchen, waste can often be avoided by small and simple

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     69

measures that most staff are aware of but fail to comply with in the heat of running the operation (Staats 2018). This could be things like putting food back into the refrigerator even if there is only a small piece left, using the closest-to-expiry-date product first, creating daily specials from products that are about to be spoiled and creating transfer orders for food that can be used in other kitchens (for establishments operating several restaurants). These are just a few obvious measures, but unfortunately, they are often not complied with. Thus, in the second restaurant kitchen of our experiment, we apply a pre-commitment nudge. In line with the importance of message specificity to avoid ambiguity, the information was particularly zoomed in on food waste reduction. We consequently expect that when the kitchen staff makes a specific commitment, it will reduce food waste significantly more than when there is no pre-commitment.

Research Methodology: Two Field Studies To empirically test the social norms and pre-commitment nudge, we set up two field studies. The studies were executed concurrently from November 2017 to January 2018 and in two separate kitchens that operate discretely and independently of each other. Each kitchen is manned by separate kitchen brigades and serves different restaurant outlets located on a Hotel Management University campus in The Netherlands. The restaurants that the kitchens serve feature different concepts, cuisines, menus and target markets. The kitchen crews, the unit of analysis in the studies, consist of junior and senior students in both kitchens. Professional chefs, also referred to as instructors, manage the kitchen brigades. We measured the food waste in kilograms of organic waste which also includes unavoidable organic waste like peels and vegetable trims. Both restaurants are open from Monday through Friday. This means that the kitchens operate 5 days per week. To understand the current waste levels, we first set up a baseline measurement for both studies. These ran for 3 weeks or more precisely, 15 consecutive working days. The immediate week after the baseline measure was not included as

70     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

it was not a representative week of operations due to the upcoming Christmas period. Therefore, the implementation of the intervention took place after the holidays. The nudge in each kitchen was operationalised for 9 (Study A) and 8 (Study B) consecutive working days. This was done to ensure that we had the same participants in the experiment as the staff rotates every 2 weeks for training purposes. The first week of the intervention was shorter because the restaurants only opened on Tuesday (Study A) and on Wednesday (Study B) after the holidays. This gave us 4 days of data in the first week for Study A and 3 days of data for Study B, respectively. In each kitchen, a different nudge was tested. Study A addresses the social norms nudge, whereas Study B investigates the effects of a pre-commitment nudge.

Study A: Social Norms Nudge Procedure The kitchen in Study A is dedicated to serve an upscale buffet restaurant (set up in different buffet stations) that is predominately frequented by staff and students. In this specific kitchen, large quantities of food are prepared simultaneously to make the buffet stations ready for service at a specific time. Thus, planning and preparation is key to reduce food waste as many inexperienced kitchen staff members tend to prepare too much for “just in case its busy” situations. For the purpose of this nudge, the chefs were identified as important block leaders and role models for the kitchen brigade (Abrahamse and Steg 2013; Morse 2002). Aligning and conforming with the norms of the community is also important to fit in. As a result, we used both stakeholders as social reference points to develop the social norms nudge. We communicated this via signs throughout the kitchen. The signs clearly expressed the fact that the chefs find it very important not to waste food and that the community is doing what they can to reduce food waste. They also appealed to the staff’s mindset with a prompt “Do you?” (see Fig. 3.1). Figure 3.1 further shows that we emphasised the

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     71

Fig. 3.1  Social norms nudges (Study A)

face-to-face social interaction in the nudges by adding the faces of the chefs and featuring a photo of the kitchen brigade community. The signs were featured in many different places throughout the kitchen. We weighted the organic food waste on a daily basis to measure the influence of the nudge on food waste behaviour of the kitchen staff. This action did not provide an additional cue because the organic food waste is already separated in specific waste bins as part of standard

72     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

operations. The kitchen operates from Monday to Friday, resulting in 15 days of food waste data for the baseline measurement and in 9 days of operational data for the social norms intervention as the restaurant was closed on the Monday of the first week.

Analysis and Results During the baseline measure, the average food waste was slightly more than 56 kilograms per day (MBASELINE_SN = 56.18, SD = 12.82). This decreased to an average of about 42 kilograms per day during the intervention of the social norms nudge (MNUDGE_SN = 42.13, SD = 17.36, see Fig. 3.2). This difference equals an average of 14.05 kilograms of food saved per day and an average decrease of food waste of 25.02% per day as a result of the social norms nudge implementation. The results from an ANOVA further show that when not accounting for the days of the week, the social norms nudge had a statistically significant effect on the kitchen crews’ efforts to reduce food waste (F(1, 24) = 5.19, p = .033) in comparison with when there was no

Average Food Waste per Day (kgs)

60 50 40 30 20 10 Baseline Measurement

Social Norms Nudge

Fig. 3.2  Average food wasted per day during the experiment (Study A)

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     73

nudge implemented. When including the days of the week in the ANOVA, this effect becomes marginally significant (F(1, 24) = 3.41, p = .086). There is no direct effect of the days of the week (F(4, 24) = 2.10, p = .135) and also no interaction effect between the interventions and the days of the week (F(4, 24) = 1.61, p = .228). This means that there is no specific day of the week that on average produces significantly more waste than another and that the nudge does not influence this pattern. Yet Fig. 3.3 shows that there are quite large differences on average (in real numbers) between (1) the days of the week in terms of food waste generated in general and also between (2) the baseline measurement and the nudge period on the different days. To fine-grain the results further, we see that particularly Mondays and Fridays produce a lot of food waste. As the kitchen is closed on Saturday and Sunday, there are two plausible explanations for this. Firstly, items that cannot be used the following week because of expiry

Average Food Waste Per Day of the Week (kgs)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Monday

Tuesday Baseline Measure

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Social Norm Nudge

Fig. 3.3  Average food wasted per day of the week during the experiment (Study A)

74     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

dates and spoilage are discarded on Fridays. Secondly, Mondays are a day when the kitchen prepares for the upcoming week and precooks several items (e.g. stocks and soups). This produces more unavoidable food waste such as peels, core of vegetables and so forth. This can also explain why the social norms nudge is not as effective on Monday in the second week of the intervention. Another argument is that the crew needed to be reminded of the social norms again after the weekend. The result of the exposure to the nudges during Monday is visible on the following day (Tuesday in week 2) when the food waste drops significantly again. This is visualised in Fig. 3.4 which outlines the daily food waste per kilogram during the baseline measurement (first 3 weeks) and during the implementation of the social norms nudge (last 2 weeks starting Tuesday). Study A shows that informing and reminding staff members of what their role models and community expect of them have a significant effect on their behaviour. Indeed, explicitly communicating what the social norms are in relation to food waste nudges the kitchen crew to conform to the socially acceptable behaviour.

Fig. 3.4  Daily food wastage (Study A)

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     75

Study B: Pre-commitment Nudge To further explore the effectiveness of nudging in a professional kitchen context, we set up Study B in a “wing” kitchen. This kitchen serves both a casual dining and a fine dining restaurant, both of which are predominately catering to external guests. In this study, we investigate the effect of a pre-commitment to prime participants to waste less food.

Procedure Similar to and at the same time as Study A, we took a baseline measurement during 15 consecutive days. When the restaurants reopened and the kitchen was operational again on Wednesday after the Christmas period, we implemented the pre-commitment nudge for 8 days. The pre-commitment letter was handed out on Wednesday morning in the first week and Monday morning in the second week. To make the pre-commitment public, they were personally handed out and explained to the kitchen brigade (rather than emailed). Upon completion, the pre-commitments were given back to the research assistant. It was operationalised by asking the participants to answer a few questions about food waste followed by a commitment to do their best to prevent waste (see Fig. 3.5). The questions served as facilitators to make the message specific to food waste and to prime the participants to actively think and reflect (rather than passively read) on their own knowledge and attitude towards waste. To subtly remind the crew to fulfil their commitment to minimise food waste during times of operation, we implemented green happy smileys on the refrigerators and sad red faces on the waste bins (see Fig. 3.6). We chose the pre-commitment nudge and the reminding smileys for this kitchen because here the crew cooks to order and accommodate for many individual guest requests. This means that many food items are taken out and back in again to the refrigerators several times per night. In the heat of the moment, it is sometimes easier to leave the food product out or even to throw it away than to place it back into

76     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

Fig. 3.5  Pre-commitment nudge (Study B)

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     77

Fig. 3.6  Reminder smileys (Study B)

the refrigerator. In this kitchen, it is therefore important to nudge the right behaviours during the operation whereas in Study A, the largest difference could be made during the planning and preparation stage by reminding the crew what the social norm is. We used the same measures as in Study A. We weighted the organic food waste in kilograms for 15 days before the experiment and for 8 days during the experiment.

Analysis and Results The effect of the pre-commitment in combination with the green and red smileys was substantial. The average weekly food waste was close to 19 kilograms per day during the baseline measurement weeks (MBASELINE_PC = 18.92, SD = 5.69). The pre-commitment nudge and the smileys on the waste bins reduced this amount with more than 6 kilograms per day resulting in an average daily waste to slightly less than 13 kilograms per day (MNUDGE_PC = 12.58, SD = 4.71, see Fig. 3.7). This means that the intervention in this kitchen triggered the staff to save on average 33.50% more food every day. An ANOVA further shows that the differences in food waste between the baseline measurement and pre-commitment nudge are significant (F(1, 23) = 7.24, p = .014). Further analysis showed that this main effect also is significant when accounting for the days of the week (F(1, 23) = 7.80, p = .015). There

78     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

Average Food Waste per Day (kgs)

25 20 15 10 5 0 Baseline Measure

Pre-Commitment Nudge

Fig. 3.7  Average food wasted per day during the experiment (Study B)

is no direct effect of the days of the week (F(4, 23) = 1.62, p = .229) and no interaction effect between the intervention and the days of operations on the food waste generated (F(4, 23) = .07, p = .991). This entails that on average, there is not a day of the week that produces significantly more (less) food waste than another and that regardless of the day of the week, the pre-commitment nudge is equally effective. Figure 3.8 outlines this pattern by showing the average food waste per day during the baseline measurement period and the pre-commitment intervention. Consistent with the findings in Study A, additional investigation shows that a lot of food is wasted on Fridays in particular. For the same reasons as in Study A, this is because the restaurant and thus also the kitchen are not open on Saturday and Sunday. More food is therefore discarded on Fridays because of the inability to use it before it is either spoiled or expired. In contrast to Study A where it took a full operational day on Monday for the social norms nudge to have an effect, when reminded about the commitment to reduce food waste on Monday morning, it had a direct effect on staff behaviour. In line with operations of this kitchen where the procedure is to “cook-to-order”,

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     79

Average Food Waste Per Day of the Week (kgs)

25

20

15

10

5

0 Monday

Tuesday

Baseline Measure

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Pre-Commitment Nudge

Fig. 3.8  Average food wasted per day of the week during the experiment (Study B)

less preparation and pre-cooking takes place at the beginning of the week. Consequently, there is less food waste on Mondays in this kitchen (also during the baseline measurement) in comparison with the buffet kitchen in Study A. Figure 3.9 displays this pattern by showing the daily food waste during the baseline measure (first 3 weeks) and then during the pre-commitment intervention period (last 2 weeks starting on Wednesday). Positively surprised by these large effects of the nudges, we interviewed some of the kitchen crewmembers to find out how these savings on food waste had been realised. One of the junior crewmembers told us that they had made it into a competition of who could waste the least food. The chefs also informed us that the wing kitchen crew was very engaged in transferring food to the buffet kitchen that they could no longer use. This way the buffet restaurant could use it the next day for lunch rather than the wing kitchen having to throw it away.

80     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen 35

Food Waste Per Day (kgs)

30

25

20

15

10

5

Basline Measure

Pre-Commitment Nudge

Fig. 3.9  Daily food wastage (Study B)

As a sign of the unconscious effect of nudging, some crewmembers could not clearly point out what had changed in their behaviour. One of the senior crewmembers supervising the younger kitchen crew said: “Maybe the commitments that were listed at the bottom of the questionnaire […] actually worked on their behaviour and they actually did their best to waste less food”. Another one told us that maybe it helped to think about saving food in a different way: During the morning meeting […] a few students commented after filling out the questions and having seen the waste tracking forms in the kitchen, if it could be used as their learning goal; reducing food waste by for example 5kgs.

These insights of not being able to specifically identify behavioural changes support the notion that nudging has the capacity to influence behaviour without consciously influencing the mind (Lehner et al. 2016). Whether it was unconscious or also conscious choices in some

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     81

instances, this research shows that inexpensive and easily implementable nudges can mobilise important behavioural changes to save food from the bin and thereby make a significant contribution both financially and environmentally to the operation of the restaurant.

General Discussion The goal of this research was to investigate whether nudges could be used to strategically manage the workforce in professional kitchens to behave more sustainably, specifically in relation to food waste. Building on a CESE approach, we suggested that nudges can help to support leadership and contextual ambidexterity, both key ingredients to CESE. We demonstrate the effectiveness of different nudges substantially diminish food waste through two separate field experiments in two different, independent professional kitchens. Both the social norms and pre-commitment nudges resulted in significant savings. The nudges triggered the kitchen crew to act differently, in a manner that allowed employees the freedom to autonomously decide how to operate more cost-effectively. Our research therefore contributes to the emerging research on CESE and specifically to the development and implementation of a dual-culture strategy to realise CESE within firms. Saving 25.02% (Study A) and 33.50% (Study B) more food per day makes a significant difference to profitability. It is especially important to note that these types of cost-saving measures do not influence the guest experience in the restaurants. Hence, our research demonstrates that implementing a nudging strategy can help to create important employee buy-into act sustainably in an industry that is typically indoctrinated with a mindset that favours the customer experience at all costs. This further aligns with previous research outlining that staff awareness and communication about food waste engages employees to “walk the extra mile” to reduce the amount of food wasted (e.g. Filimonau and Delysia 2019). We specifically show how nudging, due to its effortless, automatic and almost unconscious nature, can help employees in an effective way to deal with at first sight conflicting goals of cost reduction and

82     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

customer satisfaction. Interestingly, these effects also sustained during the period they were implemented. Nudging strategies are sometimes criticised for their potentially short-term effects (e.g. Bucher et al. 2016)—once people get used to them, they might become less effective. During the timeframe of our experiments, we did not observe such an effect. In fact, the pattern through time seems to suggest that the nudges were almost equally effective. Interestingly though, we did see that the reinforcement of the pre-commitment nudge seemed to have an uplifting effect. This may suggest that the mechanism of the nudge itself does not lose its effectiveness. Aligned with a recent large-scale study on household food waste (showing that repeated multi-channel communication is key to drive behavioural change; Young et al. 2017), it may however be important to reinforce the nudge through different communication formats for the nudges to sustain their effectiveness in the long run. To further support our findings, future research can explore the effect of nudging on employee buy-in in a context where the kitchen staff has worked for many years and are more used to “the way we always do things around here”. The kitchen crews in our sample were students and still in training, which means that they are typically willing to learn and open to change. For example, work experience might moderate the effect of the social norms as experienced staff has acquired its own expertise and might be less influenced by the chef ’s norms. There is also a need to further explore the longitudinal effects of nudging in a food waste context. The interventions in this study were implemented for 9 and 8 days, respectively. Our results provide a first insight into how to activate change, but a better understanding of longer-term effects of the nudges is needed (Bucher et al. 2016). While we did not observe any significant wear-off effects during the investigated period, it is important to assess these effects over time. Indeed, research is needed to investigate if the same nudge (1) can continuously be effective, (2) needs to be communicated in different ways over time or (3) if the type of nudge used should be altered over time altogether (i.e. using a variety of different nudging strategies). Finally, the current work investigated two nudges, social norms and pre-commitment. Whereas the results are significant, there are other

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     83

nudging techniques and combinations of different nudges that are interesting to explore. For example, people are guided by easy and ­convenient solutions (Sunstein 2014). In the kitchen, the waste bins are often closer by than the refrigerators. It would be interesting to explore the effect of placing the waste bins further way or making it more convenient and easier to place food back into the refrigerator by for example having a mobile refrigerator closer by while cooking. Specifically, for the pre-commitment nudge it would be interesting to explore the spillover effects of this intervention as our post-experiment interviews revealed that other social factors might have been put in motion by this nudge (e.g. a competition to waste less food).

Conclusion This chapter contributes to the scarce literature on the effectiveness of nudging in a real-life employee context. In doing so, we pave an interesting way forward for restaurants and other food service providers to explore in their search for CESE and competitive advantage. Through nudging, we show how cost reduction measures can be achieved in the form of reducing food waste, a cost measure that not only has significant financial but also vital environmental and societal implications. Most notably, this research demonstrates that an important solution in the battle against food waste is to change the choice architecture for employees in professional kitchens. Rather than solely focusing on information provision requiring cognitive effort and reflection, nudging cues about social norms and frames to prime consistent behaviour can work as an invisible hand in making better employee decisions for the company and for society at large.

References Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773–1785.

84     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

Ariza-Montes, A., Arjona-Fuentes, J. M., Han, H., & Law, R. (2018). The price of success: A study on chefs’ subjective well-being, job satisfaction, and human values. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 69, 84–93. Baca-Motes, K., Brown, A., Gneezy, A., Keenan, E. A., & Nelson, L. D. (2012). Commitment and behavior change: Evidence from the field. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1070–1084. Bernstad, A. (2014). Household food waste separation behavior and the importance of convenience. Waste Management, 34(7), 1317–1323. Boulden, J. (2017). Ikea is slashing its food waste thanks to Winnow startup. CNN Money. http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/08/smallbusiness/ikea-foodwaste-winnow/index.html. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Bucher, T., Collins, C., Rollo, M. E., McCaffrey, T. A., Vlieger, N. D., Bend, D. V. D., et al. (2016). Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: A systematic review of positional influences on food choice. British Journal of Nutrition, 115(12), 2252–2263. Chang, H. S., Huh, C., & Lee, M. J. (2016). Would an energy conservation nudge in hotels encourage hotel guests to conserve? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 57(2), 172–183. Chiovera, J. (2012). Opinion: You’re only as good as your last meal. CSP Daily News. https://www.cspdailynews.com/category-news/foodservice/articles/ opinion-you-re-only-good-your-last-meal. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York, NY: Collins Business. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591–621. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vols. 1–2, 4th ed., pp. 151–192). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Cruwys, T., Bevelander, K. E., & Hermans, R. C. J. (2015). Social modeling of eating: A review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice. Appetite, 86, 3–18. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., & Vlaev, I. (2012). Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 264–277. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2010). Mindspace: Influencing behaviour for public policy. LSE Research Online. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35792/. Accessed on 22.2.2019.

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     85

Fabricant, F. (2017). Matt Orlando brings California sun to Copenhagen. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/dining/amass-restaurant-copenhagen-matt-orlando.html. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Filimonau, V., & Delysia, A. (2019). Food waste management in hospitality operations: A critical review. Tourism Management, 71, 234–245. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482. Hebrok, M., & Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design—An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 151, 380–392. Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Silvennoinen, K., & Hartikainen, H. (2016). Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector. Waste Management, 56, 446–453. Heracleous, L., & Wirtz, J. (2014). Singapore Airlines: Achieving sustainable advantage through mastering paradox. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 150–170. Hollins, O. (2013). Overview of waste in the UK hospitality and food service sector. WRAP. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Overview%20 of%20Waste%20in%20the%20UK%20Hospitality%20and%20Food%20 Service%20Sector%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Jagau, H. L., & Vyrastekova, J. (2017). Behavioral approach to food waste: An experiment. British Food Journal, 119(4), 882–894. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2013). ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win–win environmental measure. Economics Letters, 119(3), 325–327. Lehner, M., Mont, O., & Heiskanen, E. (2016). Nudging: A promising tool for sustainable consumption behaviour? Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 166–177. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705. Miller, G. F., Gupta, S., Kropp, J. D., Grogan, K. A., & Mathews, A. (2016). The effects of pre-ordering and behavioral nudges on National School

86     A. de Visser-Amundson and M. Kleijnen

Lunch Program participants’ food item selection. Journal of Economic Psychology, 55, 4–16. Mittal, V., Anderson, E. W., Sayrak, A., & Tadikamalla, P. (2005). Dual emphasis and the long-term financial impact of customer satisfaction. Marketing Science, 24(4), 544–555. Morse, G. (2002). Management by fire: A conversation with chef Anthony Bourdain. Harvard Business Review, 80(7), 57–62. Mowery, L. (2017). Copenhagen chef Matt Orlando has big plans for tackling food waste. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lmowery/2017/12/17/ copenhagen-chef-matt-orlando-has-big-plans-for-tackling-food-waste/. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Nisa, C., Varum, C., & Botelho, A. (2017). Promoting sustainable hotel guest behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 58(4), 354–363. Nobel, C., & Tobin, J. (2013). D’O: Making a Michelin-starred restaurant affordable. HBS Working Knowledge, 5. Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Management, 35, 207–217. Parker, J. (2018). Amass chef explains how to hit the money spot with a zerowaste restaurant. Skift Table. https://table.skift.com/2018/04/25/amasschef-explains-how-to-hit-the-money-spot-with-a-zero-waste-restaurant/. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Perroni, E. (2017). Anthony Bourdain is tackling food waste. https://foodtank. com/news/2017/10/anthony-bourdain-wasted/. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Pirani, S. I., & Arafat, H. A. (2016). Reduction of food waste generation in the hospitality industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 132, 129–145. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York, NY: Collier Macmillan. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409. Rust, R. T., & Huang, M. H. (2012). Optimizing service productivity. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 47–66. Schubert, C. (2017). Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecological Economics, 132, 329–342. Sorgule, P. (2016). The power of teamwork in the kitchen. We Are Chefs. https:// wearechefs.com/2016/05/20/the-power-of-teamwork-in-the-kitchen/. Accessed on 22.2.2019.

3  Nudging in Food Waste Management: Where Sustainability …     87

Staats, L. (2018). Brandpunt+: Rolmodel tegen de voedselverspilling. Npostart.nl. https://www.npostart.nl/brandpunt/31-05-2018/KN_1699412. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Strotmann, C., Göbel, C., Friedrich, S., Kreyenschmidt, J., Ritter, G., & Teitscheid, P. (2017). A participatory approach to minimizing food waste in the food industry—A manual for managers. Sustainability, 9(1), 66. Stuart, T., & Jarosz, D. (2017). Supermarkets should be cutting food waste, not relying on charities. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/ sustainable-business/2017/feb/03/supermarkets-food-waste-charities-tesco-sainsburys-fairshare. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudging: A very short guide. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(583), 1–7. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Thiagarajah, K., & Getty, V. M. (2013). Impact on plate waste of switching from a tray to a trayless delivery system in a university dining hall and employee response to the switch. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(1), 141–145. Van Prooijen, E. (2017). De strijd tegen 127 miljoen kilo weggegooid brood. EenVandaag. https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/de-strijd-tegen-127-miljoen-kilo-weggegooid-brood/. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Vlaev, I., King, D., Dolan, P., & Darzi, A. (2016). The theory and practice of “nudging”: Changing health behaviors. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 550–561. Whitehair, K. J., Shanklin, C. W., & Brannon, L. A. (2013). Written messages improve edible food waste behaviors in a university dining facility. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(1), 63–69. Wilson, A. L., Buckley, E., Buckley, J. D., & Bogomolova, S. (2016). Nudging healthier food and beverage choices through salience and priming: Evidence from a systematic review. Food Quality and Preference, 51, 47–64. Wirtz, J., & Zeithaml, V. (2018). Cost-effective service excellence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 59–80. Young, W., Russell, S. V., Robinson, C. A., & Barkemeyer, R. (2017). Can social media be a tool for reducing consumers’ food waste? A behaviour change experiment by a UK retailer. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 117, 195–203.

4 Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets Christine Moser

Introduction While the growing literature on food waste has greatly improved our understanding of the front and back end of the food waste chain (Aschemann-Witzel 2016; Parfitt et al. 2010; Parizeau et al. 2015), the crucial middle part occupied by grocery retailers has received limited attention. Producers and consumers are responsible for the majority of food waste (Stenmarck et al. 2016). However, grocery retailers connect yet keep separate producers and consumers and therefore hold a key role in the food chain (Brancoli et al. 2017). Reasons why grocery retailers, especially supermarkets, waste food include inefficient store operations and replenishment rules, excessive requirements for product quality and standards, and demanding customer behaviour (Teller et al. 2018), activities which fall under the responsibilities of supermarket managers. However, studies about the important role of supermarket managers in C. Moser (*)  Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_4

89

90     C. Moser

reducing food waste at the store level are still scarce (for exceptions see Filimonau and Gherbin 2018; Mena et al. 2011). Reducing food waste is typically part of a supermarket’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy (Devin and Richards 2018). CSR strategies include actions and policies geared towards satisfying the expectations of diverse stakeholders (Aguinis and Glavas 2012), such as suppliers, governments, or customers. These expectations include economic, social, and environmental performance (Aguinis and Glavas 2012). Managers are responsible for implementing CSR strategies (Maon et al. 2009) and an emerging stream of research on micro-CSR—that is, the individual actions underlying CSR-related activities (Gond et al. 2017)—is evidence of a growing awareness of the important role of managers in CSR implementation. However, existing research has largely ignored the actual practices that managers undertake in order to implement CSR strategies in supermarkets. In an effort to advance the literature on food waste management in supermarkets, the following research question guides the chapter: How and why do supermarket managers engage in supermarket food waste reduction practices? Practices can be described as “(1) understandings (knowledge and tacit cultural templates), (2) procedures (explicit performance rules), and (3) engagements (emotional projects and purposes)” (Schau et al. 2009, p. 35) and are generally understood as accepted and routinised activities (Vaara and Whittington 2012). A practice lens allows for an understanding of food waste behaviour that moves beyond individual actors. Instead, actors are embedded in broader social structures that guide the activities or “doings” (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011) of many individuals. Household and consumer food waste have previously been studied from a practice perspective (Evans 2012; Hargreaves 2011). The current study is one of the first to apply a practice perspective to food waste in the retail sector, adding to the literature on managerial activities that are geared at implementing CSR strategies in supermarkets by reducing food waste (Filimonau and Gherbin 2018; Gruber et al. 2016). The empirical material for this research contains interview data collected in a case study on supermarket food waste reduction practices. The empirical findings identify and describe the

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     91

practices of monitoring, knowledge sharing, and external collaborations through the underlying elements of understandings, procedures, and engagements of supermarket managers. This chapter contributes to the literature in two ways. First, it demonstrates how supermarket managers engage in micro-CSR practices in the context of food waste in their daily work. It thus shows that a practice lens helps to better understand the individual actions that together drive CSR implementation on the store level. Second, this chapter highlights the important role of understanding and talking about food waste reduction, advancing prior research where a lack of knowledge sharing was found to contribute to food waste (Mena et al. 2011). Building on how prior empirical work has utilised a practice perspective (Mattila et al. 2018; Närvänen et al. 2016; Schau et al. 2009), I illustrate supermarket managers’ food waste reduction practices and the associated procedures, understandings, and engagements. This study provides four implications for practice. First, supermarket managers should share their best practices with regard to food waste in collectives. In addition to corporate strategy, managers can self-organise in local and regional collectives, using for example online platforms. Second, supermarket top management can choose to boost in-company knowledge sharing among managers and employees. This could be done through workshops, courses, and meetings with specific attention for knowledge sharing. Third, collaboration with external partners such as the food bank should be formalised and incentivised. For example, each supermarket should collaborate with food banks, and top management should include the task of collaborating with external partners in the regular task package of managers. Fourth, stakeholders such as governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) should urge supermarkets to accept their responsibility in reducing food waste.

Theoretical Background Prior studies have identified producers and consumers as being responsible for the majority of food waste (Milieucentraal 2013; ­ Papargyropoulou et al. 2014; Schanes et al. 2018; Stenmarck et al. 2016).

92     C. Moser

However, supermarkets occupy a key position in between producers and consumers. In this position, supermarkets have considerable power to influence food waste in the food chain (Ribeiro et al. 2018). They aim to do so by developing CSR strategies that typically include strategies to reduce food waste. CSR is defined as “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance” (Aguinis and Glavas 2012, p. 933). CSR strategies, accordingly, are geared at redefining the content and direction of corporate strategies in order to accommodate CSR goals (Gond et al. 2018). However, despite ever-increasing efforts of supermarkets to develop and implement CSR strategies, many food retailers seem to fail: food waste is still a major problem for the sector, and food waste reduction targets are usually not met (Smithers 2012). Prior work has identified root causes of supermarket food waste, including high-quality standards, width of product range, and promotion campaigns by the retailer; delivery issues, product allocation and secondary packaging unit size at the distribution centre; store format and operations, store product categories, and store personnel; and customer in-store behaviour, customer demand patterns, and high customer expectations (Teller et al. 2018). However, one reason for a failure in implementing CSR strategies may be a lack of understanding how managers understand and talk about corporate CSR strategies when expected to implement them in their daily work routines. In other words, research should pay more attention to CSR micro-processes (Aguinis and Glavas 2012) and associated practices. CSR micro-processes are individual actions and interactions underlying CSR-related activities (Gond et al. 2017) and are those processes where corporate CSR strategies are actually translated into daily work routines. The micro-processes can for example include knowledge sharing, communication, and engagement (Gond et al. 2017). Yet, studies about the important role of supermarkets and specifically the role of supermarket managers in implementing food waste strategies are still scarce. One study targeted the supplier-retailer interface in the UK and Spain and specified root causes for food waste such as a lack of knowledge sharing (Mena et al. 2011). Another study of UK retailers shows

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     93

that supermarket managers can largely act at their own discretion in interpreting CSR strategies and mitigating food waste (Filimonau and Gherbin 2018). While these studies provide important insights into activities geared at reducing food waste, they leave largely unanswered the question of the actual practices, and particularly reasons for managers to (not) adopt those practices. Practices are characterised by three components: understanding, procedures, and engagements (Warde 2005). Understandings comprise knowledge and tacit cultural templates; procedures refer to performance rules and tacit cultural templates for action; and engagements are about emotionally charged purposes and tasks to which people commit (Schau et al. 2009). Some forms of practice theory recognise human and non-human interaction (Gherardi 2009) as part of practices, ascribing agency to non-human actors as well. In the case of food waste, food itself becomes an active agent because of its distinct materiality. The materiality of food is crucial to understand “the production of social life” (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011, p. 1242) where food is involved, as is the case in supermarkets. For example, vegetables and fruit tend to perish quickly; meat needs to be cooled properly throughout the supply chain; and dairy has a short shelve life. These distinct materialities of food shape to a large extent how supermarket managers have to engage with food. Prior work has improved our understanding of food waste reduction practices in households (Evans 2012; Hargreaves 2011; Närvänen et al. 2016). For example, Evans (2012) has shown in an ethnographic study how people make sense of transforming food into waste. Hargreaves (2011) also used an ethnographic approach to study behavioural change in food waste reduction practices in a UK construction company. However, studies of food waste reduction practices at companies where food waste is part of the business model—that is, food retailers—(Delai and Takahashi 2013; Mena et al. 2011, 2014) remain at superficial levels. For example, Delai and Takahashi (2013) define practices as internal and external activities that can be integrated into a management system. Their focus is on overarching themes (e.g. if a retailer reports activities against global warming) instead of the social practices of individual managers. Another study identified management practices that

94     C. Moser

cause food waste (Mena et al. 2014). However, the identified practices (e.g. poor stock management) are informed by a macro-level organisational theory (resource-based view). As a consequence, there is a lack of problematisation of the practice concept, and therefore, the actual practice (e.g. what are the procedures, understandings, engagements of poor stock management) remains unclear. The current study seeks to add to this literature through leveraging the practice concept to better understand micro-CSR practices in supermarkets.

Setting and Methods Design The current case study was carried out in 2017 among 20 managers of two Dutch leading supermarket chains. The growing literature on food waste antecedents and complexities has as yet paid limited attention to the actual practices of wasting food, particularly in supermarkets. As such, a case study design is appropriate because it moves the attention to “practices common across individuals” (Schau et al. 2009, p. 32). Secondary data sources (documents from websites, the 2016 CSR reports, social media communications on Facebook) have been analysed prior to the interviews, to develop an understanding of the setting. Studying these documents also helped to develop the interview guide which was used for 20 semi-structured interviews (see below) that form the basis for the empirical findings.

Setting and Respondents The case study was carried out at two leading Dutch supermarket chains, Super Store and Grocery Store. Super Store and Grocery Store are pseudonyms which are used to guarantee the respondents’ anonymity. Together, these two supermarkets dominate the market with among them a 54% share of the market.

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     95

The data consist in total of 20 interviews with managers from the two supermarket chains. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were carried out with team leaders with managerial responsibilities at Super Store. Team leaders coordinate a team of re-stockers and therefore are intimately involved in food waste reduction practices. From orienting pilot interviews at the beginning of the project, it transpired that the team leaders are the most important link between the supermarket manager and the re-stockers, as such interviewing team leaders would provide most insights for this research. The team leaders who were interviewed for this chapter worked at a large supermarket and were responsible for the segment “ready for sale”, and in particular the segments fruit and vegetables and deli (ready-made meals, cheese, and bread). The pilot interviews indicated that these segments are responsible for the largest share in food waste, providing a fruitful source of information about food waste reduction practices. In addition, five supermarket managers at Grocery Store were interviewed. Supermarket managers are ultimately responsible for the supermarket’s performance in terms of food waste. Therefore, in order to provide a comprehensive picture on food waste reduction practices, it was important to also understand how the managers perceive the issue of food waste, as well. Managers are responsible for the performance, which is measured daily and monitored by top management. Managers have monthly, sometimes weekly, meetings with region managers who continuously monitor the performance statistics. Interviewing managers was therefore crucial for understanding food waste reduction practices. In the following, I will refer to team leaders and supermarket managers as “managers” because both have managerial responsibilities and are directly involved with food waste reduction practices.

Data and Analysis An interview guide was derived from the literature discussed in the theory section as well as the secondary data. The interview guide included questions about activities to reduce and prevent food waste, the understanding, communication, and rules about food waste, and

96     C. Moser

the engagement with food and food waste in the supermarket. All interviews started with general questions to help make the respondents feel at ease. The further questions were formulated in such a way that the procedures, understanding, and engagements of managers were at the centre of attention. Procedures were assessed by asking managers about their knowledge of and actual carrying out of CSR strategies. Understanding was tied to how managers perceived their and others’ responsibility in the food chain and the supermarket. Engagement was operationalised as the purposes of food waste reduction and the associated involvement and commitment. The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured fashion, leaving room for respondents to bring up issues that were not included in the interview guide, while ensuring that all listed topics were covered during the interview. The interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim with the consent of the participants. The interviews were analysed in multiple cycles of coding using the “Gioia-methodology” (Gioia et al. 2013). This methodology involves several iterative steps, where the raw data from the interviews were first summarised in 1st order concepts and then categorised in 2nd order themes. Finally, the analysis cumulated in aggregate practices. For example, the quote “The famous fifo, you put the freshest products in the back of the shelves and not in the front of the shelf ” was coded as “stacking shelves with fresh products in front” (1st order concept), categorised into the 2nd order theme “fifo”, which became a part of the aggregate practice of “monitoring”.

Findings The data clearly show that managers dislike the practice of wasting food. They talk about this practice in terms of a “dead sin” and “against one’s principles”: “My father was a true greengrocer, wasting [food] is a sin, we didn’t do that at home and one didn’t do it in the shop, either” (Respondent 16, Grocery Store). At the same time, the respondents recognise that their personal preferences are sometimes difficult to match

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     97

with the company strategy. Supermarkets have to perform commercially, while individual managers might have deviating personal points of view. However, they are often motivated to engage in practices that allow them to reduce food waste in the supermarket. The findings section that follows presents the three identified food waste reduction practices: monitoring, knowledge sharing, and external collaboration and discusses the understandings, procedures, and engagements as part of those practices.

Monitoring Procedures Food has distinct materialities that require supermarket managers to carry out specific procedures. A frequently used procedure to reduce food waste is to “sticker” food that has almost reached its expiration date. This food receives a sticker that indicates a reduced price, for example, a sticker indicating a reduction (e.g. “20% off”) or a fixed price sticker. In order to be able to sticker correctly, managers have to coordinate a procedure that is coined “code book walking”. This “walk” entails that employees check the shelves for products that have almost reached their expiration date, these products are then stickered. An important procedure that enables stickering is that of “fifo filling” (first in—first out): here, products with the shortest expiration date are placed in front on the shelves: “The famous fifo, you put the freshest products in the back of the shelves and not in the front of the shelf ” (Respondent 17, Grocery Store). Products that are not anymore of optimal quality are taken from the shelves and used in different ways, which is referred to as “quality rounds”. For example, fruit, vegetables, cheese, or meat products that look not quite perfect anymore or are soon to reach their expiration date are offered to customers for tasting. Quality rounds are frequently done when products are delivered, in addition to the regular quality rounds for products already in the shelves.

98     C. Moser

Understandings During the quality rounds, managers not only rely on the expiration date as discussed in the prior section. Rather, they also trust their own judgement about the quality of the products in determining which products should be removed from the shelves. The managers rely on their background knowledge which is required to carry out the practice of monitoring. So, when you come in you do immediately a quality round and [take] everything that is over code, which means that it’s perished or over the sell-by date, out [of the shelf ]. Or you see a banana with mould. Or a rotten tomato, you remove those and throw them away. (Respondent 14, Super Store)

In their understanding of how food waste could be reduced, managers acknowledge and experience the difficulties of carrying out food waste reduction procedures. They feel that consumers should be responsible, too. Supermarkets put great efforts in marketing campaigns, for example, with offers such as “buy 1, get 1 for free”. Yet, the managers are convinced that it is ultimately the consumer who is responsible for their purchasing behaviour and subsequent household food waste. Their conviction of consumer responsibility is part of their tacit understanding of the limits of reducing food waste through monitoring procedures: “We have responsibility for ourselves, what the consumer does at home […] that is not our job” (Respondent 20, Grocery Store). Sometimes, supermarkets aim to facilitate consumers in reducing food waste, for example, by offering smaller portion sizes. However, managers know from experience that offering smaller portion sizes brings with it a new problem: the existing shelves will still have to be filled. Therefore, offering smaller sized containers and packages might reduce consumer food waste, yet increase supermarket food waste even in case of optimal monitoring procedures:

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     99

The shelve stays the same size, we really can’t offer so many varieties because in the end […] this will lead to much [food] going to waste, even if you have ever more choice, people in the end won’t eat more […]. (Respondent 18, Grocery Store)

Engagements Many managers are committed to the monitoring practice and in this way try to engage customers in reducing food waste. They emphasise the importance of the code book walking, fifo and quality rounds. Only if these activities are carried out frequently and diligently, they believe, is the practice of monitoring effective. The following quotes underscore how different procedures that are aimed at reducing food waste are intertwined and that managers care about carrying out the practices: “Ultimately all of the processes are linked to each other. You notice if you do them well that you waste less” (Respondent 14, Super Store). “These are all issues you have to deal with and you pay attention to them because otherwise it’s liquidation of capital” (Respondent 17, Grocery Store). Another concern in understanding the practice of food waste reduction is that raising awareness for food waste would be counterproductive in terms of the commercial goals that supermarkets have: “We have different stakes, ultimately a supermarket aims at selling as much as possible, so I don’t see [the need of ] reducing food waste of the consumer” (Respondent 20, Grocery Store). The drive to perform is evidenced by the managers understanding of providing “full shelves”: they are urged by top management to provide full shelves all day long, also shortly before closing time. Especially in case of fresh and easily perishable food (vegetables, meat, dairy, bread), full shelves increase food waste: food that has not been sold before closing time often goes to waste. One manager described this trade-off as a “balancing act” that can never fully satisfy diverging demands.

100     C. Moser

Knowledge Sharing Procedures Managers share knowledge about food and food waste with each other, for example, in meetings with other managers, team or department meeting and other settings. Managers refer to written regulations and the supermarket’s intranet, where they can search for example for information, procedures, and courses about food’s distinct materialities. Knowledge sharing about food waste becomes important when performance targets are not met, that is, targets with regard to waste and write-offs: “It all costs money […] and we’re held responsible for that. It is simple when the numbers are insufficient […] Numbers are very important nowadays” (Respondent 14, Super Store). Knowledge sharing mostly happens in formalised, monthly and weekly meetings with managers. In addition, managers share knowledge during shift change, discussing the most important topics of that day. More informal knowledge sharing is mostly related to food waste reduction practices. For example, whenever a manager notices that shelves were not restocked in the “fifo” manner, or there was more waste than usual, they would discuss this and offer knowledge and advice about the problem. “There is always internal knowledge sharing, for example, talks with your store manager, department managers, responsible managers” (Respondent 17, Grocery Store). The interviews reveal that information technology plays an important part in knowledge sharing about reducing food waste. Managers usually use a Whatsapp group to share more general knowledge and sometimes specific knowledge about avoiding food waste. Another important channel for sharing food waste-related knowledge is the intranet. Here, managers search for information about new products, how to write off products correctly, or food waste processes in general. The intranet allows them to share knowledge asynchronously, that is, they can leave messages which will receive reactions at a later point in time. This is convenient, because managers have different shifts and are frequently busy with activities other than browsing the intranet. Other channels for knowledge sharing are e-mail, phone, and Facebook.

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     101

Understandings Managers state that they need more knowledge and information about how to go about avoiding food waste. They express a desire for a better and deeper understanding of the root causes of food waste, including a better understanding of food’s materialities and reasons why food is thrown away in the first place. This is expressed in the following quote: “We could explore in more depth how this comes? What is the reason for what we throw away, or is it because last week we only returned two crates instead of three or four?” (Respondent 3, Super Store). Another way that managers’ understanding is expressed is through the use of jargon, which is most prominently visible in the use of abbreviations often included in handbooks, work instructions, and content on the intranet. In addition, managers develop their own jargon which enables them to more efficiently work towards a common goal. Examples for jargon are afboeking (“write-off”, a term used for food that is going to waste), codebook (“codebook”, a list of products that need to be controlled for reaching the expiration date), fifo (“first in first out”), and cvr (controle voorraad, which means controlling the current stock). Jargon enables the managers to efficiently communicate with each other, including communication about food waste. Even so, miscommunication can occur, leading to misunderstandings and potential increased food waste. Managers report that this mostly happens when using Whatsapp. Resolving misunderstandings is most effectively done in face-to-face communication: “It’s best if I talk to them [employees] personally, on the work floor, better than on Whatsapp. That can be unclear every now and then. Or people can understand things very differently” (Respondent 15, Super Store). Knowledge sharing between managers may be subject to slightly different understandings, which find their roots in three possible differences between managers. First, there is a difference between full-time and part-time employees. Part-time managers are less knowledgeable about work processes in general, and food waste reduction practices in particular. For example, only full-time managers are made responsible for collaborating with external partners such as a restaurant that receives

102     C. Moser

edible food that has reached the expiration date. One part-time manager acknowledges this divide in the following way: “The fulltimers simply know much more than I do. This is because some tasks are done by fulltimers, I never had to do those tasks” (Respondent 15, Super Store). Second, another important difference that influences knowledge sharing is the work schedule. Part-time employees usually work on fixed weekdays, but food waste reduction practices vary across weekdays. For example, Saturdays are mostly very busy, requiring large quantities of supplies, including fresh food, meat, and dairy. Those products can easily perish if not handled correctly. It follows that part-time managers who never work Saturday shifts gain less food waste-related practical knowledge and therefore less experience in reducing food waste. Third, managers differ with regard to their prior experience with reducing food waste. Regardless of employment or work days, some managers have previously gained relevant experience in the food sector. This prior experience enables them to carry out food waste reduction practices better, more efficiently, or more creatively. The importance of experience is mirrored in the following quote: “I think that some managers know more about certain things than others. For example, I previously was a vegetable farmer for Super Store. So then you notice that you have a better understanding of the vegetable section” (Respondent 14, Super Store).

Engagements Trust plays an important role when managers share knowledge about food waste reduction. In order to be able to carry out their tasks, including managing food waste, they depend on each other. This interdependence is characterised by a feeling of shared identity, and some managers are even friends: “We are like boys, every now and then like a bunch of toddlers. We have a good relationship in the group” (Respondent 3, Super Store). Trust in the group is important for the managers to work with each other. For example, the morning shift is expected to carry out their tasks according to the rules, so that the afternoon shift can take over

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     103

smoothly. The managers report that they trust each other in that respect and frequently go for beers after work: “We all know what is expected from us, and what our responsibilities are. For that, you need work trust. You actually trust that the [manager] runs the shift as it should be” (Respondent 2, Super Store). This work trust makes it possible for managers to share waste-related knowledge. This is especially important in case something went wrong, or prior agreements were not fulfilled. For example, when in one shift food that is almost spoiled (i.e. the expiry date is close) has not been “stickered” properly (i.e. discount stickers are missing), managers who trust each other will share this information. The manager of the next shift can then take care of stickering the food, so that it can be sold instead of going to waste. Shared trust thus enables managers to engage with the problem and work towards solving it, instead of trying to brush it under the carpet. Trust is especially relevant in the context of food waste, because reducing food waste requires more effort and commitment than wasting food.

External Collaboration Procedures A last food waste reduction practice is collaboration with external partners, including restaurants and food banks. Those partners source from the supermarkets products that the supermarkets are unwilling to sell anymore, for two reasons. The first reason for supermarkets to take products out of shelves and give them to external partners is related to the distinct materialities of food: products might almost have reached their expiration date and spoil, and they might look not quite perfect anymore. The second reason for giving away products is that there might be too much stock in the store to be sold before the products reach their expiration date. Collaborating with external partners usually leads to additional work for the managers. Nevertheless, they embrace the opportunity to reduce their food waste: “Before we collaborated with [the restaurant…] we put it on write-offs and sent [products] back

104     C. Moser

[to the distribution centre…]. Once we started on the [collaboration] trajectory it went very fast” (Respondent 3, Super Store). While recognising the benefits of collaboration, managers are sometimes wary of the additional work, specifically of the additional administrative tasks that they have to carry out. Oftentimes, external partners like food banks require quality assurances which have to be documented and/or formalised. This documentation adds to the workload of the managers, discouraging them from more and more frequent collaboration with external partners: The quality insurance department of Grocery Store, they carry out certification and you have to score “green” on those, so fulfil all hygiene and administrative [requirements] before you can collaborate with the food bank. We [in our shop] always score below [the high green score] because we have a mice plague. (Respondent 18, Grocery Store)

Some managers have even aborted the collaboration with food banks, because of the “administrative fuss” (Respondent 18, Grocery Store). Endless discussions with food banks about requirements, procedures, and rules prevent some managers of investing more time and effort in external collaboration. They feel that food banks are too critical about the products, both in terms of type of product and in terms of quality. Food banks’ specific ideas about what supermarkets should have available not always match what a manager can offer: They [the food bank] say that they need so and so many kilos of chicken tomorrow, but that doesn’t work because I don’t know what I have [that is] expired, if I have one package then it is one package, but then it [the collaboration] doesn’t work, like it or not. (Respondent 19, Grocery Store)

Understandings Collaborating with external partners such as the restaurant mentioned in the previous section requires knowledge and an understanding of the partner’s needs. Some managers are already experienced in working with

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     105

the restaurant; and others rely on an account manager that is sent by the restaurant to help them develop an understanding of the respective needs and preferences: “We have, from the restaurant, an account manager who visits the shops and explains the process a little bit. And we get tips from our internal network” (Respondent 2, Super Store). In addition to concrete collaborations with external partners where the partners use leftover food, supermarket manager is convinced that NGOs are important external stakeholders. Recent successes of NGO campaigns show that if the general public united through NGO activities comes in action, many supermarkets increase their efforts to reduce food waste. For example, the Dutch NGO Wakker Dier has led a campaign against plofkip (“bursting chicken”), drawing attention to the severe problems of mass chicken farming. Their multiannual campaign resulted in a new and widely adopted meat quality label that indicates the living conditions of animals that are raised for consumption. One manager summarises this perceived power of the public: “Under pressure of the public opinion it [selling “bursting chicken”] has changed, and […]it is the same issue with food waste, if they think it’s wrong” (Respondent 18, Grocery Store). Relatedly, the managers point out that food waste responsibility should be shared in the whole food chain. Rejecting sole responsibility as a key player in the market, other stakeholders such as suppliers, producers, and the government should be held responsible, as well.

Engagements Managers often see external collaborations as an important purpose in their efforts to reduce food waste. Some describe how they give to the food bank products that cannot be sold anymore or products that are left over from promotions or national holidays, such as Easter. Many managers loathe to waste food. Collaborating with external partners adds a dimension of purpose which is rewarding to the managers: “It is simply a sin, the amounts that we throw away. Some of our [waste] goes to the food bank, luckily, so that gives me some satisfaction” (Respondent 15, Super Store).

106     C. Moser

As a consequence of the above-outlined understanding of external collaboration, wasting less food in the supermarket should be more important in the public opinion, according to the managers. This is because they believe that as long as the general public pays scant attention to the issue, the sector as a whole will be reluctant to change routines and business models. The managers perceive the supermarkets to be driven by demand and supply, where supermarkets react to consumer demand. Therefore, embracing a pioneering role in reducing food waste is currently not a viable option.

Discussion Implications for Theory In this study, I provide an answer to the question how and why do supermarket managers engage in supermarket food waste reduction practices? In showing the understandings, procedures, and engagements of food waste reduction practices, this chapter contributes to the literature in two ways. First, it identifies practices that are aimed at reducing supermarket food waste. Prior studies on supermarket food waste have made a start on identifying relevant practices. For example, Delai and Takahashi (2013) used “practice” as an umbrella term including sustainability practices, internal practices, and daily practices; however, these practices were undertheorised. Similarly, Mena and colleagues (2011, 2014) identified “management” or “best practices” without further theorising the meaning of a practice, as has been done in the sociological literature on household food waste (Evans 2012; Hargreaves 2011). Building and advancing this prior research, the current study is the first to identify food waste reduction practices in supermarkets, utilising important insights from the practice literature (Schau et al. 2009). Second, this chapter highlights the important role of micro-CSR, which captures managers’ understandings and engagements in CSR, specifically in reducing supermarket food waste. Prior work has identified individuals’ attributes towards CSR (Gond et al. 2017) which often

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     107

precedes how they practise CSR. The current study adds to this work and shows how managers’ understandings and engagements about procedures inform their food waste reduction practices. Moreover, identifying knowledge sharing as a food waste reduction practice adds to prior studies that have identified knowledge sharing as crucial in reducing food waste (de Waal et al. 2017; Mena et al. 2011). The current study provides insights into the conditions that influence knowledge sharing and thus adds to our understanding of how knowledge sharing can help to reduce food waste.

Limitations and Future Research The case study approach of the current study puts boundaries on its generalisability. Therefore, future research should consolidate the current findings and elaborate on practices to reduce food waste in supermarkets. In addition, future research should broaden the scope of this study. For example, it might be worthwhile to investigate supermarkets in countries other than the Netherlands. Local differences in food waste legislation may change the way that managers carry out food waste reduction practice in their stores. Second, future research should investigate the procedures, understandings, and engagements of/with food waste reduction practices in more detail. For example, some approaches towards studying microCSR adopt a practice-based perspective. For example, Gond and colleagues (2018) describe how managers and employees engage in practices of making work strategic. Such a nuanced approach of studying practices might help to better understand the intricacies of food waste reduction practices in supermarkets. Similarly, the extant work on the role of social ties suggests that interpersonal relationships matter greatly for knowledge sharing (Hansen 1999; Uzzi and Spiro 2005). Investigating how social ties influence knowledge sharing about food waste might be an important step forward in better understanding how food waste reduction practices can be improved.

108     C. Moser

Implications for Practice This study of food waste reduction practices in Dutch supermarkets points towards several measures that supermarkets and their managers can take to reduce their food waste.

Share Food Waste Best Practices in Local Collectives This study has identified several practices that supermarket managers currently engage in. However, those practices are not always formalised, nor shared between supermarkets (let alone between supermarket chains). While across Europe some initiatives emerge where round tables and declarations of intent are initiated, the actual practices are far removed from corporate strategy makers. A practical solution for this distance between strategy development and implementation is for managers to better organise themselves in local or regional collectives. In these collectives, which might be organised using an online platform, managers could share best practices with regards to reducing food waste.

Boost In-Company Knowledge Sharing In addition to encouraging the sharing of best practices, supermarket top management can choose to boost in-company knowledge sharing among managers and employees. The current study clearly supports prior work on the importance of knowledge sharing and shows how it can help to reduce food waste. Boosting knowledge sharing could be done through workshops, courses, and meetings with specific attention for knowledge sharing. Formalised attention for knowledge sharing during annual appraisal talks can also help to better motivate managers to engage in knowledge sharing. Another solution might be for each supermarket to establish an online group on their intranet, with the specific goal to share knowledge about food waste reduction practices.

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     109

Formalise and Incentivise Collaboration with External Partners The managers that were interviewed for this study emphasised the importance of collaborating with external partners such as restaurants and food banks for reducing food waste. However, the managers also report that such collaboration is at their own discretion, often informal and not particularly steered by top management. One way to intensify collaboration with external partners might be for top management to formalise and incentivise such collaboration. For example, each supermarket should collaborate with food banks, and top management should include the task of collaborating with external partners in the regular task package of managers.

Urge Supermarkets to Take Responsibility This study shows that supermarkets hesitate to take a lead role in CSR responsibility for food waste. However, supermarkets have considerable power to influence others in the supply chain, including producers and consumers. Therefore, stakeholders such as governments and NGOs who represent the general public should urge supermarkets to adopt a more proactive stance. For example, governments could pledge supermarkets to report their food waste statistics in annual reports. The resulting transparency might spur competition among supermarkets as to which chain performs best with regard to food waste. Similarly, recent successes by NGOs (see the plofkip example above) are evidence for the ability of stakeholders to effectively influence supermarket CSR practices. NGOs have the power to voice the concerns of the general public and channel their efforts in targeting supermarkets.

Conclusion This study set out to answer the question how and why do supermarket managers engage in supermarket food waste reduction practices? The findings from a qualitative case study in Dutch supermarkets show that

110     C. Moser

supermarket managers use a set of practices geared at reducing food waste: monitoring, knowledge sharing, and external collaborations. The managers clearly acknowledge their responsibility in reducing food waste. Yet, they are convinced that supermarkets are not solely responsible: other stakeholders, notably the government and consumers (the general public) should also be accountable. In adopting such a passive stance, supermarkets pursue their commercial goals. At the same time, individual managers are driven by their personal motivation to waste less food.

References Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968. Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2016). Waste not, want not, emit less. Science, 352(6284), 408–409. Brancoli, P., Rousta, K., & Bolton, K. (2017). Life cycle assessment of supermarket food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 118, 39–46. Delai, I., & Takahashi, S. (2013). Corporate sustainability in emerging markets: Insights from the practices reported by the Brazilian retailers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 211–221. Devin, B., & Richards, C. (2018). Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 199–210. de Waal, A., van Nierop, E., & Sloot, L. (2017). Analysing supermarket performance with the high-performance organisation framework. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(1), 57–70. Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56. Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253. Filimonau, V., & Gherbin, A. (2018). An exploratory study of food waste management practices in the UK grocery retail sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1184–1194.

4  Managerial Practices of Reducing Food Waste in Supermarkets     111

Gherardi, S. (2009). Introduction: The critical power of the “practice lens”. Management Learning, 40(2), 115–128. Gioia, D., Corley, K., & Hamilton, A. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. Gond, J. P., Cabantous, L., & Krikorian, F. (2018). How do things become strategic? ‘Strategifying’ corporate social responsibility. Strategic Organization, 16(3), 241–272. Gond, J. P., El Akremi, A., Swaen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 225–246. Gruber, V., Holweg, C., & Teller, C. (2016). What a waste! Exploring the human reality of food waste from the store manager’s perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(1), 3–25. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82. Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practicing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(Suppl. 1), 71–89. Mattila, M., Mesiranta, N., Närvänen, E., Koskinen, O., & Sutinen, U. M. (2018). Dances with potential food waste: Organising temporality in food waste reduction practices. Time and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/09614 63X18784123. Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Yurt, O. (2011). The causes of food waste in the supplier-retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 648–658. Mena, C., Terry, L. A., Williams, A., & Ellram, L. (2014). Causes of waste across multi-tier supply networks: Cases in the UK food sector. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 144–158. Milieucentraal. (2013). Feiten en cijfers over verspillen van voedsel door consumenten in 2013. Milieucentraal. http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/ documenten-en-publicaties/brochures/2014/01/29/feiten-en-cijfers-verspilling-voedsel-consumenten-in-2013/factsheet-voedselverspilling-huishoudens-december2013.pdf. Accessed on 6.2.2019.

112     C. Moser

Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., & Hukkanen, A. (2016). The quest for an empty fridge. In B. Capellini, D. Marshall, & E. Parsons (Eds.), The practice of the meal: Food, families and the market place (pp. 208–219). New York, NY: Routledge. Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J., Wright, N., & Bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081. Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Management, 35, 207–217. Ribeiro, I., Sobral, P., Peças, P., & Henriques, E. (2018). A sustainable business model to fight food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 262–275. Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters—A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 978–991. Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51. Smithers, J. (2012). UK retailers fail to meet food and packaging waste pledges. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/ jan/31/retailers-supply-chain-food-waste. Accessed on 6.3.2019. Stenmarck, Å., Jensen, C., Quested, T., & Moates, G. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. Fusions EU. https://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20 waste%20levels.pdf. Accessed on 6.3.2019. Teller, C., Holweg, C., Reiner, G., & Kotzab, H. (2018). Retail store operations and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 981–997. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504. Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 285–336. Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131–153.

Part II Connecting Actors and Activities Within Systems

5 The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement: Turning Sustainable Ideas into Business Johanna F. Gollnhofer and Daniel Boller

Introduction Heart shaped potatoes, crooked cucumbers or blemished carrots – nature doesn’t comply with visual standards. However, the outer appearance shouldn’t be of prime importance; instead, quality and taste should count. (“Wunderlinge auf Erfolgskurs” 2016)

This quote emphasises quality and taste over the outward appearance of vegetables and fruit. This constitutes a major shift from a food system that sorts and classifies food items into consumable versus non-consumable based on aesthetic criteria. Those criteria influence what ends up on consumers’ plates. Prior research has shown that across the whole supply chain, that is, from farm to plate, large amounts J. F. Gollnhofer (*) · D. Boller  Institute for Customer Insight, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] D. Boller e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_5

115

116     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

of edible food are wasted and/or lost (Devin and Richards 2016; McKenzie et al. 2017). As written in a recent study: It was determined that between 68.6% and 86.7% of undamaged, edible, harvested tomatoes were rejected as outgrades and consequently discarded due to product specifications. Between 71.2% and 84.1% of produced tomatoes were left in the field and not harvested. Edible products are being removed from the commercial food supply chain, rejected as outgrades deemed cosmetically defective due to market-based decisions. (McKenzie et al. 2017, p. 1)

However, more and more “ugly” fruit and vegetables, that is, those food items that do not comply with the normative and aesthetic standards of the food industry, are popping up in grocery stores or on consumer plates. For instance, in our study context—the German-speaking area— retailers offer blemished and non-perfect food items for sale. Edeka, one of the leading supermarket chains in Germany, now markets blemished produce with the tagline, “Nobody is perfect”. Other initiatives such as Culinary Misfits cook only with blemished or misshapen food items. This constitutes a major shift regarding what is deemed consumable and what is not—and consequently what is sold to the consumer. In this chapter, we are interested in exploring this shift. Or, in other words: How can sustainable ideas be turned into business? Based on a longitudinal approach, we trace the German anti-food waste movement. We followed the anti-food waste movement from 2012 to 2016 as it grew from a group of dumpster divers into a collective based on food sharing and resulted in a movement that motivated retailers to change some of their business routines (i.e. selling blemished fruit and vegetables). We contribute to prior literature by showing how the idea of selling ugly fruit and vegetables gained ground in the German market based on three underlying theoretical processes, namely (1) raising awareness, (2) recalibrating practices, and (3) monetising practices. We argue that in this way, activist consumers facilitate and even desire co-optation of their sustainable ideas by businesses. Further, we show that collaboration across different actors, such as consumers and managers, might be a fruitful way to solve systemic problems where

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     117

responsibility is distributed across this range of actors. We conclude by highlighting practical implications.

Literature Review: Interventions Against Food Waste at the Retail Level According to neoliberal political economy, market actors such as companies (Shamir 2008) and consumer-citizens (Giesler and Veresiu 2014) are expected to engage in responsible action in order to face and counter structural and systematic challenges. Those challenges might be poverty, the recent refugee crisis in Europe or the issue of food waste, and they often stem from institutional failures, referring to cases where existing governmental and institutional structures are overwhelmed. Companies and businesses take an active stance by developing sustainable (communication) strategies (Saxton et al. 2017), developing and marketing sustainable products (Martin and Schouten 2012) or living up to responsible and sustainable standards manifested through their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes (e.g. Banerjee 2008; Moon et al. 2005). Retail companies publicly articulate goals with respect to food waste reduction and sustainability in their CSR statements. Consider this passage from Tesco’s sustainable development statement: (1) We try to minimise surplus, for example, by reducing to clear foods close to their expiry date. (2) If food cannot be sold, we offer it where possible to those in need by donating to charities. In the UK, we divert all surplus fresh food, including meat and produce, from our distribution centres and online grocery centres to support food redistribution charity FareShare. (3) We send all bakery waste to be converted into animal feed for livestock, and our chicken fat and cooking oil are converted into biodiesel. (4) If these options are not available, we recover energy from food waste through anaerobic digestion or incineration. We have achieved zero food waste direct to landfill since 2000. (http://www.tescoplc.com/index. asp?pageid=588)

118     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

Tesco’s efforts are laudable, but they only veil substantial amounts of food waste. Donation to charities would seem to be a fine way to appreciate the inherent value of the surplus food; however, charities and food banks must comply with strict regulations concerning which food items they are allowed to take. Feeding livestock is a form of downcycling (Zhang et al. 2007), as are anaerobic digestion or incineration for energy generation. Initiatives and education encourage consumer-citizens to take on responsibility and to act accordingly (Giesler and Veresiu 2014; Evans et al. 2017; Shamir 2008). Consumers take often an active stance in markets. They express their viewpoints and strive for change on the individual or collective level, for example, through consumer or social movements (Buechler 1995; Caniglia and Carmin 2005; Kozinets and Handelman 2004). The political economy, underpinned by neoliberal thinking, turns consumers into accountable citizens. This means shifting responsibility from the state or other governmental institutions to the consumer or other market actors. Giesler and Veresiu (2014) describe a four-step process of: through personalisation (i.e. positioning the consumer as change agent), authorisation (i.e. legitimating the idea of a responsible consumer), capabilisation (i.e. developing infrastructures for self-management) and transformation (i.e. consumers incorporate their new position as a moral change agent in the market), consumers are shaped and managed as moral subjects that consequently take action. The idea of a responsibilised consumer that actively takes a stance is also reflected in the research on consumer resistance (Fournier 1998; Pentina and Amos 2011), boycotts (Klein et al. 2004) or ethical consumption (Lekakis 2013). This responsibilisation can also be seen in the context of food waste, where more and more consumers take action. In the context of food waste, consumers might take on several roles in the quest for food waste reduction. They might work as decision-makers, communal consumer-citizens and change agents (Närvänen et al. 2018). In the first category, consumers make sustainable decisions in their everyday consumption behaviour, for instance, by choosing blemished food items or products close to their best-before date in grocery stores. On the communal level, consumers might influence other consumers by relying on social media, for instance, through blogs, or also

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     119

in the analogue world through activities in their local communities. Change agents often act collectively and push with other consumers for market structures that produce less food waste, for instance, through founding a start-up. However, not all consumers are in favour of business taking on their ideas. In literature, this is connoted co-optation. Co-optation refers to taking ideas from the margins of society or from subcultures and bringing them into the mainstream (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007). One example is the organic movement that started in the hippy subculture and was turned mainstream by major grocery chains (Belasco 1989). Consumers often strive to resist this form of co-optation and might even react with counter co-optation. As the paragraphs above outline, companies and consumers alike seek different ways of fighting food waste. However, collaboration is difficult to achieve, although some actors have started to acknowledge the shared responsibility in fighting food waste (Evans et al. 2017). We study one successful example in the fight against food waste: the selling of ugly fruit and vegetables. To this end, we trace the evolution of the German anti-food waste movement. By studying this, we show how the idea of introducing ugly food items into the market as a means to fight food waste emerged.

Methodology and Data Analysis We conducted this study using ethnographic methods and followed the anti-food waste movement from 2012 until 2016. We took food items as the focus of the study and followed the food as it was caught up in different practices. Matthew Desmond (2014) describes this ethnographic approach: Relational ethnography involves studying fields rather than places, boundaries rather than bounded groups, processes rather than processed people, and cultural conflict rather than group culture (p. 547). […] Relational ethnography gives ontological primacy, not to groups or places, but to configurations of relations. The point of fieldwork becomes

120     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

to describe a system of relations. […] Most basically, a relational approach incorporates fully into the ethnographic sample at least two types of actors or agencies occupying different positions within the social space and bound together in a relationship of mutual dependence or struggle. (p. 554)

Relational ethnography, like the phenomena it studies, is emergent—a product of following the relationships that produce, define and govern assemblages of interest. Boundaries are discovered as they are created. Processes reveal themselves through purposeful action, interaction and conflict. In our case, the field is retail food surplus, how it is disposed of, and the role of aesthetic criteria in this process. In this context, relational ethnography allowed us to focus on the relationships between different actors involved, that is, consumer-retailer interactions but also interactions with non-human actors, such as food items. In our ethnographic data collection, we mapped out a web of interrelated networks and followed the food items. Participant observation played a crucial role here as it allowed us to observe real behaviour in contrast to reported behaviour. Finally, relational ethnography helped us to map the flows of food items between actors and analyse how they changed between 2012 and 2016. Ethnographic data collection took place from December 2012 to March 2016 and included participant observation and in-depth interviews in Germany. We recruited participants through referral sampling, from freegan online forums and by attending events in the freeganism scene. After encountering indigent dumpster divers—those individuals who dumpster dive out of necessity—the first author also encountered “affluent” dumpster divers. We decided to focus on “affluent” dumpster divers, meaning those that voluntarily scavenge for discarded food although their income allows them to do grocery shopping in the usual way. All our informants had a steady income: they either were employed, for example, as consultants or kindergarten teachers or were supported by their parents for their university studies. We focused on these consumers as we were puzzled as to why they engaged in such a practice. In total, the first author interviewed 18 affluent dumpster divers. All interviews were conducted in German and transcribed verbatim. Selected quotes were translated into English.

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     121

At the end of 2012, the first author started to explore the phenomenon of food sharing as it was connected to dumpster diving by place, time and persons. At the end of 2012, the organisation and platform foodsharing.de was launched by dumpster divers who encountered struggles in the practice of dumpster diving. Nineteen in-depth interviews with members at different levels of this organisation, depending on responsibility and commitment, were conducted. Trust and access were gained through the first author’s continuous involvement in the Foodsharing organisation and its related activities. Through deep immersion and long-term engagement in the food sharing scene, we were also able to interview seven retail store managers that participated in the food sharing scheme. In addition, we retrieved media articles on the topic of food sharing and dumpster diving in the German-speaking area. The goal was to embed the phenomenon in a larger social context. The media data helped us to take into account the particularities of the German context. Consistent with an ethnographic approach and prolonged engagement, early data analysis occurred in the field and guided the direction of study. Our research design was emerging and led our fieldwork from dumpster raids, to food sharing operations, and finally to collaborating retail stores. Deeper and more detailed data interpretation came after completing most of the fieldwork and followed a hermeneutic approach (Arnold and Fischer 1994). Hermeneutics assumes that texts have different layers and may conceal deeper meanings. The researcher’s task is to unearth this latent meaning, providing both emic and etic interpretations. The research team formed a dialogic community as the second author brought comparatively naïve perspectives to the phenomenon under study, proposed alternative interpretations and theoretical perspectives, challenged developing conceptualisations, and helped identify needs for additional data. Similarly, both the interviews and the media coverage assisted us in interpreting observational data. The hermeneutic circle allowed us to arrive at a coherent theoretical model by integrating data from different sources and interpreting it from different perspectives of engagement in an iterative process of coding, theorising and collecting additional data.

122     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

Findings In the following, we map out the development and evolution of the German anti-food waste movement. We identify three related practices, namely dumpster diving, food sharing and selling ugly fruit and vegetables. We show how in turn, they raised awareness for the issue of food waste, recalibrated anti-food waste practices and finally monetised anti-food waste practices.

Raising Awareness: How Dumpster Divers Raised Awareness for the Issue of Food Waste In the context of food waste the practice of dumpster diving— scavenging for safe food that has been discarded—is not exclusively the domain of the poor and the homeless. Relatively affluent people engage in the practice of dumpster diving as a political act of protest against the prevailing throwaway consumerist ideology. Consumers do not scavenge for food because of need or financial constraints (Eikenberry and Smith 2005), but rather in a reflexive manner (Jacobsen and Dulsrud 2007) meant to make a political and moral statement against food waste (Barnard 2011; Polletta and Jasper 2001). For them, this practice is loaded with political meaning (Barnard 2011) and constitutes a form of lifestyle politics (Giddens 2013) in order to install a new food regime (Gollnhofer 2015b). They use dumpster diving as a vehicle to draw attention to the wastefulness of consumer society and to question its ideological underpinnings. As says Regina, a dedicated dumpster diver: We eat and swallow food every single day. But those are not only Nahrungsmittel that nourish us, but also Lebensmittel that allow us to live. And those goods that I find in the dumpster sustain my life. This in a far better way than all the products that come out of the consumerist society, processed up to the point that no nutritional value is left in them. I eat the stuff out of the dumpster as a form of healthy and conscious living.

Regina similarly contrasted the values between the dominant value regime and dumpster divers by evoking the terms Nahrungsmittel (German for “goods for nutrition”) and Lebensmittel (“goods for

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     123

living”). Regina confided that she was recovering from cancer and blamed “consumer society” as the culprit. Recovering food items imbues them with new meaning and frames them as superior to those in the consumerist machine. Public attention for the topic of food waste in the German-speaking area was also gained through two prominent documentaries: We feed the world (2005) and Taste the Waste (2011). The galvanising effect of the films reciprocally reinforced rising sustainability concerns among consumers (Varey 2013) and ascendant social movements in Europe like freeganism that had made food waste a key concern (Pentina and Amos 2011). However, as a technically illegal and stigmatised practice that often happens unnoticed, dumpster diving has had little effect beyond drawing some limited public attention to the problem of food waste. Padlocked dumpsters became more common, as did heightened vigilance and police calls, and some stores resorted to deliberately contaminating their discarded produce to make it unfit for consumption (Anwar 2008; Bloxham 2010). Further, dumpster divers often felt stigmatisation (Mirabito et al. 2016) and contagion effects. Our informants claimed that they felt “disgusted” or “repelled” by the content of the dumpster even though they knew that the food items were still edible. The broader public even struggled to grasp the objectives and purpose of dumpster diving. Says Katrin (dumpster diver): This “pointing out” didn’t work. No one gets it. My feeling was then that the best thing that could happen for my purpose would be to get caught by the police. Being sued, for sure, being sued, a trial process would get public attention, attract public attention. Then you could work on your own in the direction of public relations, maybe interviews, talking to journalist, interviews in some way. You could feed public opinion with thoughts that question the whole.

In fact, Katrin was never arrested. Fearing the consequences, she became less aggressive in her dumpster diving and less effective as an activist. All of these factors restricted the practice from gaining mainstream acceptance. Instead, dumpster diving is mainly organised in subcultures, through closed Facebook groups, or in close friendship circles.

124     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

Search Popularity

100

80 60 40 20 2004-01 2004-06 2004-11 2005-04 2005-09 2006-02 2006-07 2006-12 2007-05 2007-10 2008-03 2008-08 2009-01 2009-06 2009-11 2010-04 2010-09 2011-02 2011-07 2011-12 2012-05 2012-10 2013-03 2013-08 2014-01 2014-06 2014-11 2015-04 2015-09 2016-02 2016-07 2016-12 2017-05 2017-10 2018-03

0

Time

Fig. 5.1  Google search request for ‘dumpster diving’ (own composition)

Through their aggressive activist practices, dumpster divers raised public awareness for the issue of food waste. For instance, trials against dumpster divers were usually dismissed, with media often painting retailers as foolish and cruel (Mösken 2012; Woldin 2014). This propelled the hidden truth about food selling to the public surface; however, most of the blemished food items stayed buried in the retail dumpsters or were left on the field. The interest in the practice of dumpster diving can also be seen in the following analysis of Google web search over the last years. Figure 5.1 refers to the number of Google search requests for “dumpster diving” (Germany; all categories; web search; monthly basis; relative values based on the maximum level of search requests within the time range) for the period 2004–2018. The linear trend (black dotted line; y = 0.2591, x = 0.0849) indicates an increase in search requests for “dumpster diving” in Germany over the last 14 years. A change point detection analysis revealed a major sustained increase at the beginning of 2010.

Recalibrating Practices: How Food Sharing Allows for Recovery and Redistribution of Food Waste In the face of increased resistance from other actors in the marketplace, certain participants in the dumpster diving scene changed their

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     125

approach from confrontational to collaborative and from subversive to open. These activists approached retailers for dialogue about food waste, established some common ground, and with a variety of arguments eventually persuaded over 3000 German retailers to hand over rejected but safe food items to them instead of throwing them in the bin (Gollnhofer 2015a). Activists draw directly on an understanding of shared responsibility. As written on their public website in their mission statement: All of us are responsible for the fact that retailers, intermediaries, ­producers and caterers annually throw away millions of tonnes of food. […] Only together we can stop the madness of consumer society, through the participation of everyone and respective responsible actions. […] Foodsharing wants to instil a new respectful culture regarding food waste and, together with retailers, grant food items the respect they merit. (http://wiki.lebensmittelretten.de/Kontext_und_Selbstverständnis)

The responsibility for the large amounts of food waste cannot be attributed to a single actor; all market actors share the responsibility. Hence, the challenge of food waste can only be alleviated through common action and practices. This common action is realised in food sharing through consumer-retailer collaboration: activist consumers collect discarded food items at the retail store before they enter the waste stream. Then they distribute them further without cost to anyone who wants them, regardless of need. What was initially dispersed and one-off agreements between activists and retailers soon became integrated into an initiative called Foodsharing. Entrepreneurial activists created an electronic platform, foodsharing.de, around which organising food rescue efforts became easier and ultimately institutionalised (Gollnhofer et al. 2016). As an institution, operating on the right side of the law and with retail cooperation, Foodsharing caught the imagination of certain government officials, who have added even greater legitimacy to the initiative’s objective and practices by actively incorporating the example of Foodsharing in their speeches or by mentioning it as a best-practice example (Gollnhofer 2017b).

126     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

The success of Foodsharing was described by Martin, one of our informants, in the following way: In dumpster diving, I always had the feeling of not achieving anything. I was like fighting against a big machine. Now, I have the feeling of working together with this machine. And this is really about how you can induce change. Before I was experiencing it as quite frustrating. But with Foodsharing I really have the feeling of doing something good.

Martin’s statement was typical of the utterances of several informants. Overall, food sharing seemed to be far more effective than dumpster diving. From initially 100 consumers who picked up food at cooperating retailers in fall 2012, Foodsharing has grown steadily. As of July 2018, the organisation enlisted the help of 40,585 participating individuals, over 63,000 followers on Facebook, and 4681 cooperative arrangements with retailers to save 16,000,782 kg of surplus food, most of which would have been discarded in previous years despite the efforts of dumpster divers. By recalibrating the practice of dumpster diving, Foodsharing managed to gain mainstream acceptance for their mission against food waste. In contrast to dumpster diving, Foodsharing chose a far more collaborative approach, which in the end allowed them to redirect more food items back to the plates of consumers. Foodsharing was built on the increased awareness and interest for food waste that was created by dumpster divers, but successfully recalibrated practices so that the sustainable idea behind recovering food items became palatable to more mainstream consumers.

Monetising Anti-food Waste Practices: Selling “Ugly” Fruit and Vegetables Retailers soon became aware of the interest in food waste shown by certain consumers and discovered its business potential. Once the store managers also incorporated the logic behind Foodsharing, they began to see food surpluses differently. Martina, a food sharer, describes the reaction of retailers:

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     127

All of a sudden, they understood it. They saw us carrying bags of food out of their store. Really, tons of food, every day! “This means we can use it [they concluded].” And then their own thinking process started to change, like “How can we produce less food waste? And what could we do with the stuff that we usually throw away?” Then after some weeks, they started discounting a lot of stuff they would have thrown away. They also started making spinach dumplings out of old bread.

No longer seeing surplus or imperfect foods as waste, retailers soon learned how to extract more exchange value from them. Sabrina, a retail manager, began reducing prices to sell surplus foods before they hit the waste stream. Edeka, one of the leading supermarket chains in Germany, now markets blemished produce with the tagline, “Nobody is perfect”. As stated by Philipp, an Edeka store manager: This idea of selling blemished food items just makes complete sense to me. It is kind of a trend that emerged in a subculture. For several years, the idea was too extreme for mainstream consumers, but I think nowadays consumers are ready for the idea. Consumers have been sensitised for food waste and reflect more intensively on their own consumption behaviour.

Philipp here describes how he thinks that the German consumer is ready for blemished or ugly fruit and vegetables based on the rising awareness for food waste. And this awareness is not only rooted at the margins of society but has also reached their customer segments. Overall, retailers acknowledge that the anti-food waste idea and ideals can be turned into business. As Christoph, a retail manager, says: I observed the anti-food waste movement for quite some time. I agree entirely with them. We need to introduce respect for food items back into our consumption behaviour. I always kept wondering how to do this, because as a manager I also need to take profit and revenue aspirations into account. Previously, food waste and profit kind of ran counter to each other. But then I realised that I could monetise this food waste ideal by selling blemished fruit and vegetables.

128     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

Christoph here describes how the anti-food waste idea of dumpster diving and food sharing can be turned into business where ugly fruit and vegetables are sold at a reduced price to consumers. And retailers find consumers appreciate these changes towards more sustainable practices. As one manager explained: “Our customers actually really appreciate that we don’t throw [food] away now”, another manager similarly professed: “Our consumers reward our actions against food waste, and for some of them it is even a reason to do their food shopping in our store”. In contrast to prior studies, activists seem to embrace the co-optation of their ideas by retailers (Kozinets and Handelman 2004). Says Pia, an anti-food waste activist: Pia: I really like the idea that they are selling blemished or ugly fruit and vegetables at reduced prices. I think this is a really efficient way of reducing food waste but also of raising awareness for the issue of food waste. Interviewer: Don’t you fear that then there won’t be any food left that can be redistributed, for instance through food sharing? Pia: Yes, I was thinking about that. But I concluded that in the end, it adds to our mission, which is about reducing food waste. In the ideal case, Foodsharing will not exist for ever because there will be no food left that needs to be redistributed. This means that all produced food ends up on consumer plates for consumption. And for me personally it does not matter how this is achieved.

Pia, like other Foodsharing members, embraces the idea of selling ugly food items although it puts the Foodsharing community at risk. She seems to embrace the idea of co-optation for the sake of reducing food waste. The idea of using food waste to create value was also adapted by other market actors. Table 5.1 gives an overview of other initiatives that we encountered during our fieldwork. All the initiatives listed work with food items that would usually be consigned to the waste stream. Those examples show that the idea of selling ugly fruit is not just limited to the German-speaking area, but that it has gained ground in other countries such as Denmark and Austria as well. It is interesting to note that sometimes the idea of selling blemished fruit and vegetables is

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     129 Table 5.1  Businesses that incorporate the anti-food waste idea Name

Description

• WeFood (Denmark)

• https://www.danSelling surplus food, expired food, food with churchaid.org/join-us/ wefood incorrect labels or damaged packaging • https://www.thelocal. Retailer sells food that de/20131013/52371 does not conform to • https://www.hanaesthetic standards delszeitung.at/ handelszeitung/wunderlinge-auf-erfolgskurs-131592 • https://rp-online. de/wirtschaft/penny-aldi-und-co-supermaerkte-oeffnen-sich-fuer-haessliches-gemuese_aid17625657 • http://www.culinaryRestaurants that cook misfits.de/en/misfits/ with discarded food • https://www.kochbar. items de/cms/restlos-gluecklich-berliner-restaurant-verwendet-weggeworfene-lebensmittel-2444285.html

• Edeka (Germany): Nobody is perfect • REWE (Austria): Wunderlinge • REWE (Germany): Kleine Ernte, großer Geschmack

• Culinary Misfits (Germany) • Restlos glücklich (Germany)

Web links

driven by consumers whereas in other cases it is driven by businesses. In both cases, the solution takes into account the production/retailer side as well as the consumer. For instance, the German restaurant Restlos glücklich uses blemished food items and serves those to their customers in their restaurant. In this way, they create a new path for how food items can flow from farm to plate. Although not clearly evidenced in our empirical data collection, we speculate that monetisation adds legitimacy to those usually discarded food items in consumer eyes. Paying for something seems to increase the value of the food item. As noticed by Luisa, one of our informants that regularly buys blemished fruit and vegetables that are on discount:

130     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

I think I would not take them if they were given to me for free. For free is kind of suspicious. Only needy people take something for free. But if I pay for them, I think that I assume that there is automatically some value left in them. I pay for them, so I can eat them. They must be good!

Here, Luisa unpacks her reasoning: because she pays for something, it must be worth something. We interpret this finding so that paying a certain amount of money for a blemished food item infuses this food item with value and worth. As such, we argue that monetisation is the last necessary step to make ugly fruit and vegetables attractive to mainstream consumers.

Theoretical Implications In this chapter, we show how the idea of selling ugly fruit and vegetables has its roots in the German anti-food waste movement. We show how this idea gained ground through three processes that are interlinked. First, dumpster divers created the awareness for food waste. Next, food sharers recalibrated dumpster diving practices, keeping the sustainable idea of dumpster diving and making it attractive to mainstream consumers. Finally, retailers saw a market potential and turned anti-food waste ideas into business by selling ugly fruit and vegetables. Our theoretical contribution is threefold: (1) We add to co-optation theory by showing how co-optation is a step-by-step process, (2) we argue that activist consumers might desire and embrace co-optation, and (3) we show how collaboration between different market actors plays an important role in the fight against food waste. We finish by discussing practical implications and solutions.

Co-optation Is a Step-by-Step Process We embarked on this chapter with the following research question: how can sustainable ideas be turned into business? Based on our empirical data analysis, we find that retailers co-opted the ideas of

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     131

activist consumers and turned them into business. Prior research already describes this process of co-optation (Belasco 1989) and how consumers might fight co-optation (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007). We add to this research by unpacking the co-optation process. We find that co-optation is a step-by-step process that makes alternative ideas increasingly more palatable to the mainstream. Once the alternative idea is accepted by the mainstream, it can be turned into business. We identify three underlying processes that goes hand in hand and that allow other market actors to transform the practices and infrastructure around the sustainable idea. For instance, Foodsharers kept the anti-food waste spirit of dumpster divers, but recalibrated the practice. Similarly, retailers also kept the anti-food waste spirit recalibrated the practice and even monetised it. This resonates with prior research: in Belasco’s (1989) history of organic foods in the USA, he points out how major food conglomerates have systematically bought out organic ventures and added them to their portfolios. The major food conglomerates kept the organic idea but constructed a whole new market around it. Co-optation is not a necessarily haphazardly process as such, but it can be planned and managed in a strategic way. Transforming, recalibrating and monetising practices should be seen as ways of propelling ideas and practices from the margins of society into mainstream culture. Here, we would also like to emphasise the temporal order in this process. Raising awareness for an issue seems essential as a first step. However, practices at the margins of society or from subcultures cannot always be exactly reproduced for mainstream culture; instead, they need to be transformed and recalibrated. Monetisation seems to add legitimacy to a practice or an object and makes it more palatable for mainstream consumers. This step-by-step process can also be seen in other contexts. For instance, the tiny house movement makes “restrained” living hip and desirable. First, it raised the awareness for the abundance in our homes and the restricted living spaces in modern megacities. Second, it transformed tiny houses—associated with necessities—into a cool and hip style of modern urban living. To this end, tiny houses were transformed into space-savers that linked nicely to the trends of minimalism and

132     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

downsising. Such tiny houses are not assembled in a random way, but consumers carefully pick the interior design.

Embracing Co-optation for the Sake of Sustainability Prior research has often depicted activist consumers as fighting co-optation. In Thompson and Coskuner-Balli’s (2007) paper, activist consumers even worked hard on a form of counter co-optation. However, our data show that some activist consumers might even embrace or desire co-optation. As described in the last part of our findings, for some consumers, it is not about the survival of their initiative, but about the idea behind it. And the idea might continue to spread, or even flourish more, once adapted by businesses. We argue that some activist consumers see co-optation not as a threat but as a chance that propels their idea from a niche existence to the broader public. This is also the reason why some consumers actively seek collaboration with other market actors and freely share their knowledge and merge their infrastructures with businesses (as seen in the case of Foodsharing). Co-optation as such might be seen as a possible path by which sustainable ideas might gain ground in existing market places (Gollnhofer 2017a). A similar example might be found in the case of Eataly, an Italian grocery chain that worked together with the Slow Food Movement. The Slow Food Movement, in opposition to the notion of fast food, is built on local and regional products. Eataly brings together businesses with the idea of the Slow Food Movement and offers local and regional products to consumers. The Slow Food Movement could have resisted the cooperation. However, they understood that here co-optation offers a subtle way to bring change from inside the system. In the case of Eataly, the business invited the movement to collaborate. In the case of Foodsharing that we studied, it is the movement that invites grocery stores to collaborate, in a sense offering their sustainable idea and practices for co-optation. The outcome of all of this invited co-optation is a reduction of food waste at the retail level and an increased awareness for the issue of food waste.

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     133

Collaboration Across Different Market Actors for the Sake of Sustainability From the theoretical point of view, we want to draw attention particularly to the cooperation between movements and companies’ profit considerations on sustainable, ethical or social issues (Buechler 1995; Kozinets and Handelman 2004). Alexander (2007) described environmental goals as continuously incompatible with retailers’ profit maximisation goals. Companies and citizens have often been displayed as antagonistic, making collaboration for a common cause almost impossible (Buechler 1995; Kozinets and Handelman 2004). Within social movement theory, the relationship between social movements and other market actors was described as a “dialectical contest” (Buechler 1995, p. 443) where social movements are located between two diverging logics that draw on the one hand on the maximisation of profit, revenues, power and money and on the other, on individuals seeking social change (Touraine 1992). Interaction and cooperation were often reduced to the supply side’s reaction to ethical demands of consumer-citizens (Sebastiani et al. 2013), whereas collaboration or productive interactions are rare, though fruitful, occurrences. For instance, Sebastiani et al. (2013) highlighted how collaboration between the Slow Food Movement and a corporate player resulted in the sustainable-oriented business of Eataly. The case of Eataly describes how a social movement cooperated with a business based on the reasoning that “food must taste good, but it should also be ecologically and socially sustainable” (Sebastiani et al. 2013, p. 479). As such this case is an excellent illustration of how social movements and companies might interact in order to boost ethical and moral ideas in markets (Hond and Bakker 2007). This case also resonates with prior research that outlined how responsibilisation in the context of food waste gradually shifted from a focus on the consumer to distributed responsibility (Evans et al. 2017). Aligned with prior research, this chapter highlights a fruitful collaboration and interaction between companies and a social movement (namely Foodsharing). However, there are also major differences. First, the collaboration was not invited by the company but initiated by the

134     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

social movement. Typically, the consumer is invited to engage in value creation processes and practices in predefined areas. In the case studied here, the consumer-citizen movement approached the retailers with a sharing model. Second, it is not a loose cooperation where companies tap into the values of a movement, but a tight collaboration that would not function without the commitment of both partners. As such, action against food waste is not just about behaviour change of individual consumers, but also demands a collective effort that facilitates new infrastructures, networks and relationships to allow for the flow of food items in a collective effort (Welch et al. 2018). In this way, production and consumption activities are better aligned and synchronised. This argument is also reflected in the example of food sharing and turning the idea of food sharing into business by selling blemished fruit and vegetables. In both cases, the solution to the food waste issue only works as long as it involves interplay between the consumer and the retailer side. Another example would be the case of Fruta Feia—a co-op that directly buys blemished fruit and vegetables from farmers and then sells those at specific delivery points to consumers (Ribeiro et al. 2018). Those examples give support to our argument that effective food waste solutions should look towards linking the production and consumption sides in order to facilitate the flow of food items and propel them from farm to plate.

Practical Implications The food waste issue is very important, but it should not be left in the hands of Greens, ecologists and people who want to change society. As business people, we can do a lot ourselves (Schofield 2015). Prior research has outlined that although consumers and other market actors want to behave in a sustainable way, they fail to do so due to the attitude–behaviour gap. By taking market infrastructure and the socio-historical embeddedness of markets into account, Holt (2012) argues that markets suffer from an ideological lock-in where responsibility is delegated to other market actors. For instance, upstream suppliers blame retail stores for relegating the responsibility downstream in

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     135

the supply chain: farmers and suppliers have to deal with and account for food waste as retailers refuse to accept deliveries of “imperfect” food items (Devin and Richards 2016). Retailers deny responsibility and instead call the consumers as responsible, with their expectations regarding aesthetics and availability (Yngfalk 2016). And consumers—often collectively organized in movements—attribute responsibility for the large amounts of food waste to the retailers that actually discard those food items. This ideological lock-in favours the status quo and prevents new practice from emerging. This chapter illustrates how a shift towards sustainability can be induced into those stable market structures. This does not necessarily need to be orchestrated in a top–down approach where national governance structures create pacts, forums or other mechanisms in the fight against food waste (Mourad 2016). Instead, it can be also consumer-driven. Emerging from the margins of society (i.e. dumpster diving), the awareness of food waste slowly gained ground in German society and public media. However, the impact of dumpster diving was limited due to its practice configuration: The practice of dumpster diving was associated with illegal behaviour, stigma and contagion, making the diffusion of the practice quite challenging. Based on a practical reconfiguration of dumpster diving, food sharing achieved more widespread acceptance and was able to redirect more food items based on a collaboration with retailers. This is a perfect example of collaboration across the often seen corporate-consumer divide. Through self-marketing and collaboration between different actors, food sharing gained widespread support in German society (Gollnhofer 2017a). As food waste is a systemic problem, that is, not reducible to the practices and actions of a single actor, collaboration between different market actors seems to be far more efficient than initiatives of a single market actor. Finally, retailers co-opted the awareness against food waste and turned it into business. This example shows that although one single actor might struggle to efficiently fight food waste, market actors can induce change impulses that can then be transformed and adapted by other market actors. In our case, business people borrowed inspiration from the margins of society and transformed this insight into a valuable business.

136     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

Conclusion In this chapter, we show how the retailer practice of selling ugly fruit and vegetables has its roots in the German anti-food waste movement. We show how this practice gained ground through three processes that are interlinked: (1) raising awareness for food waste, (2) recalibrating practices in the fight against food waste, and (3) monetising practices. Based on our empirical data, we argue that co-optation might be invited and even desired by activists in order to fight systemic challenges. Our data show that it might be fruitful that market actors adapt other actors’ practices and transform them on our way to a more sustainable society.

References Alexander, J. (2007). Environmental sustainability versus profit maximization: Overcoming systemic constraints on implementing normatively preferable alternatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 155–162. Anwar, A. (2008). Lidl vergiftet abgelaufene ware. Bremer Tageszeitungen. http://www.bremer-montagsdemo.de/206/Lidl_vergiftet_Obdachlose.html. Accessed on 20.2.2019. Arnold, S. J., & Fischer, E. (1994). Hermeneutics and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 55–70. Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79. Barnard, A. (2011). Waving the banana at capitalism: Activist identity and political theater among New York’s freegan dumpster divers. Ethnography, 12(4), 419–444. Belasco, W. J. (1989). Appetite for change: How the counterculture took on the food industry. New York, NY: Cornell University Press. Bloxham, A. (2010). Iceland staff pour bleach onto waste food to stop homeless people eating it. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7564402/Iceland-staff-pour-bleach-ontowaste-food-to-stop-homeless-people-eating-it.html. Accessed on 20.2.2019. Buechler, S. M. (1995). New social movement theories. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 441–464.

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     137

Caniglia, B., & Carmin, J. (2005). Scholarship on social movement organizations: Classic views and emerging trends. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 10(2), 201–212. Desmond, M. (2014). Relational ethnography. Theory and Society, 43(5), 547–579. Devin, B., & Richards, C. (2016). Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 199–210. Eikenberry, N., & Smith, C. (2005). Attitudes, beliefs, and prevalence of dumpster diving as a means to obtain food by Midwestern, low-income, urban dwellers. Agriculture and Human Values, 22(2), 187–202. Evans, D., Welch, D., & Swaffield, J. (2017). Constructing and mobilizing “the consumer”: Responsibility, consumption and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning A, 49(6), 1396–1412. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumer resistance: Societal motivations, consumer manifestations, and implications in the marketing domain. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 88–90. Giddens, A. (2013). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Giesler, M., & Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic governance regimes and consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 840–857. Gollnhofer, J. F. (2015a). Moral sharing. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 32(4), 40–47. Gollnhofer, J. F. (2015b). Taste the waste—Constructing new moralities through taboo consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 43, 542. Gollnhofer, J. F. (2017a). Normalising alternative practices: The recovery, distribution and consumption of food waste. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(7–8), 624–643. Gollnhofer, J. F. (2017b). The legitimation of a sustainable practice through dialectical adaptation in the marketplace. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 36(1), 156–168. Gollnhofer, J. F., Hellwig, K., & Morhart, F. (2016). Fair is good but what is fair? Negotiations of distributive justice in an emerging non-monetary sharing model. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(2), 226–245. Holt, D. B. (2012). Constructing sustainable consumption: From ethical values to the cultural transformation of unsustainable markets. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 236–255.

138     J. F. Gollnhofer and D. Boller

Hond, F., & Bakker, F. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924. Jacobsen, E., & Dulsrud, A. (2007). Will consumers save the world? The framing of political consumerism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(5), 469–482. Klein, J. G., Smith, N. G., & John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 92–109. Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691–704. Lekakis, E. J. (2013). Coffee activism and the politics of fair trade and ethical consumption in the Global North: Political consumerism and cultural citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Martin, D. M., & Schouten, J. W. (2012). Sustainable marketing. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall. McKenzie, T. J., Singh-Peterson, L., & Underhill, S. J. R. (2017). Quantifying postharvest loss and the implication of market-based decisions: A case study of two commercial domestic tomato supply chains in Queensland, Australia. Horticulturae, 3(3), 1–15. Mirabito, A. M., Otnes, C. C., Crosby, E., Wooten, D. B., Machin, J. E., Pullig, C., et al. (2016). The stigma turbine: A theoretical framework for conceptualizing and contextualizing marketplace stigma. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 35(2), 170–184. Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 429–453. Mösken, A. L. (2012). Wem gehören die Kekse im Müll? Frankfurter Rundschau. https://www.fr.de/panorama/gehoeren-kekse-muell-11346976.html. Accessed on 20.2.2019. Mourad, M. (2016). Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: Competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 461–477. Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., & Mattila, M. (2018). Roles of consumer-citizens in food waste reduction. Kulutustutkimus.Nyt, 12(1–2), 20–32. Pentina, I., & Amos, C. (2011). The freegan phenomenon: Anti-consumption or consumer resistance? European Journal of Marketing, 45(11–12), 11–12. Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305.

5  The Evolution of the German Anti-food Waste Movement …     139

Ribeiro, I., Sobral, P., Peças, P., & Henriques, E. (2018). A sustainable business model to fight food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 262–275. Saxton, G. D., Gomez, L. Ngoh, Z., Lin, Y-P., & Dietrich, S. (2017). Do CSR messages resonate? Examining public reactions to firms’ CSR efforts on social media. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-017-3464-z. Schofield, H. (2015). Is France’s supermarket waste law heading for Europe? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33907737. Accessed on 20.2.2019. Sebastiani, R., Montagnini, F., & Dalli, D. (2013). Ethical consumption and new business models in the food industry: Evidence from the Eataly case. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 473–488. Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy and Society, 37(1), 1–19. Thompson, C. J., & Coskuner-Balli, G. (2007). Countervailing market responses to corporate co-optation and the ideological recruitment of consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 135–152. Touraine, A. (1992). Beyond social movements: Theory, culture and society. Theory, Culture and Society, 9(1), 125–145. Varey, R. J. (2013). Marketing in the flourishing society megatrend. Journal of Macromarketing, 33(4), 354–368. Welch, D., Swaffield, J., & Evans, D. (2018). Who’s responsible for food waste? Consumers, retailers and the food waste discourse coalition in the United Kingdom. Journal of Consumer Culture. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469540518773801. Woldin, P. (2014). So ein Müll. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. http:// www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/prozess-wegen-containerns-so-ein-muell-12812474.html. Accessed on 20.2.2019. Wunderlinge auf Erfolgskurs. (2016). Handelszeitung. https://www.handelszeitung.at/handelszeitung/wunderlinge-auf-erfolgskurs-131592. Accessed on 20.2.2019. Yngfalk, C. (2016). Bio-politicizing consumption: Neo-liberal consumerism and disembodiment in the food marketplace. Consumption Markets & Culture, 19(3), 275–295. Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H. M., Hartman, K., Wang, F., Liu, Guangqing, L., et al. (2007). Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology, 98(4), 929–935.

6 Distributed Agency in Food Waste—A Focus on Non-human Actors in Retail Setting Lotta Alhonnoro, Hanna Leipämaa-Leskinen and Henna Syrjälä

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to identify and analyse how non-human actors participate in production and/or reduction of food waste in a network of actor relations. Our empirical study focusses on a bread and bakery product section of a Finnish hypermarket where we follow how bread may—or may not—turn to waste in a network of various human and non-human actors. In so doing, we adopt the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) approach (Latour 1999a, b, 2005) as our analytic tool, which enables us to look beyond the dominant role of human actors, such as managers, employees, and customers, in producing and/or L. Alhonnoro (*) · H. Leipämaa-Leskinen · H. Syrjälä  School of Marketing and Communication, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland H. Leipämaa-Leskinen e-mail: [email protected] H. Syrjälä e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_6

141

142     L. Alhonnoro et al.

reducing such waste. Thereby, we join the emerging stream of food waste studies recognising the distributed agency and re-emerging relations between humans and non-humans in the socio-material network (Evans 2018; Mattila et al. 2018; Waitt and Phillips 2016). Until now, research on food waste in a grocery retailing setting has been largely neglected as a research topic (Cicatiello et al. 2017; Filimonau and Gherbin 2017). The extant studies have concentrated on the quantification of food waste (Cicatiello et al. 2017; FAO 2011; Katajajuuri et al. 2014; Teller et al. 2018) or adopted a managerial perspective to the issue (Evans et al. 2013; Gruber et al. 2016; Mena et al. 2011). This stream of food waste research takes a methodologically distant view of managers higher up in the organisation hierarchy and industry experts or gleans insight through secondary data (Teller et al. 2018). There is still a need for more in-depth understanding of the causes of food waste as well as ways to reduce it, including analysing the operational reality of retailers or frontline staff in the store environment rather than approaching the issue from a more aggregated level (Filimonau and Gherbin 2017; Teller et al. 2018). Furthermore, we argue that studying “the human reality of food waste” (Gruber et al. 2016) is just one aspect of this wicked problem. Therefore, in this chapter, we suggest that the food waste problem in the retail setting should be understood as a more dispersed and complex issue, rather than as a question of top-down management or as an issue to be solved through human-led processes. This requires investigating the issue in a store environment and adopting an analytical perspective that enables exploring the relations of heterogeneous human and non-human actors in the food waste network, each having different capacities to participate in waste production and/or reduction. In this manner, the current research sheds light on how it is not only human actors and their conscious decisions that may cause food to turn—or not—to waste. We also need to acknowledge the mobilisation of various related non-human actors in this process. Although a few researchers have pointed out that food waste is a result of various factors in retailing, such as improperly functioning freezing and cooling equipment, and lack of adequate storage facilities (see Parfitt et al. 2010), the non-human actors that participate

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     143

in producing and/or reducing food waste in the food waste network remain largely unexplored. As an exception, Mattila et al. (2018) studied human and non-human actors in the household context to discover their potentials in organising temporality, thus preventing and reducing food waste. However, the ways in which food turns to waste in the interaction of human and non-human actors in the socio-material network in the retail setting have remained unresearched to date. To fill these gaps, we adopt the methodological lens of “following the thing” (Bettany and Kerrane 2011; Latour 1987)—the bread in this case—in a selected bread and bakery product section. The bread provides us with a particularly fruitful resource to investigate. Firstly, bread is categorised as one of the foodstuffs that most easily turns to waste (Mena et al. 2011, p. 653; Silvennoinen et al. 2012, p. 6). Secondly, bread appears as a multi-sensorial material object that evokes human and non-human interaction practised through, for instance, touching, smelling, and tasting. It is thus capable of generating action in which multiple variations of distributed agency may emerge. Therefore, bread and its (potential) transition into waste are considered here as our focal object of interest that is analysed in relation to other human and non-human actors. We begin the chapter by outlining our theoretical framework. ANT provides us with theoretical lenses for understanding how distributed agency appears in interaction in a food waste network in the retail setting. Then, we move on to discuss our methodological choices, followed by the analysis and presentation of our findings. We describe how multiple heterogeneous (human and non-human) actors interact to produce and/or reduce food waste in the observed bread and bakery section. Then, we further zoom in on the interactions of the non-human actors—bread and its package, natural-temporal actors and technomaterial actors—and other human and non-human actors involved in producing and/or reducing bread waste. We conclude our chapter by outlining practical implications and suggestions on how retail food waste could be reduced and even prevented. We highlight a need to focus on processes instead of (individual) human acts and consider different ways to confront food waste in relation to the heterogeneous actors of a food waste network in the retail setting.

144     L. Alhonnoro et al.

Non-human Agency in the Food Waste Network Until now, only a few studies on retail food waste have sought to understand the root causes of food waste (Gruber et al. 2016; FAO 2011; Teller et al. 2018). The identified reasons for food waste include undesirable customer behaviour and erratic demand, inefficient store operations and replenishment policies, and elevated product (quality) requirements (Teller et al. 2018). To shift the viewpoint from humanled processes to the socio-material network, in which human and non-human actors interact in ways that produce and/or reduce food waste, we rely on the theoretical premises stemming from ANT. As the stream of research grounding on ANT and other posthumanist views is still in its infancy in food waste research (for notable exceptions, see Evans 2011; Mattila et al. 2018; Waitt and Phillips 2016), we strengthen our theoretical bases with the emerging posthumanist studies from marketing and consumer research (e.g. Borgerson 2013; Canniford and Bajde 2016; Canniford et al. 2018; Lugosi and Quinton, 2018; Otnes et al. 2014; Syrjälä et al. 2016; Syrjälä and Norrgrann 2019; Walther and Schouten 2016) building on seminal thinkers such as Latour (1999a, b), Miller (2010), Haraway (2003). Thereby, we are able to adopt a relational perspective on food waste, in which producing/reducing food waste appears as a network of actors “acting within the confines of their material-semiotic milieu, the heterogeneous relationalities within which it is embedded” (Bettany and Kerrane 2011, p. 1754). Basing our research on relational ontology, we define a food waste network in the retail setting as the emerging and changing arrangements of heterogeneous actors. The arrangements include humans (e.g. customers, grocery store managers, and employees) and non-humans (e.g. bread and its package date labels and displays) that produce and/or reduce food waste and unfold within practices carried out in the retail context. This perspective allows us to better understand how food turns to waste. It also yields a fruitful perspective on exploring the distributed agency emerging in the interaction of the different human and nonhuman actors at the point in which food turns to waste, and thus provides

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     145

ideas for new solutions to cut down food waste. While we focus our description of the food waste network on the bread and bakery products section, we recognise its complex relations to other networked actors that are not scrutinised in our efforts. The food waste network in the bread and bakery section of a hypermarket is embedded in a network of various other actors, such as other retailers, policymakers, food charities, and food banks (Gollnhofer and Schouten 2017). Thereby, the food waste network is to be understood as being connected to other networks, to more localised mundane interactions and coming up as a global arrangement (Askegaard and Linnet 2011; Canniford et al. 2018; Latour 1996). Within this food waste network, we trace agentic moments or “flickerings” (Borgerson 2013; Syrjälä and Norrgrann 2019) that take place in the interaction between different actors and contribute to those occasions in which food turns—or not—to waste. ANT acknowledges that agency is not a human property, but a property of a heterogeneous network consisting of human and non-human actors (Latour 1999b). Thus, from the ANT perspective, no single action within the food waste network can be traced back to any sole actor, be it a human or nonhuman; instead, each action always needs the mobilisation of multiple actors (Bajde 2013) and their interconnected relations (Cannifrod and Bajde 2016). Therefore, agency is to be seen as distributed (Bajde 2013; Brembeck 2008) and the ontology of actors within consumption spaces, such as the retail site, as relational (Hill et al. 2014). Furthermore, stemming from Borgerson’s (2013) categorisation of agentic capacities as effects (non-humans) and as effects and intentions (humans) of different actors, we rely on the idea that the expressions of the agency of material objects, such as bread, a waste trolley and a shelf in a hypermarket, may not appear to be purposefully intentional. Instead, these things are capable of producing agentic mobilisations through their interconnected relations with human and non-human actors in their socio-material network (ibid.). This refers to the idea that different actors are ontologically indeterminate, meaning that their boundaries and meanings are not fixed, but co-constituted and negotiated in a continuous state of mutual becoming (Haraway 2003). Hence,

146     L. Alhonnoro et al.

food waste is a relational effect acted upon in everyday practices, rather than a fixed end of the pipe phenomenon (see also Mattila et al. 2018). In conclusion, we respond to the call of Canniford and Bajde (2016), who have suggested that research should illuminate differences and interdependencies between human and non-human actors to show how varied and multiple qualities of agency mobilise a network. Thereby, we are able to discover, as Evans (2011) proposes, the role of the nonhuman actors in food waste emergence, which has been overlooked and even excluded when concentrating mostly on the human-led process of managing waste. Further, the emerging and constantly changing relations in a network emphasise the dynamic nature of the food waste network, which is helpful in our efforts to move from food waste production to waste reduction and more sustainable practices.

Methodology Next, we briefly present our research design, followed by a description of the data generation and analysis. Then, we move on to elaborate our findings.

Research Site for Ethnographically Informed ANT Research In this study, we combine an ethnographic research design (e.g. Arnould and Wallendorf 1994) with that of ANT (Latour 1999a, b, 2005) to discover how bread may or may not turn to waste. As our purpose is to gain insights into the emergence of food waste before food ends up on consumers’ plates, we chose a hypermarket as our field site. More specifically, we focused on its bread and bakery section, in which the multi-method data generation took place. The food waste network in retailing is part of a systemic food waste problem; local and situated interactions are nested in and interconnected with a global arrangement (Canniford et al. 2018; Askegaard and Linnet 2011). We firstly describe the Finnish retail market system

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     147

to produce an understanding on how the focus of the current exploration—the food waste network in a retail store setting—relates and connects to other networks, constituting a global arrangement of food waste. The Finnish grocery market is highly concentrated, with two retail chains dominating almost 90% of it. Both of these retailers engage in robust supply chain management, due to which their bread and bakery selections are very similar across their stores. In Western countries, grocery stores typically have a wide assortment range (Gruber et al. 2016) and retailers strive to avoid out-of-stock situations using volume and sales promotions to manage the supply (Theotokis et al. 2012). The same applies to Finland. According to the Finnish Grocery Trade Association (FGT 2017), the average grocery store product selection has grown threefold during the last 20 years, and in large hypermarkets, the selection can include over 25,000 products. The bread selection in a Finnish hypermarket is typically very varied. It includes breads with a variety of grains, ranging from white wheat bread to dark rye, freshly baked products and crisp bread, sliced breads and whole loaves, and buns and baguettes. The selection also includes other bakery products such as sweet and savoury pastries, and seasonal and regional specialities, as well as products geared towards special diets. The bread and bakery section was chosen as the current field site, firstly, because bread is one of the main product categories causing food waste in the Finnish food retailing sector. According to Stenmarck et al. (2011, p. 62), bread and vegetables are the biggest food waste groups, with a waste level reaching 10 per cent of sales. This is in line with research carried out in the UK and Spain, which reported bread as one of the biggest contributors to food waste in retail, with waste levels in excess of 7 per cent (Mena et al. 2011, p. 653). Considering the environmental impact, Brancoli et al. (2017) estimated that bread waste, together with meat waste, contributes the most to the environmental footprint in a hypermarket. Secondly, bread, together with a variety of non-human actors connected to it, forms an abundance of variety and sensorial allurement (Alhonnoro and Norrgrann 2018, pp. 85–90). Breads come in many different types of packages, from colourfully branded plastic bags to more modest paper bags, and are presented in differently laid out product displays, some situated in big piles next to

148     L. Alhonnoro et al.

the aisles, and others placed without packaging in see-through stands at the in-store bakery for customers to pick and choose from. An in-house bakery that does not actually bake but only heats up the products at the point of purchase adds to the multitude of atmospheric and sensory actors taking part in the network by bolstering the often forgotten sensual feature of consumption sites: smell (see also Canniford et al. 2018).

Data Generation and Analysis To identify and analyse how the different human and non-human actors are connected with each other in the chosen empirical setting, with a particular focus on how non-human agency appears in the food waste network, we utilised a variety of multi-method ethnographic materials. The first author represents the insider in this study. Most of the materials used in this study were generated as part of her dissertation thesis on bread waste. Our primary data consist of participant observations. These data were generated in the bread and bakery section of a Finnish hypermarket in autumn 2014. During the three-day fieldwork, the first author observed the human and non-human actors and daily activities taking place in the bread and bakery section. She accompanied three employees in the grocery store, asking them to answer questions and describe what they were doing and why. Particular attention was paid to noticing when, how and through what types of interactions bread turned or did not turn to waste. The main focus was on identifying how the non-human and human actors interacted in the food waste network, and how distributed agency appeared in these interactions (potentially), enacting the emergence of bread waste in the section. The managers and the employees of the hypermarket knew about the study. Before starting the fieldwork, the first author asked for their permission to observe and interview them. The resulting empirical materials include field diary notes and pictorial data. We protect the privacy of the informants and the hypermarket by guaranteeing their anonymity during the analysis. We also generated supplementary data to enrich our understanding on retail food waste. These include online and offline materials

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     149

concerning food waste in Finland during the years 2010–2017. The online articles were searched and collected using the keywords “food waste” from the archive of the Finnish public broadcasting company Yle. The offline articles consisted of collected local and national newspaper articles on food waste. While our data are ethnographically informed in the sense that it involved a close and situated exploration of a bread and bakery product section and in-depth qualitative materials from various sources, the analytical focus and procedures differed from a traditional ethnographic study. Instead of following humans and seeking a culturally informed description, our ontological premises are based on the logic of ANT. Thus, in the analysis we concentrated on following the focal object (bread and its package) and how it is enacted in relation to other human and non-human actors in the food waste network. Consequently, the analysis was developed by tracing the hotspots where food may or may not turn to waste and identifying the heterogeneous human and non-human actors involved in this transformation. The iterative analysis process of the generated data started while observing in the bread and bakery section. At this stage, the researcher followed the relational ontology in terms of treating everything as a potential actor and avoiding a presupposed social order (Latour 2005). To deepen and try out her interpretations, she asked the employees questions about the observed practices and actors. The same analysis process was followed systematically during iterative readings and inductive coding of the whole research material by the first author, thus zooming in and out from more or less emic descriptions like employee talk or singular observations to the recognition of the heterogeneous relationalities and network of various humans and non-humans. The preliminary codings and interpretations were discussed jointly by all the authors to reach a consensus on the findings. Eventually, this analysis identified three sets of non-human actors—the focal object, the natural-temporal actors, and the techno-material actors—whose interconnections to other human and non-human actors are elaborated next in the findings section.

150     L. Alhonnoro et al.

Distributed Agency in the Food Waste Network We begin the findings section by describing how multiple heterogeneous human and non-human actors interact to produce and/or reduce food waste in the observed bread and bakery section. Then, we zoom in on three particular sets of non-human actors to analyse how agency appears distributed in the interaction between them and other human and non-human actors in the food waste network. Let us begin by illustrating how multiple actors take part in producing and/or reducing bread waste. The following quote from the field notes pinpoints the occurrence of agentic (non)mobilisation: There are still too many of brand A’s breads left to be sold, and the same was mentioned [by an employee] yesterday. Handytec [portable ordering device] indicates that there are still more to come, but John cannot use Handytec to reduce the order, not permanently or just for tomorrow. Instead, he would have to decrease the order from the desktop computer that is located in the office. Then the problem is, of course, that John is not the primary user of the office computer, but Cynthia is. So he can’t change the order right after he sees the need for it. Placing a new order via Handytec would be possible, [but since this is not what is wanted] John does nothing. (Field notes)

The above description demonstrates how a complex network of human and non-human actors comes together in the everyday practice of ordering (or reducing the order) bread and bakery products, and how the arrangement of multiple actors ends up producing waste. The starting point in the excerpt is the large amount of brand A bread. The employee, John, had already noticed on the previous day that there are many packages of this bread in the rack considering the amount that is usually sold, and he uses “Handytec” to check the order and to try to reduce it. Handytec is a portable ordering device that the employees use for making new orders of bread and bakery products, tracking the orders, and adjusting the orders when needed. The field note shows further how the actors, that is bread (in fact, a network of many breads that together constitute “too much bread”), the techno-material

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     151

device Handytec, and John, the employee who notices the amount of bread and uses the ordering device, together form an inherently heterogeneous and socio-material practice (Mattila et al. 2018, p. 3), where agency is distributed between the actors. Thus, John should change the order, but Handytec cannot be used for this purpose. John should ask Cynthia to change the order on the office computer, but Cynthia is not currently present. John has much work to do, so he proceeds with his work. Moreover, John is not the only one to act: agency appears distributed between human and non-human actors, in this case, the Handytec, the office computer, Cynthia, the spatial arrangement and the distance between these actors, and John. Thus, coming together in the relational food waste network, heterogeneous actors take part in the ordering practice, which ends up producing food waste. Regarding this descriptive example as a starting point for our analysis, we next move on and focus more closely on how the food waste network in the bread and bakery section appears from the perspective of three sets of different non-human actors—the focal object, the natural-temporal actors, and the techno-material actors.

Distributed Agency from the Perspective of the Focal Object We first zoom in on the food waste network in the bread and bakery section from the perspective of our focal object, that is bread and its package. Here, we consider the package to also include signs (e.g. discount stickers and best-before-date markings) and symbols attached to the package. Similar to typical bread and bakery sections in Finnish hypermarkets (FGT 2017), the field site of our study included a high number and wide variety of bread products available for consumers. In addition, our analysis highlights the salience of “perfect” presentation of the products, that is the products are shelved in a way that showcases them for optimal freshness and abundance (see also Alhonnoro and Norrgrann 2018). This practice may eventually lead to an increase in the amount of food waste because employees more readily throw away bread packages

152     L. Alhonnoro et al.

that are not “perfect” (e.g. ruptured packages, too few pieces of bread in the package, and packages lacking best-before-date markings). In fact, aligned with the results presented by Cicatiello et al. (2017), our analysis showcases that nearly all the food waste emerging in the bread and bakery section would still have been fit for human consumption. The following field note illustrates this kind of situation: “One plastic bag has opened. One piece of bread drops out of the bag. The whole thing is put into the waste trolley” (Field notes). In the field note, one of the employees put the package into the waste trolley after noticing that it was open. Thus, waste is created relationally, in the interaction of the focal object and the human actor. The focal object acts as a mobiliser and “invites” other actors to join the food waste network, in this case the employee, who uses her agentic capacity to decide whether a certain package is waste or not. Interestingly, the boundary between edible bread and bread waste changes according to what kind of agentic (human) actors they relate to. For example, a ragged bread package is not sold to customers, but employees can buy it at a 50 per cent discount. Cicatiello et al. (2017, p. 279) explained that the high amount of bread waste was due to the quality standards required by the customers and the low cost of these products for the store management. However, our analysis addresses also how agentic mobilisation can take an opposite direction due to the acts of an employee. The next quote exemplifies how one employee ends up saving the opened or ruptured package for resale: “One of the plastic bags has opened. John notices it and walks to the bakery area to close it with an adhesive tape” (Field notes). The substantial difference between the aforementioned raw data illustrations is that the employee needs to notice the problem before bread slides out of the bag. If she/he does not, and slices drop out of the bag, then the whole bag of bread is in danger of ending up in the waste trolley. Thus, working practices may emerge as agentic in terms of exhibiting either as an opportunity or as an obstacle for reducing the amount of food waste. In any case, from the viewpoint of bread and its package, employees still exhibit strong agency in influencing the resulting food waste. They decide, for example, which products are visible to the

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     153

customers and which are hidden, as exemplified in the following field note and Fig. 6.1: John rearranges the display of rye bread packages. There is still much bread left, even without the large amount of new packages they have received. John does not place the discount products on the top of the pile, but instead lets them be buried in the pile. (Field notes)

However, our analysis indicates that the human agency is not that straightforward. Instead, the focal object may induce agentic effects in relation to other human and non-human actors. This is especially notable in the case of discount products, as the discount stickers are important for certain customer groups. Their agentic mobilisation works in a two-way direction: they may appeal to some customers, but drive away other customers, who prefer to buy only fresh bakery products. Our research material includes plenty of remarks about how the customers move around in the section and use different methods to find the “best bread”, that is the freshest and newest product by digging from the piles and moving racks, checking the best before dates, and touching the products, as described in the field note: “Customers dig out the products from the bottom of the pile, because they know that older products are located on top, and the newest are underneath” (Field notes). This field note showcases how the bread can exhibit agency in relation to human actors by causing effects on their behaviours—customers may take or leave bread based on its softness or dryness. These agentic properties are also assigned to the best before dates (and to the missing best before dates) as well as to ruptured or deviant packages, all of which may become signallers of waste.

Distributed Agency from the Perspective of Natural-Temporal Actors Next, we describe the distributed agency related to the second identified set of non-human actors in the bread and bakery section, namely the natural-temporal actors. These actors include animals, weather

154     L. Alhonnoro et al.

Fig. 6.1  Bread packages marked with discount sticker buried underneath new products

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     155

conditions, seasons, weekdays, and time of the day. They can ­manifest strong agentic capacities in relation to other human and non-human actors, mobilising food waste production, and/or reduction in the network. The analysis reveals that the demand for bread and bakery products is closely connected to changes in weather conditions and seasonal variations. One employee describes how the demand for white bread and baked goods increases in summertime: Cynthia says that the warm weather [June-July] could be seen in the demand. [The employee speculates.] People did not bother to bake buns at home, and demand for them increased in the stores. (Field notes)

Changes in demand may increase the amount of bread waste, and act as mobilisers in the network producing food waste. Even though there are national weather forecasts available on the changing weather conditions, these weather forecasts are not taken into account by the automated (and agentic) ordering system. If employees do not or cannot respond to changing weather forecasts and adjust orders, food waste can occur. In relation to changing weather, other natural-temporal actors can also enter the food waste network. For instance, one field note describes a hot summer day situation in which flies, attracted by the sweet smell of fruits and jam, entered the pastry boxes. This lowered the demand for sweet pastries and eventually those pastries had to be thrown away: Cynthia discards the pastries from the upper shelf. She has noticed that fruit pastries tempt small flies into the store. The same thing has happened before and she has rejected fruit pastry orders for a while. The best before date has not yet been reached, but who wants to buy flies? (Field notes)

Furthermore, weekdays and paydays are natural-temporal actors that may appear agentic in relation to other actors in the food waste network and, consequently, may influence the emergence of bread waste. These non-human actors are usually acted upon by the ordering system

156     L. Alhonnoro et al.

and the employees working in the bread and bakery section: “Bread sales change according to weekdays. The lowest amounts are sold on Wednesdays” (Field notes) and “Paydays can be seen in the monthly statistics. People buy more fresh bread on the payday, while minus 30% products are sold before the payday” (Field notes). Thus, the amount of fresh bread should be adjusted according to the weekday and time of month in line with demand and to avoid food waste. Moreover, seasonal holidays, such as Christmas and Easter, have two-way effects on the amount of food waste. First, they increase the amounts of food sold, and afterwards, they increase the amount of food waste “generated when a food store is closed on many consecutive days” (excerpt from Yle news article). This kind of socio-temporal effect is also pointed out by Evans (2012) in relation to individual consumers’ rhythms of everyday life, like travelling and changes in plans. Also, Mattila et al. (2018) have noted that potential food waste can be revitalised, for example, by using cooling equipment for freezing food as a way to store it for future use, thus pausing the process of food becoming waste beforehand. While we did not observe bread being saved in this way in the hypermarket, the employees reported that bread waste was often picked up by a pig farmer, which shows that some of the bread waste is turned into animal feed. Some of the natural-temporal actors occur in a routinised way, and employees have become aware of these kinds of fluctuations in demand. However, there may still be disparity between the demand for certain bread products and the number of ordered products. This is due to the work practices and their organisation in the socio-material network. For instance, when only a few employees are at work and they have much shelving and other mandatory tasks to do, the employees concentrate on shelving, having hardly any time to even think about adjusting orders. Thus, the natural-temporal actors also have effects on how employees are capable of dividing their work tasks—in this case, usually in ways that increase food waste. The distributed agency between the natural-temporal actors and employees is further reflected in how the orders are planned based on the previous year’s sales figures. These figures do not contain information on issues such as typical weather conditions, special campaigns, or

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     157

other timely events, which make it difficult to forecast orders (see also Mena et al. 2011). A case in point is exemplified in the following field note, which shows that orders are difficult to adjust even though their inaccuracy is acknowledged: A large amount of readymade sandwich cake sponges is thrown away, as we suspected would happen in the previous day (Cynthia suspected that last year the order was for some reason larger [maybe the order had been increased in response to a request by an individual customer]). (Field notes)

A very concrete example of agentic effects of natural-temporal actors on the amount of bread waste in our analysis relates to the in-store baking point’s closing time. The baking point sells some of the same products that are sold in the shelves of the ordinary bread section, as described below: The baking point that is located inside the bread section is selling partly the same products that are also available in the bread section. For example, brand B’s rye bread is available at the baking point and sold at a unit piece price, while the same bread is sold in two-piece bags in the bread section. (Field notes)

The observations revealed further that while the baking point throws away the remaining bread when it closes—regarded as out-of-date for the baking point at this moment—similar breads are sold in the ordinary section for several days. Thus, although the physical bread is exactly the same, the bread that is located in the baking point—instead of being delivered and pre-packaged by an outside bakery of the same brand—turns to waste at the moment when the baking point closes for the day. Correspondingly, when the same bread is delivered by an outside bakery and sold in the bread and bakery section, it is sellable and consumable for several days. In this example, the natural-­temporal actor induces mobilisational agency which, however, is distributed in the interconnection between other human (employees) and non-human (bread, baking point) actors.

158     L. Alhonnoro et al.

Distributed Agency from the Perspective of Techno-Material Actors We also scrutinised the food waste network from the viewpoint of the identified techno-material actors. These actors include technological systems and devices that are in use in the field site, but also the spatial arrangements and very concrete materials, such as the location of the employee’s office and the shelves in the section, and a waste trolley used for collecting the bread waste. In the bread and bakery section, various technological apparatuses distribute agency with the employees in terms of making and adjusting orders and keeping track of the stock. While these techno-material actors are used by the employees to manage and control bread flows, a closer analysis of their agentic capacities and relations to other human and non-human actors reveals their central role in the food waste network. They not only facilitate daily practices and enable employees to work more efficiently, but they also exhibit agentic effects, which are distributed in the food waste network. To illustrate this in a more detailed manner, we return to the portable device Handytec. The employees use this device in the store for ordering and follow-up of the stock. The device is designed for easy and quick operation. As such, it provides only a limited amount of information about the made orders. It also neither registers nor is able to show all the orders made from other devices such as desktop computers. In addition, Handytec does not communicate very well with the other human and non-human actors of the network. At the same time, it may mislead and hinder the daily working practices of the employees. The following quotes illuminate how Handytec itself may change the orders made by the employees, which in turn may influence food waste emergence: The system might state that there are no orders to be delivered, while in reality a newly delivered order of bread might be waiting to be shelved in the store. (Field notes) John tells that Handytec does not always show the right stock status. Handytec may show that the amount in stock is lower than it actually is, and even if you correct it, it may change back during the night and make

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     159

extra orders. Therefore, the warehouse includes a lot of unpacked platforms. It takes a lot of time to recalculate the stock and make changes to the orders. (Field notes)

Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that the availability and number of technological devices have effects on the resulting food waste in the network. In the observed bread and bakery section, only one Handytec is in use to provide the employees with access to information on orders and sales, even though one to three employees work in the section. This means that only one employee at a time can work with the Handytec and make adjustments to orders, for example. Although the orders can also be changed from the desktop computer located in the separate office, using a desktop computer requires the employees to go and work in the office. Thus, the employees cannot often use Handytec while doing their daily work in the bread and bakery section. Contrary to this, the desktop computer allows the employees to make changes to the orders for a longer period of time and utilising more relevant information. Our analysis shows that the employees often opt to shelve the products, rather than leaving their working place and going to the office to make the orders or change them. Consequently, our analysis demonstrates that the techno-material actors alone are not able to cut down the amount of retail waste. Acting together with the employees, however, they demonstrate the capacity to affect food waste occurrence at the store (see also Silvennoinen et al. 2012, p. 36). In this regard, we partially agree with Cicatiello et al. (2017) who note and explain the significant amount of unrecorded food waste by routinised practices carried out by employees. Related to this, our analysis highlights that the disparity between the orders and the demand may also be closely connected with the techno-material actors that enable distributing agency in a way that has effects on both the employees’ work practices and the food waste network: Cynthia complains that “the computer system” [she is most likely talking about some program that utilises the Internet] was out of order yesterday morning. It happens every now and then, and this time the error impacted systems nationwide, because they received a separate email

160     L. Alhonnoro et al.

concerning it. Because of the error, Cynthia is not able to revise the orders. For example, they received a lot of donuts and she did want to cancel the order. (Field notes)

Our analysis also identified the (very large) waste trolley (Fig. 6.2) as a critical techno-material actor enacting food waste emergence at the bread and bakery section. This trolley is used by the employees to collect bread waste in the store. It exhibits agency in terms of normalising large amounts of bread waste. The trolley is over one metre high and so wide and large that it blocks the aisle and requires two hands to push. Thus, it implicitly “invites” the employees working in the section to throw large quantities of bread away. Our interpretation is that the waste trolley not only acts as a collector of bread waste but also as a mobiliser of bread waste in the food waste network. Here, our findings align with Cochoy’s (2008) description of how consumption is shaped and negotiated not only by consumers, marketers, and objects of consumption, but also by other material objects, such as merchandising technologies, shopping lists, and shopping carts. While Cochoy (ibid.) illustrates how a shopping cart may have effects on the amount of goods consumers buy at the hypermarket, the waste

Fig. 6.2  The waste trolley

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     161

trolley in our case shows its influence on how much bread the employees end up throwing away as part of their daily practices in the bread and bakery section.

Conclusions and Suggestions for Food Waste Reduction In this chapter, we have illustrated various occasional moments to show how distributed agency appears in the bread and bakery section and, consequently, the (many) relational effects of these becomings on food waste production and/or reduction. Zooming in on these moments, we were able to demonstrate that the emergence of bread waste in the retail setting is not only orchestrated and managed by the employees (human actors), but is enacted within the network that connects both human and non-human actors. For instance, the weather acts as a mobiliser of food waste when changes in demand increase the amount of bread waste, and the waste trolley mobilises food waste by normalising throwing away large amounts of bread. Hence, our analysis delineates the distributed agencies of human and non-human actors in the food waste network and thereby extends the current understanding on food waste and provides novel insights into how food waste occurs in a retail setting. To provide theory-based solutions for food waste reduction, we suggest that an ANT grounded analysis emphasising distributed agency (Latour 1999a, b, 2005), as opposed to one privileging human agency, helps shed light on the causes of food waste in a novel and a more comprehensive way. Our study complements earlier food waste discussions (Evans 2011, 2018; Mattila et al. 2018; Waitt and Phillips 2016) by focussing on the retail setting and emphasising the importance of identifying various human and non-human actors and their complex, interconnected relations in order to address the food waste problem. For instance, while Teller et al. (2018, p. 994) emphasised the role of humans in the execution of in-store logistics and related food waste occurrence, our analysis highlights that food waste reduction is not only

162     L. Alhonnoro et al.

a question of human execution. Instead, the focus should be on considering and adjusting the roles of both human and non-human actors that take part in producing and/or reducing food waste. Further, the current study highlights and illuminates how the emergence of food waste is a matter of multiple and constantly moving relations of interconnected actors. Consequently, the fluid network of bread poses challenges when seeking to identify the exact points when a particular bread turns to waste. This can be seen for instance when the bread is considered as waste because of its ruptured package, but it can still be offered for employees to buy. Thus, we agree with Mattila et al. (2018) that the food waste concept is negotiable in nature. Using terms such as “surplus food” or “potential food waste” could be helpful in bringing out the potential of the food (waste). Next, we move on to practical solutions for reducing food waste in the retail setting and discuss the role of non-humans in food waste occurrence. To start with the focal actor, the bread and its package, our findings address the critical role of the package and its signs, turning the bread to waste without any changes in the bread’s physical properties. This was the case, for example, when the edible and sellable breads ended up in the waste trolley due to the lack of best before date markings or because discounted products were not visibly displayed for consumers. Thus, instead of blaming picky consumers and building consumer awareness on the food waste issue (Filimonau and Gherbin 2017), we suggest that demand for older products and, consequently, transformations in consumer behaviour should be made in relation to changes in the non-human actors, for example, by adjusting pricing according to best before dates and making sure that discounted products are visible for consumers. Considering the natural-temporal actors, our findings indicate that weather forecasts, holidays, paydays, and the statistical data on these actors should be used as background information when making breadrelated orders. Based on our analysis, employees might not have the time and possibility to consider these actors in their daily work, which is why we recommend that manufacturers and system designers should incorporate this data into the ordering systems. Further, following household practices for saving food before it goes bad (Mattila et al. 2018),

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     163

bread and other food products could be revitalised also in stores. For example, if there are large amounts of unsold bread about to reach their best before date, food waste could be avoided by freezing the bread before it expires. Finally, we urge to (re-)evaluate the role of techno-material actors in the retail setting, especially regarding food waste reduction. While previous studies have linked technology primarily to cutting down food waste (Giuseppe et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2012), we suggest taking a more critical stance in evaluating the techno-material actors in relation to other actors in the food waste network. As illustrated in this study, agency in the food waste network is distributed and relational. Therefore, food waste reduction cannot be based solely on technological improvements. Educating the users (employees) to spot problematic situations and providing means (e.g. Handytecs for all employees working in the bread and bakery section) for them to act in alternative ways during their daily practices would also facilitate efforts to reduce food waste. Furthermore, we recommend taking into account the role(s) of seemingly mundane objects like the bread package, the weather, and technological devices in the efforts to manage and cut down food waste in the retail setting. While Teller et al. (2018, p. 994) emphasised the role of humans in the execution, this study highlights that it is important to consider the food waste-related tools and surroundings, and how they could be changed in order to reduce food waste. For example, we demonstrate in the study that the (large) waste trolley may normalise the emergence of food waste in stores. Thus, the efforts to fight against food waste must be communicated and put into practice at every level in the retail setting, not just in management speeches but also in ground-level practices, taking into consideration the various roles of non-human actors in producing and/or reducing food waste. Regarding the aforementioned example, this could mean using a smaller waste trolley or other changes in its design. A measuring tape could be included in it to show how much bread is thrown into the trolley. In addition, a target level of waste could be marked on the trolley in order to focus the employees’ attention on the actual amount of food waste and to encourage them to reduce food waste.

164     L. Alhonnoro et al.

In conclusion, based on the limitations of our explorative study, we suggest several future research opportunities. Firstly, our study has focussed on several non-human actors and their interconnected relations to other (human and non-human) actors in producing and/ or reducing food waste. Therefore, it cannot concentrate on exploring the role of specific actors such as technological devices in more detail. In this, we agree with Bettany’s (2016, p. 193) suggestion to analytically focus on a particular material thing (like Handytec) as a boundary object in order to discover the continually moving and messy network related to it. Secondly, shifting the perspective from actor relations to practices and focussing on the (underlying) power relations in the hotspots in which food turns to waste could be an interesting avenue for future research. Thirdly, while we have concentrated on bread and bakery products, investigating the food waste network within other food product groups in the retail setting might also yield innovative solutions in the fight against retail food waste. Finally, we encourage future research to focus on food waste prevention. It is not enough to study food waste only after it has been created. Instead, there is a constant need to better manage food handling processes so that food does not turn to waste in the first place.

References Alhonnoro, L., & Norrgrann, A. (2018). Gluttony: No taste without the waste? Gluttony in bakery product retailing. In H. Syrjälä & H. LeipämaaLeskinen (Eds.), Seven deadly sins in consumption (pp. 78–95). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Arnould, E. J., & Wallendorf, M. (1994). Market-oriented ethnography: Interpretation building and marketing strategy formulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 484–504. Askegaard, S., & Linnet, J. T. (2011). Towards an epistemology of consumer culture theory: Phenomenology and the context of context. Marketing Theory, 11(4), 381–404. Bajde, D. (2013). Consumer culture theory (re)visits actor-network theory: Flattening consumption studies. Marketing Theory, 13(2), 227–242.

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     165

Bettany, S. (2016). A commentary: Where (and what) is the critical in consumer-oriented actor-network theory? In R. Canniford & D. Bajde (Eds.), Assembling consumption: Researching actors, networks and markets (pp. 187– 197). Abingdon: Routledge. Bettany, S., & Kerrane, B. (2011). The (post-human) consumer, the (postavian) chicken and the (post-object) Eglu: Towards a material-semiotics of anti-consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1746–1756. Borgerson, J. (2013). The flickering consumer: New materialities and consumer research. In R. Belk, L. Price, & L. Peñaloza (Eds.), Consumer culture theory: Research in consumer behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 125–144). Bingley: Emerald. Brancoli, P., Rousta, K., & Bolton, K. (2017). Life cycle assessment of supermarket food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 118, 39–46. Brembeck, H. (2008). Inscribing Nordic childhoods at McDonalds. In M. Gutman & N. de Coninck-Smith (Eds.), Designing modern childhoods: History, space, and the material culture of childhood (pp. 269–281). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Canniford, R., & Bajde, D. (Eds.). (2016). Assembling consumption: Researching actors, networks and markets. Abingdon: Routledge. Canniford, R., Riach, K., & Hill, T. (2018). Nosenography: How smell constitutes meaning, identity and temporal experience in spatial assemblages. Marketing Theory, 18(2), 234–248. Cicatiello, C., Franco, S., Pancino, B., Blasi, E., & Falasconi, L. (2017). The dark side of retail food waste: Evidences from in-store data. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 125, 273–281. Cochoy, F. (2008). Calculation, qualculation, calqulation: Shopping cart arithmetic, equipped cognition and the clustered consumer. Marketing Theory, 8(1), 15–44. Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the consumer—Once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429–440. Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56. Evans, D. (2018). Rethinking material cultures of sustainability: Commodity consumption, cultural biographies and following the thing. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43(1), 110–121.

166     L. Alhonnoro et al.

Evans, D., Campbell, H., & Murcott, A. (2013). A brief pre-history of food waste and the social sciences. The Sociological Review, 60(S2), 5–26. FAO. (2011). Global food losses and food wastes: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf. Accessed on 6.3.2019. Filimonau, V., & Gherbin, A. (2017). An exploratory study of food waste management practices in the UK grocery retail sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1184–1194. FGT. (2017). The duties of grocery trade. Finnish Grocery Trade. www.pty.fi/ front-page/finnish-grocery-trade/the-duties-of-grocery-trade/. Accessed on 20.8.2017. Giuseppe, A., Mario, E., & Cinzia, M. (2014). Economic benefits from food recovery at the retail stage: An application to Italian food chains. Waste Management, 34(7), 1101–1350. Gollnhofer, J. F., & Schouten, J. W. (2017). Complementing the dominant social paradigm with sustainability. Journal of Macromarketing, 37(2), 143–152. Gruber, V., Holweg, C., & Teller, C. (2016). What a waste! Exploring the human reality of food waste from the store manager’s perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(1), 3–25. Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people & significant otherness. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press. Hill, T., Canniford, R., & Mol, J. (2014). Non-representational marketing theory. Marketing Theory, 14(4), 377–394. Katajajuuri, J., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2014). Food waste in the Finnish food chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 322–329. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications plus more than a few complications. Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381. Latour, B. (1999a). On recalling ANT. Sociological Review, 47(S1), 15–25. Latour, B. (1999b). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lugosi, P., & Quinton, S. (2018). More-than-human netnography. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(3–4), 287–313.

6  Distributed Agency in Food Waste …     167

Mattila, M., Mesiranta, N., Närvänen, E., Koskinen, O., & Sutinen, U.-M. (2018). Dances with potential food waste: Organising temporality in food waste reduction practices. Time & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/09614 63X18784123. Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Yurtc, O. (2011). The causes of food waste in the supplier–retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 648–658. Miller, D. (2010). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity. Otnes, C. C., Ruth, J. A., & Crosby, E. M. (2014). Product-agency benefits: Consumer perspectives and strategic implications. European Journal of Marketing, 48(5/6), 878–898. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365(1554), 3065–3081. Silvennoinen, K., Koivupuro, H.-K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Jalkanen, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2012). Ruokahävikki suomalaisessa ruokaketjussa (MTT Raportti 41). Tampere: Tampereen Yliopistopaino Oy. Stenmarck, Å., Hanssen, O. J., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., & Werge, M. (2011). Initiatives on prevention of food waste in the retail and wholesale trades. TemaNord, 2011, 548. Syrjälä, H., Jaskari, M., & Leipämaa-Leskinen, H. (2016). Object agency of a living/non-living entity: The case of horse/horsemeat. In D. Rinallo, N. Özçağlar-Toulouse, & R. Belk (Eds.), Consumer culture theory: Research in consumer behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 65–92). Bingley: Emerald. Syrjälä, H., & Norrgrann, A. (2019, in press). “When your dog matches your decor”. Object agency of living and non-living entities in home assemblage. In D. Bajde, D. Kjedgaard, & R. Belk (Eds.), Consumer culture theory: Research in consumer behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 39–54). Bingley: Emerald. Teller, C., Holweg, C., Reiner, G., & Kotzab, H. (2018). Retail store operations and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 981–997. Theotokis, A., Pramatari, K., & Tsiros, M. (2012). Effects of expiration datebased pricing on brand image perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 72–87. Waitt, G., & Phillips, C. (2016). Food waste and domestic refrigeration: A visceral and material approach. Social and Cultural Geography, 17(3), 359–379. Walther, L., & Schouten, J. W. (2016). Next stop, Pleasure Town: Identity transformation and women’s erotic consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 273–283.

7 Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer: A Socio-Ecological Approach to Food Waste in Environmental Design Ellen Burke and N. Claire Napawan

Introduction Food places within the built environment are varied and diverse, including markets, restaurants, homes, picnic grounds, orchards, gardens and urban farms. The places of food waste are less often celebrated and are only marginally, if at all, considered a design project. As with most wastes, food waste is handled at the margins, moving efficiently from urban centres to landfills and other facilities, the location and design of which are chosen with the intent to obscure. By participating in the diminishment of the physical spaces of food waste, designers and

E. Burke (*)  California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] N. C. Napawan  University of California, Davis, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_7

169

170     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

planners passively support cultural attitudes that counteract sustainability and fail to adequately evaluate human impact on the environment. This chapter makes a critical assessment of the role of environmental design in addressing food waste, suggesting that the design and engineering fields might take a more proactive socio-ecological approach to food waste. A literature review synthesises several theoretical approaches, including urban metabolism (Lyle 1994; Wolman 1965), community resilience (Magis 2010) and participatory design (Hester 1974) to provide a theoretical grounding to the argument for a socio-ecological approach to waste in environmental design. Acknowledging that in many cases domestic food preparation maintains persistently gendered roles, the chapter also reviews relevant feminist theory, including the work of Ellen Swallow Richards. The theoretical perspective developed through the literature review is then applied to an example of an environmental design project that utilises a participatory and socio-ecological approach to reducing the environmental impacts of domestic food waste. The chapter concludes by proposing that environmental design move beyond the production of physical sites alone to engage a more dynamic approach to urbanism.

Waste and the City: Theoretical Approaches Three areas of theory underpin the argument of this chapter for a socio-ecological approach to food waste in environmental design. These bodies of theory build a connection between the physical artefact of food waste, the community/city at large, and the (often gendered) domestic practices that produce the waste. In constructing an argument for a holistic approach to food waste in the built environment, feminist theory provides a model for critiquing modes of thought that categorise and separate the complexity of life into discrete (and opposing) concepts. This section introduces each of the bodies of theory (urban metabolism, socio-ecological resilience, feminism) briefly, followed by development of a synthetic approach to the topics. These perspectives have not been utilised together in food waste studies before and contribute the potential of new understandings for how to approach the topic of food waste in the built environment.

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     171

Urban Metabolism Ecological models of the built environment, which began to be developed in the 1960s, and continue to evolve in contemporary design theory, examine not the forms and experience of a place, but rather the material flows and energy exchanges within them. These models share an intent to develop understandings of the city that promote more sustainable outcomes, reducing reliance on imported goods and energy as well as the export of waste. Writing in Scientific American in 1965, the engineer Abel Wolman outlined the “Metabolism of Cities”, declaring that As man has come to appreciate that the earth is a closed ecological ­system, casual methods that once appeared satisfactory for the disposal of wastes no longer seem acceptable. He has the daily evidence of his eyes and nose to tell him that his planet cannot assimilate without limit the untreated wastes of his civilization. (Wolman 1965, p. 179)

While mainly focused on water treatment, Wolman’s essay describes a conceptual framework for organising responses to environmental degradation in the built environment using the analogy of human metabolism (Marin and De Meulder 2018). Wolman’s writing establishes a holistic view of the processes fuelling life in the built environment and effectively links the issues of clean water supply (as a desirable input) to issues of sewage disposal (as a resulting output), rather than considering them in isolation. Writing concurrently, the landscape architect Ian McHarg proposed an approach to urbanism with a similar understanding of interconnectedness and complexity, using a model of health derived from ecology, in which he compared the factors of “ill-health” of urbanised areas such as simplicity, independence and high entropy to the “health” of natural ecosystems which rely on complexity, interdependence and diversity (McHarg 1967). Writers in following decades continued to develop theories that described the built environment as a set of interrelated processes. John T. Lyle’s (1994) outline for regenerative design applies the laws of thermodynamics to describe design that “replace(s) the present linear system of throughput flows with cyclical flows at sources, consumption centres,

172     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

and sinks” (p. 10). For Lyle, waste is best treated at each of these sites, rather than aggregated at the sinks, based on his reading of natural dynamics. Likewise, the landscape architect Anne Whiston Spirn (1985) proposed a redefinition of nature within the city based on cyclical flows which she described as including the “air we breathe, … the water we drink and excrete … the consequence of complex interactions between … human beings and other living creatures” (p. 4). These lenses for understanding the city as a system of energy and material flows contrast with more conventional approaches to design and planning that focus on the creation of sites and objects. For example, the case study of the environmental justice fight against the Los Angeles City Energy Recovery Project (LANCER) illustrates the way that architects and planners often uncritically accept the idea that more infrastructure is the best approach to waste management (di Chiro 1995). LANCER was a 1600-ton-per-day solid waste incinerator proposed to be located in a predominately African American, low-income community in Los Angeles. The LANCER project was depicted in community meetings as surrounded by a landscaped picnic area that would offer a community gathering place, while issues of potential community contamination by the facility’s operation were obscured. Traditional approaches such as the one at LANCER describe the benefits of infrastructure in terms of the dominant paradigm of growth: more jobs and new development. They also isolate the issue of waste as an end product apart from its full lifecycle, one in which waste is quietly disposed of out-of-sight and out-of-mind, thereby allowing for some portions of society to maintain their habits and attitudes towards waste, while ­others suffer the community consequences of waste production.

Socio-Ecological Resilience and Participatory Design Resilience is an evolving concept in application to the fields of planning and landscape architecture and to sustainability goals. The concept originated in the field of ecology, as a measure of the capacity for an ecosystem to return to an original state after disruption (McCrea et al. 2014). Applied to socio-ecological systems (SESs) in planning and community

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     173

development, resilience has been more recently defined not only as the ability to recover from disruption (after a natural disaster for example), but to change and adapt in response to community sustainability goals (Franklin et al. 2011; Shaw and Theobald 2011). Walker et al. (2004) further identify resilience as one of three attributes of SESs, which also include adaptability and transformability. In this understanding, resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb change, while adaptability refers to the capacity of people in the system to manage or influence resilience (Walker et al. 2004). The focus on adaptability and human agency in resilience thinking means that resilience can be framed as both an outcome and a process (Wilson 2010). Resilience in this sense becomes something that can be developed by a community through the “engagement of community resources by community members” (Magis 2010, p. 402). Concepts of community resilience are closely related to community capacity, and both depend on the concepts of collective action and agency (ibid.). In environmental design, applying these concepts to actively engaging the public is described as participatory design, and a number of outcomes, including resilience, are ascribed to this way of working. Socially conscious landscape architects and planners have long noted that there can be a conflict between community needs and the agendas of government and developers. Motivated by a belief that designers should respond to user needs and the collective public good (Hester 1974) participatory design practitioners seek to involve users in the community development process, expanding the role of expert to include those most familiar with a place—its inhabitants. Randolph Hester (ibid.) developed a four-part matrix for community design, which describes design “Against>For>With>By People” and suggested that while conventional design resides in the “against” or “for” categories, community design should be “with” or “by” the people. Proponents of community involvement describe the process as a way to “harvest that limitless wealth of insight and creativity which citizens are able to bring to projects affecting their daily lives and environments” (Gregory and Lewis 1977, p. 10) and suggest that public participation foments designs that are more locally situated, that better respond or belong to the communities in which they are located. Participatory

174     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

design in socio-ecological resilience theory moves beyond ­incorporation of community feedback by project leaders to the active building of social capital through engagement of community members in processes that affect them. Desired outcomes for these types of participatory processes include increased awareness of one’s contribution to a community issue and an understanding of resources and potential means of action to enact change. The Tidy Street Project in Brighton, England is an example of this sort of participatory process, in which residents of a single city block collaborated with graphic designers and scientists to track and communicate their energy usage as compared to the British average. During the two-month period of the project, residents became more aware of which decisions had the biggest effect on energy use (such as using an electric kettle) and reduced their cumulative energy use by 15% (Hustwit 2012). The 2017 Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge (a year-long multidisciplinary design project to envision resiliency strategies for the San Francisco Bay Area region) formalised the central role of participatory design in resilience practice. The Challenge formulated eight guiding principles of resilient design of which six involve community participation and explicitly describe involvement of marginalised communities. Community involvement principles included “Develop equitable planning and development practices where community members are true collaborators and participate as equal partners at every level of design formation” and “Leverage community knowledge and integrate in design to improve and not displace community members” (Resilient by Design, n.d.). This approach defines community members as both valued informants and active participants in defining and solving the problem and suggests that a holistic approach can be taken in the design process, as well as in the product of design.

Feminist Approaches Ellen Swallow Richards was an engineer and environmental chemist working at the turn of the nineteenth century and the first female instructor at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology. She was a

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     175

champion of women’s education, and her work focused on demonstrating connections between domestic practices and environmental conditions. She believed that because women of her time were most knowledgeable about the care and use of basic resources, such as food, they were the ones who most needed to be educated as environmental stewards (“Ellen Swallow Richards”, n.d.; Richardson 2002). Her experimental research in domestic science (the application of science at home, including applying chemistry to the study of nutrition) laid the foundation for the new science of home economics (Mozans 1913). Richards was an early advocate for urban sanitation programmes and beautification projects and often referred to these as “municipal housekeeping” (Ancker 1987). Her work, which predated the profession of city planning, points to important connections between sustainable resource management and domestic practices that has immediate implications for addressing household food waste reduction even within our contemporary society. Over a century later, Richard’s argument that women are most often in charge of managing domestic resources, and therefore should be educated about sustainable practices, are still relevant. In the United States (USA), women spend an average of 270 minutes per day on completing household domestic tasks, including those related to food waste, while men spend an average of 140 minutes (OECD 2018). In developing nations, women contribute a greater proportion of time to unpaid domestic labour than men, and in the USA, when domestic tasks are hired out, the majority of those jobs are held by immigrants and/or women of colour—indicating the intersectionality of race and gender within household labour structures (Burnham and Theodore 2012). Contemporary studies of food flows in British households reveal that while food preparation and handling is no longer exclusively the domain of women (as it was during Swallow’s time), the majority of family households still find their food sourced, prepared and disposed of by or under the direction of the wife or mother (Cappellini and Parsons 2013; Evans 2012). Historically, the links between domestic practices and sustainable resource management were better known. Programmes in home economics and “domestic science” as championed by Richards trained

176     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

women to prudently manage resources, and training manuals extolled the virtues of preventing food waste (Evans et al. 2013). US propaganda during the Second World War linked the success of wartime efforts with efficient management of domestic household resources, and government and media described production and consumption of food as patriotic activities, effectively linking domestic action to national agendas (Bentley 1998). And still today the United States Social Security Administration’s poverty threshold relies on an assumption that each household has a wife who is “…a careful shopper, a skilful cook, and a good manager who will prepare all the family’s meals at home” (Fisher 1992, p. 4). The rise of the ecofeminism movement in the 1970s and 1980s also sought to connect feminism and environmental movements. Ecofeminism as a term was first introduced by French feminist activist Francoise d’Eaubonne in her 1974 book, A Time for Ecofeminism. Her argument formed what was to be known as an essentialist framework for ecofeminism, one which asserts that as child-bearers and rearers women have a unique awareness of the needs of future generations. d’Eaubonne believed that male dominance of women was to blame for over-population and therefore for environmental degradation related to over-consumption (MacGregor 2003). This argument for an inherent, biological connection between women and environmentalism (as opposed to Richard’s societal approach) is problematic in its acceptance of male–female as absolute categories rather than constructed concepts. Later ecofeminist philosophers, such as Karen J. Warren, have noted that socially constructed gender dichotomies have had negative impacts on both women and the environment. Warren’s seminal text Ecofeminist Philosophy (2000) suggested that women and nature have been constructed as “Other” in patriarchal societies resulting in dichotomies of man–woman, culture–nature, mind–body and reason–emotion in Western society that have led to a logic of domination. Landscape architect Elizabeth Meyer extends this theoretical approach to the designed environment. Describing the prevailing “nature versus culture” discourse in the design fields as related to constructs of an inherent “women-nature connection”, she observes that these attitudes lead to uncritical attitudes towards harnessing natural resources in service

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     177

of urban society (Meyer 1997, p. 46). Meyer posits that this formulation eventually places people (designers and the public) “outside the ecosystems of which they are a part” (ibid., p. 46) thereby reinforcing approaches to design which overlook the potential of partnership and interrelationship between the built and natural environment in favour of approaches of domination and control. Other ecofeminists describe their position as one of expanded concern beyond that of feminism alone. Feminist sociologist Margrit Eichler (1996) has noted [I]f our survival on this planet is, indeed, threatened… what help will social justice be to us as we lie gasping for a clean breath of air on our devastated earth? Is it worth continuing to do feminist work given the immediacy and overriding importance of environmental issues? (Eichler 1996, p. 26)

Here again, the construct of binary sets persists, in a description of social justice or environmental issues, a divide which is not reified by environmental justice activists. In di Chiro’s account of environmental justice previously referenced, she identifies that “the majority of environmental justice activists are low-income women, predominantly women of color” who define the environment as “the place you work, the place you live, the place you play” … The merging of social justice and environmental interests therefore assumes that people are an integral part of what should be understood as the environment. (di Chiro 1995, p. 301)

Synthesis These sets of theory re-examine the nature of the built environment and of the relationship of people to it. Seen as a system, rather than a set of artefacts, the environment can be designed to manage flows (including waste streams) based on the cyclical and interrelated patterns of natural environments. For such a dynamic built environment to succeed requires inhabitants who are knowledgeable about handling

178     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

of inputs and outputs, shifting the role of waste management from the purview of a small portion of society to everyday people in their everyday lives. Waste management in this type of environment takes a central role, rather than a marginalised one. And while it is clear that there is a persistent link between domestic practices and gender, focusing on gender or domestic practices in isolation risks objectifying one part of a complex system. Instead, there is a need for environmental design that draws connections between public and private spaces, between natural and built environments, and between consuming and disposing of food.

Case Study: #FOGWASTE The following case study documents a project commissioned by the City of San Jose, in the state of California (USA), which addresses domestic food waste through the lens of socio-ecological resilience and participatory design. The project aimed to educate and activate members of the public about food waste issues, and to do so in ways that revealed interrelatedness between natural systems, humans, and the built environment. An emerging practice area of environmental design redefines the role of the designer to be the creator of starting points, of anchors for the staging of social and ecological processes over time […] rather than interpreting our responsibility as the delivery of an end-product, a “place” that the public is allowed to enter and use. (Mathur and da Cunha 2010)

In this vein, the work of two feminist environmental artists of the 1970s, Jo Hanson and Mierle Laderman Ukeles, provides a unique precedent for connecting domestic waste and the urban environment within an enlarged sphere of responsibility, connection and action. Both artists created performance works that address concepts of waste, labour, gender and class in sophisticated ways, and which reveal processes that normally lie hidden. Hanson’s 1980 project, Public Disclosure: Secrets from the Street evolved as the result of performance pieces in which she

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     179

brought domestic labour into the public sphere, sweeping city streets in her neighbourhood. Public Disclosure exhibited ten years’ worth of street litter collected by Hanson’s sweepings at San Francisco City Hall, coupled with slide shows depicting the collection and sorting process which was carried out in part by the community and city staff (Thompson 2012). Thus, the process in which objects were transformed from litter to artwork was an extension of the project itself, enlarging the role of the artist to include the public through participation. Ukeles 1969 manifesto, Maintenance Art, celebrated a new genre of practice, which acknowledged the unique tension between being a woman and an artist. Ukeles wrestled with the value of her actions as either maintenance or art: I am an artist. I am a woman. I am a wife. I am a mother. (Random order). I do a hell of a lot of washing, cleaning, cooking, renewing, supporting, preserving, etc. Also (up to now) separately I “do” Art. Now I will simply do these maintenance everyday things, and flush them up to consciousness, exhibit them, as Art. (Ukeles 1969, p. 3)

What evolved from this interest in elevating everyday domestic actions as performance art was a body of work that established Ukeles as a leader in connecting private and public spheres, connecting the domestic to the systematic to address sustainability and infrastructure in urban communities (Feldman 2009). Her 1978 performance piece, Touch Sanitation, included walking the five boroughs of New York City over an eleven month period, shaking hands and thanking sanitation workers as she encountered them (Thompson 2012). In this project, Ukeles sought to recognise and elevate the work of individuals as contributing to an important system of infrastructure. She embraced the infrastructure of waste management as a performance artwork itself and the maintenance crew as participants and community members. In her article, “Waste Landscapes: Permissible Metaphors”, landscape architect Mira Engler describes an educative approach to waste management as one that “emphasizes public awareness and change of attitudes toward waste … invites people to experience the realities of waste institutions and nurtures a more open relationship toward refuse”

180     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

(Engler 1994, p. 18). Engler contrasts these approaches to techniques that she argues either camouflage or attempt to mitigate, restore or recycle without engaging the public in those efforts. The rarer and potentially more impactful practice of waste management is an approach of celebration: “This approach promotes and dramatizes wastes… [as] works of art, special design features, or unique experiences” (ibid., p. 19). Engler’s analysis positions waste within the purview of landscape architecture and provides a framework for evaluating various design approaches to waste management and impacts on management and mitigation. The work of Ukeles and Hanson is unique in their application of educative and celebrative strategies at the very points of waste production. The artists embedded the exploration of infrastructure within common urban sites: homes, streets and civic centres. Moreover, the work of both artists engages a broader definition of community than is often utilised today, including the artist themselves, as well as city agencies and maintenance crews. They embraced process as a critical component of their creative work and recognised city and community functions as components of their artworks. Most significantly, Ukeles and Hanson looked to the patterns, habits and awareness embedded in everyday acts—celebrating the role of maintenance as a way of informing a public that might promote more sustainable management of waste.

Project Background Ukeles and Hanson’s strategies were employed in a pilot project addressing food waste initiated by the City of San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs and Public Art Program in 2013. The work of Hanson and Ukeles provided a precedent which inspired the city’s Environmental Services Department (ESD) to fund an awareness campaign to reduce the impacts of Fats, Oils and Greases (FOG waste) on urban infrastructure performance. Improper disposal of FOG waste through residential kitchen sinks can lead to sewer backups and overflows that may cause health hazards, damage homes and the environment and lead to

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     181

increased maintenance costs for residents and for the city. Even small amounts add up, and flushing with hot water does little to impact an eventual clog. In San Jose, the largest contributor to sewer clogs that have resulted in sanitary sewer overflows (SSO)—where untreated sewage is released into creeks, rivers and bays—is residential disposal of FOG waste. The City came to recognise that a unique opportunity lay in integrating city workers, community members and environmental designers in a collaborative programme to increase awareness regarding the connections between domestic practices (cooking and cleaning) and environmental health. Rather than spend city budget only on infrastructure expansion (larger mainlines) or technological innovations (such as anaerobic digesters or incinerators) to address FOG waste accumulation in the sewer system, the City of San Jose opted to invest in the community itself, charging environmental designers with building connections between community members and their built environment via food waste management. The design process embraced strategies employed by Ukeles and Hanson: celebration of domestic labour, collaboration with municipal workers and drawing attention to existing hidden systems of infrastructure and their connections to natural environments.

Project Implementation Pilot locations for the project were identified in collaboration with the City’s ESD and Department of Transportation (DOT) through an analysis of geospatial data that correlated high concentrations of SSOs with vulnerable residential neighbourhoods (Fig. 7.1). These neighbourhoods represent marginalised communities within the city, predominantly consisting of individuals of low socio-economic status and/ or of colour, immigrants and non-native English speakers. The overlap of high SSO frequency and neighbourhood disadvantage speaks to the relationship of density, lack of funding due to low property values, and their collective impact on infrastructure performance; it should not be assumed that community disadvantage increases SSOs. As is common

182     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

Fig. 7.1  Residential sanitary sewer overflows in San Jose, 2009–2011 (Image created by Brett Snyder and N. Claire Napawan on behalf of the City of San Jose 2014–2015 and used here with permission of the copyright owners)

in many urban areas, the disadvantaged communities in San Jose have an increased risk of exposure to environmental impacts as a result of exclusionary planning processes. Thus, these pilot neighbourhoods were identified in response to the City’s interest in improving environmental conditions in an underserved community. Participatory community workshops were held in collaboration with existing parenting groups at local public schools within these pilot neighbourhoods. Workshops were held in each neighbourhood multiple times between 2013 and 2015, presented in Spanish and Vietnamese as well as English. The purpose of these workshops was to identify local concerns and draw linkages between these issues and urban sustainability. Food became a critical means for connecting sustainability efforts with community interests. Recipe sharing was a transformative activity in community workshops, as participants identified healthy food choices as an important concern of their own. Reduction of FOG waste

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     183

was therefore found to link the concerns of private individuals and public agencies, as healthy food preparation creates less FOG waste, reducing the need for disposal. The designers also met regularly with maintenance workers, participated in sewer line cleanings, responded to sewer overflows and toured the City’s wastewater treatment plant. In response to their research, the designers developed a suite of interventions that reveal connections between private kitchens, public (but hidden) infrastructure and the broader watershed surrounding the city. The resultant design project, #FOGWASTE, included informational graphics that frame the kitchen sink as part of the sewer system, and the sewer system as an extension of the ecosystem (Fig. 7.2); truck wraps and manhole markings that highlight artefacts of the otherwise invisible sewer system; and a digital, community-based network of imagery that shares the public experience of the entire infrastructure from kitchen sink to watershed through the social media hashtag FOGWASTE. Each element of the project addressed the interrelated concerns of individuals and the larger community of both human and nonhuman nature. Information graphics shared tips for food waste management and described connections between healthy eating and reductions in sewer maintenance issues. Manhole markings made the city’s sewer infrastructure more visible to the community, while also making the maintenance of mainlines easier for DOT crew (they could track where cleanings had occurred and more easily find manholes within a street). Lastly, the digital conversation created through use of the hashtag enabled the sharing of information within the community and with municipal agencies (Fig. 7.3).

Outcomes and Discussion Phase One of the project was completed in autumn 2015, and Phase Two was deployed in autumn 2016. Based on follow-up focus group meetings, the project has been received positively by the community members who contributed to its design and by the maintenance crew who participated in its installation. In the debriefing sessions,

184     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

Fig. 7.2  Community co-designed graphics, illustrating connections between kitchens and city infrastructure (Image created by Brett Snyder and N. Claire Napawan on behalf of the City of San Jose 2014–2015 and used here with ­permission of the copyright owners)

community members expressed a greater awareness of their family’s domestic practices on the urban infrastructure and watershed, while maintenance crews expressed pride in their contribution to the project and, by using project tools, an ability to communicate with the public more effectively. Given the success of the pilot project, Phase Three began in autumn 2017, with deployment expanding beyond the identified pilot neighbourhoods.

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     185

Fig. 7.3  Social media content related to #FOGWASTE (Image created by Brett Snyder and N. Claire Napawan on behalf of the City of San Jose 2014–2015 and used here with permission of the copyright owners)

One of the most compelling narratives of interrelatedness that emerged from the participatory workshops was the significance of fish, particularly on Friday, within the community’s diet. Given the high price of conventionally sourced seafood in markets, many of the

186     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

community members fish directly from the San Francisco Bay. Thus, the impact of SSOs has a direct reciprocal relationship between environmental health and food supply. While reducing the consumption of FOG can have positive impacts to individual health, reducing and managing FOG waste also impacts fish health by reducing potential contamination of the local watershed and resultant fish kills (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, n.d.). These interrelated impacts between health, food and the environment could not have been discovered, or communicated, through traditional food waste management strategies; participatory methodologies played a key role in identifying the relationships. In this case, a socio-ecological approach to food waste resulted in an inclusive definition of environmental health that includes humans, infrastructure and homes, and food harvesting, preparation and disposal as all parts of the environment (Napawan and Snyder 2016). Making the physical spaces of food waste visible to a larger population can support community change towards more sustainable food waste management. In the case of #FOGWASTE, the designers made visible the structures that link everyday actions in domestic kitchens with a hidden infrastructure network and the larger natural environment. Compared with traditional approaches to food waste, in which the sites of transfer and disposal are minimised and obscured, this approach is grounded in the concept of the city as a composition of energy and material exchanges. It privileges systems understandings over readings of aesthetics and visible structures, which often dominate discourses of urbanism. By connecting traditional readings of urbanism such as density, with human behaviour (improper handling of FOG waste) and natural systems (the watershed), the designers abandoned dualistic approaches in favour of models that integrate the physical and social fabric of cities. In this way, #FOGWASTE is premised on Wolman (1965), Lyle (1994) and Spirn’s (1985) understanding of the city as a site of complex interactions between actors and actions seen and unseen. By engaging community members directly with the systems of waste disposal in their city, #FOGWASTE builds community resilience—the

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     187

capacity of individuals to work towards and with change. Quantifying to what extent the #FOGWASTE project led to actual reductions in SSOs is difficult, as the community participation process was one part of a multi-pronged approach to the problem. However, during the pilot period the number of sewage spills was reduced to fewer than 100 a year, down from an average of 142 per year in 2013 (Rogers 2016). Almost 1000 households participated in the first two phases of the pilot project and none of the participants had previously heard of guidelines for disposal of FOG waste or were familiar with the concept of sewer overflows. Some participants had experienced clogged drains in their homes but blamed their landlords or the city, and very few realised that their eating and kitchen habits played a role in the problem. Ellen Swallow Richards argued that those most often in charge of managing domestic resources should be the first to be educated as environmental stewards. Educating the public in ways that are meaningful to them is an important responsibility of environmental designers. Designers are well-versed in communicating their specialised knowledge about urban systems through drawings, models and visualisations. Thus designers have a significant opportunity to educate a wider public about sustainable domestic practices. By adopting a participatory design model, the designers went beyond informing the public; instead they co-created knowledge with the public and empowered participants to act on their discoveries. Utilising their own specialised knowledge of urban systems, and community knowledge, the designers were able to connect often-disconnected parts of the urban food waste system in the co-design of new approaches. Forging direct connections between eating habits, recipe sharing and domestic practices allowed community members to build understandings of how changes in their own attitudes and actions towards food preparation and waste could result in the very outcomes they themselves desired: healthier eating habits and fishing grounds. By actively unearthing links between food, waste and the environment for themselves, community members have a stronger motivation towards behaviour change than top-down measures such as fines or traditional awareness campaigns could achieve.

188     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

Conclusion Wicked problems by definition defy bounded categorisations. For environmental designers to effectively contribute solutions to the wicked problem of food waste, a comprehensive socio-ecological approach must be developed. Previous examinations of domestic food waste have tended to focus on the agency of the person who shops, cooks, serves and disposes of the food, suggesting that these actors be trained to better manage food supply and waste (Ancker 1987; Bentley 1998; Evans et al. 2013). Motivations for these suggestions have included sustainability, as well as support of war efforts and upholding virtues of thrift. Yet these studies have focused largely on the domestic acts in isolation, without full consideration of the larger environments in which they take place, defining the public solely as consumers. This chapter suggests that a more fluid approach is needed, one in which the interdependence of domestic practices, urban infrastructure and natural systems is recognised. By educating the public not only about how to shop, cook and dispose of food sustainably, but also about the ways in which food disposal infrastructure works, the case studies and precedents contextualise domestic practices within larger systems and structures. Further, these projects directly connect social and domestic practices with infrastructure design and maintenance through public engagement, expanding the individual’s understanding of their impacts beyond management of daily chores. Technological approaches tend to isolate the artefact of waste, limiting the effectiveness of any solution, as it reifies binary thinking. By utilising a socio-ecological approach to all aspects of domestic practice, the waste as well as the feast, the culture of disposal along with the culture of creation, environmental designers can support the enactment of more sustainable urban food systems. In direct contrast to waste management practices that operate through disguise, practices that integrate waste as part of human (and urban) metabolism, ask us to apply the same creativity to the design of waste management practices as we do to other urban commons such as parks. Redefining food waste as part of both the private/domestic and common sphere expands the pool of

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     189

actors from (often, but not always, female) individuals to include artists, designers, city managers, sanitation workers, fish, birds, fungi and innumerable other agents. For environmental designers to achieve this goal would mean utilising design of public engagement processes, and a socio-ecological framework, rather than focusing solely on traditional solutions of developing physical spaces. By moving beyond a construct of environmental design as the creation of physical artefacts alone, designers can develop dynamic models of places of interrelation between physical, social and non-human spheres.

References Ancker, J. S. (1987). Domesticity, science, and social control: Ellen Swallow Richards and the New England kitchen. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Bentley, A. (1998). Eating for victory: Food rationing and the politics of domesticity. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Burnham, L., & Theodore, N. (2012). Home economics: The invisible and unregulated world of domestic work. Center for Urban Economic Development, University of Illinois. http://www.idwfed.org/en/resources/ home-economics-the-invisible-and-unregulated-world-of-domestic-work/@@display-file/attachment_1. Accessed on 7.3.2019. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. (n.d.). New requirements for reporting of Sanitary sewer overflows. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ rwqcb2/publications_forms/documents/sso%20reporting%20requirements%20nov%2011%202004.pdf. Accessed on 8.3.2019. Cappellini, B., & Parsons, E. (2013). Practising thrift at dinnertime: Mealtime leftovers, sacrifice and family membership. Sociological Review, 60(2), 121–134. di Chiro, G. (1995). Nature as community: The convergence of environmental and social justice. In W. Cronon (Ed.), Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature (p. 561). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Eichler, M. (1996). Change of plans: Toward a non-sexist sustainable city. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ellen Swallow Richards. (n.d.). Vassar Encyclopedia. http://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/alumni/ellen-swallow-richards.html. Accessed on 7.3.2019. Engler, M. (1994). Waste landscape: Permissible metaphors in landscape architecture. Landscape Journal, 15(1), 10–25.

190     E. Burke and N. C. Napawan

Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic ­practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56. Evans, D., Campbell, H., & Murcott, A. (2013). A brief pre-history of food waste and the social sciences. The Sociological Review, 60(2), 5–26. Feldman, M. D. (2009). Inside the sanitation system: Mierle Ukeles, urban ecology, and the social circulation of garbage. Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 10(11), 42–56. Fisher, G. M. (1992). The development and history of the poverty thresholds. Social Security Bulletin, 55(4), 3–14. Franklin, A., Newton, J., & McEntee, J. C. (2011). Moving beyond the alternative: Sustainable communities, rural resilience and the mainstreaming of local food. Local Environment, 16(8), 771–788. Gregory, J., & Lewis, D. (1977). Making democracy work. PROCESS Architecture, 3. Hester, R. T. (1974). Neighborhood space. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Hustwit, G. (Producer, Director). (2012). Urbanized [Motion Picture]. United States: Plexifilm/New Video. Lyle, J. T. (1994). Regenerative design for sustainable development. New York, NY: Wiley. MacGregor, S. (2003). Feminist perspectives on sustainability. In D. V. J. Bell & A. Cheung (Eds.), UNESCO encyclopedia of life support systems: Introduction to sustainable development (pp. 467–492). Oxford: EOLSS Publishers. Magis, K. (2010). Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 23(5), 401–416. Marin, J., & De Meulder, B. (2018). Urban landscape design exercises in urban metabolism: Reconnecting with Central Limburg’s regenerative resource landscape. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 13(1), 36–49. McCrea, R., Walton, A., & Leonard, R. (2014). A conceptual framework for investigating community wellbeing and resilience. Rural Society, 23(3), 270–282. McHarg, I. (1967). An ecological method for landscape architecture. Landscape Architecture, 57(2), 105–107. Meyer, E. K. (1997). The expanded field of landscape architecture. In G. F. Thompson & F. R. Steiner (Eds.), Ecological design and planning (pp. 45–51). New York, NY: Wiley.

7  Between Kitchen Sink and City Sewer …     191

Mozans, H. J. (1913). Woman in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Napawan, N. C., & Snyder, B. (2016). #FOGWASTE: Participatory urbanism towards place-understanding. Strategic Design Research Journal, 9(2), 67–74. Pevzner, N. & Sen, S. (2010). Preparing ground. An interview with Anuradha Mathur and Dilip da Cunha. Places Journal. https://placesjournal.org/article/preparing-ground-interview/?cn-reloaded=1. Accessed on 8.3.2019. Resilient by Design. (n.d.). Resilient Bay Area: The challenge. http://www.resilientbayarea.org/about/. Accessed on 8.3.2019. Richardson, B. (2002). Ellen Swallow Richards: “Humanistic Oekologist”, “Applied Sociologist”, and the founding of sociology. The American Sociologist, 33(3), 21–57. Rogers, P. (2016). San Jose agrees to $100 million pollution cleanup program to reduce trash, sewage spills. The Mercury News. https://www.mercurynews. com/2016/06/14/san-jose-agrees-to-100-million-pollution-cleanup-program-to-reduce-trash-sewage-spills/. Accessed on 8.3.2019. Shaw, K., & Theobald, K. (2011). Resilient local government and climate change interventions in the UK. Local Environment, 16(1), 1–15. Social Institutions and Gender (indicator). (2018). OECD iLibrary. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://www. oecd-ilibrary.org/. Accessed on 8.3.2019. Spirn, A. W. (1985). The granite garden: Urban nature and human design. New York, NY: Basic Books. Thompson, N. (2012). Living as form: Socially engaged art from 1991–2011. New York, NY: Creative Time. Ukeles, M. L. (1969). Maintenance art: A manifesto. Queens Museum. https://www.queensmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Ukeles_ MANIFESTO.pdf. Accessed on 8.3.2019. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social—Ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. Warren, K. J. (2000). Ecofeminist philosophy: A Western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Wilson, G. (2010). Multifunctional “quality” and rural community resilience. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(3), 364–381. Wolman, A. (1965). The metabolism of cities. Scientific American, 213(3), 178–193.

8 Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste: Aligning and Leveraging Systems and Design Thinking Danielle Lake, Amy McFarland and Jody Vogelzang

Introduction Efforts to address the interconnected problems of food waste and chronic malnourishment often focus on techno-scientific advancements, educational campaigns, and narrowly framed policy change. Such interventions have not yielded sustained and effective change, and they have several shortcomings (Evans 2014; Green and Vergragt 2002). Indeed,

D. Lake  Elon University, Elon, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. McFarland (*)  Meijer Honors College, Grand Valley State University, Allendale Charter Township, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. Vogelzang  Grand Valley State University, Allendale Charter Township, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_8

193

194     D. Lake et al.

such interventions often result in a series of unintended and unfortunate consequences (Thompson 2017), shifting food waste in place of alleviating it (Evans 2014). The purpose of this chapter is to offer a theoretical framework which conceptually integrates strategies from systems and design thinking to help those working on the food waste problem develop interventions that are more inclusive, effective, and sustainable. A review of food science interventions designed to improve food safety and extend food life, such as in-home refrigerators, the industrial application of food preservatives, and ultra-pasteurisation technologies, highlights the problematic nature with narrowly framed, techno-scientific interventions. Such interventions have been successful at improving the taste, colour, nutrient content, safety, and life of food products. But, they may simultaneously exacerbate the problem of food waste by enabling over-purchasing through either large, infrequent shopping or bulk purchasing (Corrado 2007; Evans 2014; Gustavsson et al. 2011; Mena et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2012). Over-purchasing increases the likelihood of food waste at home and is rarely seen in countries that still practice a “shop today, eat today” approach to meal preparation (Parfitt et al. 2010). In effect, these techno-scientific interventions pass “the burden of surplus” from the supermarket shelves—an institutional, centralised setting where redistribution and donation could be easily facilitated and normalised—to the home (Evans 2014, p. 96). Redistributing unused food, a primary recommendation by the World Resources Institute (Lipinski et al. 2013) from homes is difficult due to a lack of cultural and structural support. The reliance upon “technosalvation” is a form of cognitive dissonance, allowing us to continue with the status quo while avoiding personal responsibility (Gifford 2011; Lorenzoni et al. 2007). Food waste experts and leaders also frequently call for interventions relying on the transformative potential of educational campaigns. For instance, Rethink Food Waste through Economics and Data (ReFED), a US non-profit dedicated to food waste reduction, has recently concluded that a “sweeping education and awareness campaign” (2016, p. 1) will be the most effective intervention, since it seeks to address “behaviour both among consumers and employees of food businesses”

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     195

(p. 1 ). Given that consumers account for over a third of food waste (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2015), demands for educational campaigns seem reasonable. However, educational campaigns are also narrowly focussed and, on their own, fairly ineffective because they do not address the social and cultural drivers of waste (Hebrok and Boks 2017; Hebrok and Heidenstrøm 2019; Osbaldiston and Schott 2012; Stöckli et al. 2018; Watson and Meah 2012). As Evans (2014) describes, educational campaigns assume that individuals are “autonomous architects” (p. 17) of their food purchases and food waste. This view is contrary to sociological research, which has found evidence that consumer behaviour is actually largely driven by social norms of appropriateness (Evans 2014; Warde 2005). Such isolated attempts to “solve” food waste challenges fail to take account of the unique realities involved across a wide range of contexts; they fail to seriously consider the ethical complexities; and they fail to offer a comprehensive, long-term view (Evans 2014; Hebrok and Boks 2017). There is still a significant gap in our understanding of these diverse global challenges. From what we do know, it is clear that large amounts of food waste occur at the “post-harvest stages in developing countries” whereas affluent countries struggle with both consumer waste and loss at the production and distribution levels of the food system (Janus 2019; Parfitt et al. 2010, p. 3065). This shift in the source of food waste seems to correspond with a shift in eating patterns as household income rises (Parfitt et al. 2010). More affluent households purchase more perishable foods as opposed to their lower-income counterparts who tend to buy more shelf-stable food items. However, despite these patterns, consumer food waste is not exclusive to people with higher incomes. Exemplifying the need for careful contextual analyses of food waste, Porpino et al. (2015) document food waste in lower-middle income Brazilian families resulting from efforts to save money and the cultural norm of over-preparing food as a form of hospitality. Although policy change, educational reforms, and techno-scientific solutions are important leverage points, they are ineffective as standalone interventions. Many attempts to address food waste challenges fail to get at unconscious influences, habitual behaviours, cultural ethos, or infrastructural momentum driving the situation (Schmidt and Matthies

196     D. Lake et al.

2018). At the same time, we cannot continue to demand individuals care more and do better without also examining and addressing the historical, structural, and cultural conditions that make behavioural change particularly cumbersome (Kania et al. 2018; Watson and Meah 2012). We cannot hope to catalyse and sustain effective change when we fail to consider the role of unconscious drivers and institutional resistance. According to Evans (2014), interventions that aim to prevent food waste face institutional resistance, leading to “structural lock-in and systemic inertia” (p. 97). On the other hand, such challenges are not encountered when efforts are aimed at reducing and reusing food waste that has already been produced. We argue that change agents, individuals with the motivation and opportunity to create and sustain change, along with a complex systems-level understanding and design thinking skill set working in interand transdisciplinary teams are a requirement for sustained change. Change agents could include non-profit activists or any of a range of individuals along different nodes of the food system, such as restaurant managers, policy makers, and purchasing agents for large institutions. Committed change agents should begin by acknowledging a wide range of contributing factors to the current food waste epidemic; factors include behavioural (influenced by how we each plan, shop, prepare, store, and consume food), personal (influenced by socioeconomic, educational, cultural factors, our attitudes and preferences, skills, experiences, etc.), product-based (influenced by how we package, distribute, label, and use food), and societal (influenced by economics, sociocultural factors, retail practices, regulation, technology, climate, etc.) (Roodhuyzen et al. 2017). Then change agents should recognise and study the cultural factors under which food waste occurs before attempting to develop interventions (Hebrok and Heidenstrøm 2019). Careful analyses of the cultural complexities allow the development of interventions that more flexibly respond to the place-based, context-bound specificities of the community. This chapter expands beyond educational campaigns, technoscientific advancements, and narrow policy changes by first recognising the wicked dimensions of food waste challenges and the need to create interventions that are resilient. Defined as the ability of “systems to

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     197

absorb change” and “still persist” (Holling 1978, p. 17), resilient interventions require the ability to adapt and continue to develop (Folke 2006). After documenting two promising approaches (systems and design thinking), we recommend ten practical strategies for fostering and supporting change agents. We suggest these ten intervention strategies are more likely to yield effective and sustainable change and note promising initiatives enacting these recommendations.

Food Waste as a Wicked Problem: Shifting the Paradigm Framing food waste along its wicked dimensions (Brown and Lambert 2013; Fauvel et al. 2017; Rittel and Webber 1973) requires one to grapple with the long list of contributing factors: its widespread environmental, social, and economic impacts and costs; the often competing demands between fiduciary, social, and environmental responsibility; and the challenging concerns of food access, health, and safety. It also requires that interventions attempt to negotiate values-in-conflict, the interconnected, high-stake, inherent, and sometimes unknown tradeoffs such as conflicting value of providing abundantly for children and the increased risk of food waste (Porpino et al. 2016). Such problems are, by definition, “no-win” situations (Ritchey 2011, p. 1) since they “resist all the usual attempts to resolve them” (Brown et al. 2010, p. 4). The very desire for some “miracle solution” is a part of the problem (p. 6). For instance, as argued by Robert (2009), the naive hope to solve social crises brought about by food shortages in the Second World War led to US farm policies that were narrowly focussed on generating large quantities of cheap food. The reduced cost of food alleviated the “rationing” mindset of the 1940s, contributing to modern consumer waste behaviours. This narrow focus led to a number of other unintended consequences, including environmental and human health degradation. The cultural value of food also declined because of the price of food no longer accurately reflected the cost of food production (Roberts 2009), contributing to apathy when it is thrown out or wasted (O’Kane 2016). A wicked problems framework of food waste allows us

198     D. Lake et al.

to understand that the ineffectiveness of past outreach and education efforts are related to: 1. The resistance encountered by dominant systems, including current systems of production and consumption; racism and sexism; hierarchical, consumer-driven educational models; and governmental structures (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2017; Walker et al. 2004); 2. The Western, cultural ethos that views land and food as easily acquired commodities, rather than an integral component of our community, and reduces the moral valuation of land and food (Dolan 2002; Plumwood 1999; Shiva 2013); and 3. Failing to consider the cultural and social contexts under which food waste occurs (Hebrok and Boks 2017), resulting in short-sighted solutions with unintended, unfortunate consequences such as shifting waste to different parts of the system (Thompson 2017). While we hold firm to the claim that there is no final resolution to food waste problems, narrowly framed and overly simplistic interventions perpetuate the misappropriation of resources, exacerbating current crises of hunger and environmental degradation. Given the wicked nature of food waste, this chapter argues for a more holistic, transdisciplinary, and iterative approach that addresses the issue along structural, procedural, technological, political, behavioural, and sociocultural dimensions.

Creating Resilient Interventions: Integrating Systems Change and Design Thinking We argue that transdisciplinary systems thinking (ST) and the design thinking (DT) methodology in concert can provide change agents with the tools needed to create resilient interventions. ST requires change agents consider how and why they are crafting the boundaries of their approach to food waste challenges. Design thinking complements system thinking by offering change agents a set of malleable strategies

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     199

for instantiating sustainable systems change. The tools provided help change agents leverage their skills, strengths, and position (as a producer or distributor, policy maker or consumer, etc.) within the system to advocate for change. Similarly, transdisciplinary efforts require change agents to move outside their boundaries, whether in the industry, university, government, or non-profits and instead work with problems of our communities (Lake et al. 2018). Both systems and design thinking strategies encourage iterative, reflective action from “inside” of the situation and honour the inherent risks involved in collaborative and innovative interventions. They require empathetic listening, critical observation, and shared modelling of the situation; they also incentivise creative innovation and experiential learning (Brown 2009; Kumar 2012).

Systems Change: If We Do Not Pursue Systems-Level Change, We Forego Critical Opportunities for Sustained Impact Food is typically thought of in terms of the food chain, a linear pathway from agricultural production to post-harvest and storage, to processing, to distribution, to consumption, to waste rather than a food system with feedback loops. Different names are used to refer to food lost at different stages of this linear chain (e.g. side flows, surplus, or food waste), which in part affects accounting systems and efforts to effect change. The understanding of food as a chain rather than a system also results in shifting of the waste downstream as the businesses upstream in the food chain make efforts to increase profits. The goal of ST is to better understand the various factors contributing to issues, so we can holistically define the roots of the situation and wisely engage in systems change (Checkland 1999). This approach requires change agents move from a linear, profit-driven chain to first identify the people, places, institutions, and non-human life involved as well as the often hidden interconnections (Crosby et al. 2018). For example, people over 60 years of age are the fastest growing segment of the consumer market, yet age is not routinely considered in food-related

200     D. Lake et al.

decisions (Meneely et al. 2009). Moreover, people under 80 years of age have no living memory of the Second World War and the food rationing that occurred in the 1940s and are not likely to adapt a “waste not, want not” philosophy without structural changes (Parfitt et al. 2010). While younger people are often identified as wasting more food and targeted in campaigns as a result, consideration of the increased impact of the older consumer market may also be strategically beneficial. Because of the ability of systems to reorganise to sustain themselves despite disturbance, change agents will necessarily encounter roadblocks to developing interventions for sustained change. Holistic, integrated approaches rooted in the application of ST will be similarly resilient and able to pivot to respond. The use of ST as “a methodology for understanding and managing complex feedback systems” (Mathews and Jones 2008, p. 76) helps change agents generate an awareness of the interlocking systems, explore how intended changes might adversely impact other parts of the system, and leverage this knowledge to generate systems change. A focus on people, adaptive learning, a capacity for reorganisation (Folke 2006), and a recognition of the value in failure (Smit and Wandel 2006) are essential for increasing the resilience needed to address food waste challenges. Since solitary, isolated food waste reduction techniques and programmes often shift waste and inefficiency from one locus to another (Evans 2014), generating an awareness of system resiliency moves change agents away from singular interventions. For example, bulk packaging of fruit and vegetables offers convenience and pricing incentives. It also conceals sizing or grading problems which reduce problems from overstock and waste at the supermarket. However, bulk packaging is recognised to be a driver of food waste by incentivising consumer-level over-purchasing (Mena et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2012). On the other hand, encouraging consumers to buy mindfully may similarly shift that waste back to the retail market or farm as overproduction. When change agents are more habitually aware of system resiliency, and thus the possibility that the appearance of reduction may in truth only be a shifting of waste, we are more likely to move away from any reliance on a singular intervention.

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     201

Interventions that seek to adjust the structure of the system, its ­ rocesses, or underlying attitudes are valued and weighed for their feasip bility and desirability. Kania et al. (2018) identify the need to transform policies, practices, resource flows, relationships, power dynamics, and mental models when trying to foster genuinely impactful systems-level change. For example, food labelling with “use by” and “best by” dates has been used around the globe for decades in an effort to better protect consumers from food-borne illness (WRAP 2017). Strict adherence to label dates may have prevented episodes of food-borne illness, but they have also contributed to post-consumer waste of food that is not mouldy, discoloured, or bad-smelling (Parfitt et al. 2010). Rather than fostering the ability to assess the health of food for oneself, date labels encourage individuals not to risk assessing the health status of their food; they shift “responsibility… away from the consumer” and remove their agency “to assess food through direct sensory engagement” (Watson and Meah 2012, p. 111). This uncertainty leads to fear of illness (Neff et al. 2015). However, food safety and food waste need not be conflicting choices. As one example of a productive alternative to relying on food date labels, Hebrok and Heidenstrøm (2019) identify five decisive moments within consumers’ everyday practices, which have an influence on the emergence of food waste: acquiring food, storing food, assessing food quality and safety, valuing food, and eating food. In order to create sustained change at the household level, change agents should first understand the context under which these moments occur, such as the cultural influences on the good mother identity (Porpino et al. 2016). ST is valuable for helping the change agent understanding how the interlocking systems at play influence decision-making at each of these five moments. Thus, interventions that work to shift the defining features of the good mother identity while also building consumer confidence in understanding food product dating and proper food storage techniques could reduce consumer food waste by helping them to accurately assess food quality and safety (Porpino et al. 2016; U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2018). Analysing the systemic linkages of food waste requires change agents think more broadly about potential interventions, suggesting

202     D. Lake et al.

that change will also need to occur outside of the direct context of food waste. For example, environmental and sustainability systems change specialists call for more intentional application of value statements (Dolan 2002). “Waste” is often associated with the stigmatised and feared; waste is worthless, harmful, unwanted, dying, and useless (Evans 2014; Lynch 1990; O’Connell 2012), and something to be eliminated. Indeed, Evans (2014) recommends the language of food “surplus” rather than waste, as surplus is something to be managed and distributed rather than discarded. ST encourages change agents to recognise that the language of “waste” prescribes normative weight. It can also help visualise the private nature of food waste behaviour, helping change agents to see why the assigning normative judgement is so difficult (Checkland 1999). Making food waste more public might be another avenue for promoting reduction. The private nature of waste restricts the ability of individuals to realise the amount of waste generated by others and prevents the expectation of praise for food waste reduction. For example, Nigbur et al. (2010) found that seeing neighbours participate in a kerbside recycle programmes influenced non-recyclers to participate themselves, suggesting that making such behaviour public increases the likelihood of influencing change on a larger scale. Since participation in kerbside recycling has become a public waste reduction activity, normative weight can be recognised by individuals; it clearly reflects neighbourhood norms. Publicising food waste activities could also destigmatise the “feminine” positioning of home food waste management and thereby reduce institutionalised resistance perpetuated by the public/private dichotomy (Fraser and Parizeau 2018; Pateman 1983; Shiva 2013; Vercillo 2016). However, some reports suggest that reporting food waste statistics could be detrimental because it normalises it (van Geffen et al. 2017). Identifying and understanding food waste reduction as a public activity through positive norms may be key to change. Changing the feminine positioning of home food may also be a key systemic link to understanding and reducing food waste. For instance, the World Resources Institute calls upon women to make many changes due to their more frequent contact with food (Lipinski et al. 2013).

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     203

However, they do not make recommendations that address building social or structural supports to allow women to do this work without sacrificing in other areas of their life. Similarly, no recommendations target calling men into the typically private and inconspicuous sphere of food and food waste (Johnson 2015; Pateman 1983). Classifying women as the gatekeepers of the food waste problem removes the responsibility and shifts the blame based on gender and reduces the responsibility for men. Efforts in any social movement are stymied when only half of the adult population is considered responsible. Other systemic links that may lead to identifying intervention strategies can be found between food waste and the ideals of industrial capitalist production (Dolan 2002). A narrow definition of capital (as financial capital) is again prescriptive, leading to the intensified commodification and exploitation of the environment, land, food, seeds, and people (Shiva 2013). For example, the primary measure of wealth, gross domestic product (GDP), does not consider production that results in direct consumption by the producer as economically valuable as these items do not enter the market (Stahel 2016). However, local food advocacy organisations like Slow Money (2019) and the One Acre Fund (2019) recognise that producing food for our own consumption builds wealth and reduces waste along various nodes of the food system even if it does not contribute to GDP. Redefining the boundary between production/non-production and wealth-generation/waste by valuing other forms of capital (particularly through community moral norms) can improve the capacity for change within communities and, eventually, within the larger system (Emery and Flora 2006; Goodwin 2003). Understanding production for domestic consumption and waste reduction activities as having value and as capital generating activities could also be beneficial. Changing the cultural definition of productivity away from GDP and towards a more holistic account of national well-being could be a necessary step to reduce food waste. Uncovering the otherwise hidden interconnections between social, economic, and political systems also opens opportunities to shift factors contributing to food waste actions. Given that science has consistently shown that we make irrational decisions and fail to accurately understand our own positionalities and feelings (especially when we need

204     D. Lake et al.

to make decisions quickly), Thaler and Sunstein (2008) argue designers should use “choice architecture” to “nudge” people to make better decisions (p. 923). For example, Kallbekken and Saelen (2013) demonstrate a reduction in post-consumer food waste by reducing plate size at hotel breakfast buffets. By decreasing the plate size, the consumers were nudged into taking smaller portions of food thereby leaving less food on the plates at the end of the meal. Using nudging means one would seek to understand the assumptions and pressures under which stakeholders make decisions when designing systems, policies, or inventions and use this information in order to shift behaviour. Nudging recognises the power of cognitive bias and uses this information to modify the context under which decisions are made, encouraging more wise and ethical actions. The move to trayless cafeterias is another prime example of a nudge that is intended to encourage people to select less food simply because they cannot carry it (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Since educational awareness alone is often ineffective at yielding sustained change, we suggest that systems’ modifications that encourage the reduction of food waste via nudging are a potentially valuable avenue for exploration. For example, nudging could occur through implementing a closed-loop chain that forces waste back into the “value chain” such as cafeterias without waste disposal or with “no-waste” disposal processes (Parfitt et al. 2010, p. 3079). In this model, the physical environment is restructured (similar to decreasing plate size at buffets) so that individuals are unconsciously nudged to manage their surplus food in a way that forces its reuse. Nudges should be inexpensive, easy, transparent, and “choice preserving” (Selinger and Whyte 2011, p. 926). They are also subject to the critique that they manipulate since they seek to shift the practices of others at the unconscious level and reduce consumer autonomy (Parfitt et al. 2010). The ethical concerns surrounding nudges must be considered by change agents and the broader community openly and honestly to justify nudging. Crafting a systems view moves change agents towards a more comprehensive frame, encouraging an integrated, flexible, and long-term approach (Lieberman et al. 2013).

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     205

Design Thinking: Practical Tools for Creating Resilient Interventions ST provides a holistic and context-sensitive view of the complexities involved, but does not provide a full-range of practical, methodological tools for implementing flexible, time-sensitive, innovative interventions. Design thinking, as a collaborative problem-solving process (Lake et al. 2019), provides a host of tools for engaging in effective change. The process begins with empathy and encourages creative, context-specific, and time-sensitive interventions (Brown 2009; Crouch and Pearce 2012). Visualised in cyclical stages (see Fig. 8.1), the process tends to require we define the particular problem by explicating our perception of the situation, iteratively empathise with end-users to truly understand their values and beliefs, visualise who and what else is involved in the situation and then engage with those others, integrate what is learned into an enhanced understanding of the situation, ideate (brainstorm)

'HILQH

6LWXDWH

(PSDWKL]H

,GHDWH

7HVW 7HVW

3URWRW\SH

Fig. 8.1  Design thinking process

206     D. Lake et al.

about how we might address the challenges found, and then build and test prototypes. It also incentivises transdisciplinary collaboration, arguing that it is essential for wide and deep ideation efforts. Design thinking provides a range of tools that are easily adaptable for engaging with the complexities of food waste. The design thinking process requires change agents seek out and analyse a diverse array of perspectives. While an exhausting and challenging endeavour to undertake, the process is essential given our inherent susceptibility to the “single story”, incomplete and misleading narratives of people unlike ourselves (Adichie 2009). Empathetic listening, observation, and democratically defining the situation with those who are most directly impacted develops what Huutoniemi (2015) has labelled a “hybrid observer” whose span of attention is broadened (p. 5), preventing us from lumping these challenges into a homogenous problem definition. Empathetic listening leads to better understanding of the context around which decisions leading to food waste are made: increased awareness of the complex, interconnected systems at play, as well as political, economic, and technological factors. For example, empathetic listening alongside families with high levels of food waste may help change agents understand the social norms that undergird food waste. For instance, “eating properly” in some cultures involves eating a “variety within meals… and across meals… and new foods and a variety of different ethnic cuisines” (Evans 2014, p. 28). Working with people, seeking to understand the context-bound specificities in the environment and social systems, and intentionally operating at “different levels of scale” (Irwin 2015, p. 238) help change agents pursue a “place-based and regional, yet global” approach to intervention (p. 230). In another example, a local gleaning initiative in the US midwest overcame consistent barriers to utilising the produce gleaned from the local farmers market by iteratively engaging in DT processes (empathy, problem definition, ideation, prototyping, and testing). This organisation listened more closely to local residents, observed more carefully the constraints of subsidised housing cooking appliances, and developed more context-aware interventions. From this process, a place-based, context-aware, and culturally responsive recipe book has undergone

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     207

multiple iterations, ultimately being published and distributed by the county. Given that unsuccessful efforts towards sustained and inclusive change can often be traced back to a failure to account for and integrate contextual factors (Kezar 2014), inclusive, pervasive, and deep outreach is critical. This process expands upon the inherent limitations of one’s initial definition of the very problem to be considered. By summarising and physically mapping insights gained in early stages of the design cycle, the temptation to remain committed to initial assumptions and narrowly framed innovations is reduced, helping change agents more accurately name the problem. The process effectively encourages a more diverse, unbiased, and comprehensive knowledge ecology, where complicated systems can be viewed more holistically yet remains focussed on the end-user (Sofoulis et al. 2012). A range of tools for supporting collaborative visualisation is available, from rich pictures, to collaborative modelling, and soft systems mapping. In general, such tools help stakeholders visualise their perception of the situation and integrate this with other stakeholders over time, expanding frameworks (Sofoulis et al. 2012). The ideation stage generates a framework under which ideas can be stretched, creating both aspirational and more realistic interventions grounded in the context and reflective of the uniqueness of the situation. When engaging across differences, under resource limitations, on messy, intractable and dynamic problems, ideation sessions should encourage both radical, large-scale, complex innovations and low-stakes, low-cost, simple innovations. The stretching of ideas generates a range of potential launch points into prototyping, yielding both quick interventions suitable for immediate implementation under constrained resources and more radical, long-term transformation. This iterative process ultimately encourages active, reflexive accountability and deepens boundary spanning skills. At its best, design thinking creates opportunity for radical reconstruction, eliminating bias by intentionally focussing on the end-user to develop problem statements, “how might we” questions, and prototypes. The process demands soliciting continuous, rapid, critical discourse on tenacious problems, while also recognising the potential limitations of the suggested innovations by

208     D. Lake et al.

iteratively re-engaging the end-user instead of releasing a final intervention. Design thinking encourages continued dialogue with the end-user throughout the design process through efficient and responsive feedback loops (Zolli and Healy 2012). The SusHouse Project operates as an example of the possibilities within these practices. The Project partnered six research teams across five European countries in order to imagine and test strategies for creating sustainable households. Through participatory methods and design thinking methodologies, this project explored what was needed to generate genuinely sustainable “Shopping, Cooking and Eating” practices (Green and Vergragt 2002). The project also intentionally harnessed collaborative and creative stakeholder workshops, long-term visioning and “back-casting”, consumer acceptance research, as well as environmental and “economic assessment scenarios” (p. 183). This process expanded the otherwise narrow lens of technology interventions by pressing for sociocultural interventions. It also built networks across business, policy, research, and environmental sectors. The “DesignOrienting Scenarios” ensured context-sensitive responsiveness, while the back-casting and imagining ensured a commitment to innovative visioning (p. 385). Assessment of the SusHouse Project also showed that combining the various scenarios imagined across workshops and groups is likely to increase their promise and reduce their limitations (p. 391). Though the project had significant limitations, it operates as a starting ground for stepping into the practices recommended in this chapter. However, if change agents do not keep ST at the forefront of the design process, they may run into a series of challenges. They may, for instance, end up recommending “stock ‘green’ solutions that ultimately” exacerbate the situation (Norton 2012). Under time constraints, they may generate a caricature of the complexities involved in place of a representative and complex integration. Designers also too often fail to critically reflect upon their own positionality; they might narrowly frame or misrepresent “end-users” through shallow engagement in the empathy process. Within a capitalist paradigm and narrow time constraints, designers might seek to generate technological innovation alone, physical products, and profit when what is really needed is sustained critique, moral innovation, and a holistic ecological vision (and

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     209

less creation for consumption). When the goal is to quickly implement interventions, it can be tempting to ignore the ecological, economic, political, and social systems as well as the culture and the long-­standing histories surrounding these issues. Indeed, using the design t­hinking methodology while embracing ST encourages designers to consider the impact of their innovations along various dimensions and scales (Pourdehnad et al. 2018), including its influence on “environmental, social, political, and cultural realms” (Norton 2012).

Integration and Application Putting It All Together When ST is combined with design thinking, a more holistic, creative, and iterative response to context-sensitive needs can be generated. Together, they not only help to foster innovative, time- and place-specific interventions aimed at addressing the structural, procedural, cultural, and individual factors involved. They also build capacity for generating a more flexible, just, and responsive food system and culture. In combination, they highlight the need for the following 10 practices to develop sustained, effective interventions: 1. Situate oneself and uncover assumptions (ST); 2. Understand and address procedural, infrastructural, historical, and cultural antecedents to the problem (ST); 3. Study and address the unconscious influences, individual habitudes, cultural ethos, conflicting objectives, and values (DT); 4. Recognise multiscalar, intertwined nature of issue (ST & DT); 5. Conduct inclusive outreach and dialogue to help identify systemic resistance (such as social norms and public versus private nature of activities) (DT); 6. Seek out opportunities for integration and coherence (DT); 7. Ideate (DT); 8. Openly wrestle with uncertainties, risks, failures, and trade-offs (DT);

210     D. Lake et al.

9. Iterate and test prototypes as well as seek a range of interventions (ST & DT); 10. Sustain flexible engagement over the long term and commit to capacity-building (DT).

Putting It All to Work: Examining the Case of Transdisciplinary Living Labs The emergence of transdisciplinary living labs (TDLL) can be used to illustrate how the methods and processes recommended above might manifest. Seen as potential spaces for “co-creation, exploration, experimentation and evaluation”, living labs started to emerge in the 1990s across Europe (Curtis 2015, p. ii). In general, they “seek to address real-world challenges” in their place through the creation of boundary spanning institutions that support democratic processes and partnerships across traditional divides (Curtis 2015, p. 17). They shift the traditional commitment to siloed learning and research so that it is more responsive to the needs of the place and time it is emerging from, more collaborative, and more experimental (Crosby et al. 2018). The TDLL model appears to implement all ten recommendations in order to honour the diverse factors involved in wicked problems, such as food waste (Niitamo et al. 2006). A TDLL emerging at the University of Technology Sydney and Western Sydney University (Fam et al. 2020) is a particularly compelling case study since it is focussed on generating collaborative, “glocal”, food waste interventions. The Wealth from Waste Living Lab started in 2016 and trains approximately 20 students annually (Wealth from Waste 2017) asks undergraduate students, university faculty, and industry executives to not simply study food waste problems in the abstract, but to collaboratively and creatively intervene. They require participants begin working by locating themselves within food waste systems, considering their own attitudes, responsibilities, behaviours, and privileges. In addition, students situate food waste within its historical and global complexities, conducting ST by mapping work along different

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     211

scales, engaging in wide-ranging dialogue with stakeholders across systems, integrating what they learn, and ideating interventions that seek to respond to the context of their campus community and global challenges. This approach makes the often invisible ethos, cultural practices, and institutional barriers visible. The implementation of systems and design thinking practices is clearly identifiable and is explicitly reflected on by the student designers (Wealth from Waste 2017). This TDLL encourages and respects the diversity of transdisciplinary voices and multiple stakeholders in both public and private domains with an intense focus on collaboration moving to a “system sensitive” design (Crosby et al. 2018, p. 118). The TDLL also requires participants to critically examine and consider “socio-technical infrastructures influencing everyday practices” (Crosby et al. 2018, p. 119). Students from multiple disciplines bring ideas from their individual training to design cross-cutting solutions to the food waste problems, with the explicit recognition that “one final design will not always be an adequate response to a complex problem” (p. 129). In addition, this TDLL approaches these challenges by harnessing various ways of knowing, including disciplinary and personal knowledge through collaborative work. Implementation of a cohort model and open-access documentation of work allows students to build upon previous work forming an ever-evolving design brief that intervenes at many places of the system rather than a siloed, stand-alone intervention. It is also public-facing, so external stakeholders can review and leverage lessons learned. It thereby seeks out opportunities and builds capacity for future change efforts (fostering the skill sets, dispositions, experiences, networks, and fortitude for this work). With a commitment to ST, collaboration, integration, and a design thinking experimental approach, we see such spaces as the physical instantiation of the recommendations provided in this chapter. We argue that the Wealth from Waste TDLL is an instantiation of the practices outlined in this chapter. The TDLL begins with practice one, analysing their own food waste actions and understanding the systemic influences on food waste. According to the TDLL’s class blog, “Wealth from Waste” (Wealth from Waste 2017), they are seeking to

212     D. Lake et al.

implement systems and processes designed to address food waste at the site it is generated (practices 6, 7, 9), create site-specific educational campaigns, focussing on a transactionally situated approach (practices 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10), and imagine “alternative systems for creating ‘wealth from waste’” (practices 4, 7, 8, and 9). The TDLL model does this by inviting a diverse group of stakeholders as working partners to share expertise in co-creating interventions that fit the design parameters while recognising the inadequacy of a single approach (Crosby et al. 2018). For example, in creating interventions to reduce food waste at catering events, TDLL student change agents observed and discussed problems with bartenders, waiters, chefs, and guests rather than privileging either chefs or guests alone (Wealth from Waste 2017). The infrastructure of the curricula also ensures that participants engage in the first four practices recommended, situating themselves, uncovering their own assumptions, in addition to digging into the historical, cultural, and interconnected nature of the issue. The very nature of the TDLL class blog, the fact that it makes their work public, fosters practices 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. TDLL’s create space and give credit for instantiating all ten of the recommendations noted above. By doing so, they simultaneously foster the capacity and frameworks needed for this work. Since this approach has only begun to be used recently, data on the effectiveness of the interventions developed through this process have not been collected and analysed. These recommendations encourage a “transactionally situated approach” that begins in “the complexities of the everyday world” and engages with those who are impacted by the results. Such an approach seeks out “marginalized views and marginalized knowledge” (McHugh 2015, p. 10), such as the knowledge of bartenders and waiters, by engaging the lived-experiences of everyday stakeholders, recognising that long-standing histories shape the present situation and that people are located in unique, interlocking systems. They are not only effective for implementing responsive and innovative, place-based change, but also for fostering “epistemic wisdom” (Murray 2010), change agent skills, as well as resilient systems and people (Folke 2006).

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     213

Conclusion We began this paper by framing food waste as a wicked problem. Given the wicked nature of food waste challenges, we also emphasised that we cannot continue to demand individuals know more, care more, and do better without examining and addressing the historical, structural, and cultural conditions that make food waste reduction particularly cumbersome. Effectively meliorating these challenges requires the development and alignment of a range of transdisciplinary, holistic, and systematic interventions addressing both internal drivers and external processes. With this framing in mind, we recommended effective interventions are more likely to emerge when change agents integrate ST and design thinking to develop a range of interventions. We next highlighted a set of key strategies that emerge from the integration of these methods. As the Wealth from Waste Living Lab illustrated, we need to create institutional models and processes that invite others in so we can align and leverage visions, values, and messaging. The TDLL is a close embodiment of the recommendations within this chapter and generates context-sensitive interventions. While a critic might be concerned about the merit of these micro-changes, such institutions simultaneously foster the agency and skill sets needed for growing a movement; and, over time, they might just generate tipping points indicative of sustained change. The long-term potential of local and seemingly negligible interventions should not be easily discounted or quickly dismissed. Local tipping points can contribute to what becomes a “critical mass”, replacing “the dominant attractor of the status quo” (Burns 2014, p. 7). According to Rogers (2003), social tipping points tend to emerge once approximately 16% of the population adopt the practice. Seemingly, minor interventions can yield unanticipated opportunities and next steps; they can ripple outward, extend networks, and open opportunities to see effective patterns. These effects may even remain unseen to the change agents until well beyond the initial implementation of their efforts (Crosby et al. 2018). Tipping points depend on using an iterative and participatory process of reflective action subject to “real time” assessment and adjustment and “rooted in relationships” (p. 8).

214     D. Lake et al.

Recognising the relationship between tipping points and changing social norms can remind change agents that resilience is needed when aiming to create deep, pervasive, and sustained transformation (Stahel 2016). Designing responses that build upon local traditions and practices will help change agents reach tipping points (Acharya 2004). We caution, however, that innovative efforts to address the wicked dimensions of food waste are likely to be stymied by the consolidation of power and capital inherent in the world today. There are powerful incentives in place that encourage waste. For instance, within the current system many policies incentivise overproduction and waste and many companies profit from consumers’ tendency towards waste. For example, in the USA, the Farm Bill allows subsidies to be paid to large production farms which incentivises overproduction of crops such as wheat, corn, soy, and cotton (ReFED 2018). The momentum behind current practices and the pressures working against change are massive since capital and power are consolidated within very few hands. Opportunities for systems change may be sparse without also addressing the culture of capitalism. Pearson et al. (2013) note the critical nature of aligning the food waste agenda with profit objectives of supermarkets. In addition, the inherent disconnect from the land (food is a commodity, not a part of the community and connecting people back to the land) will be hard to overcome. Large-scale, resilient change that leads to a substantial reduction in food waste will also require interventions that fall outside the direct arena of food waste, such as efforts that shift the narrow commitment to financial capital. Recognising and addressing the limitations of our current approaches (both techno-scientific and educational), understanding the systematic interactions at play and using design thinking to tenaciously and flexibly innovate can generate inclusive, effective, and resilient change. Integrating the two approaches in this chapter and utilising the ten recommendations requires change agents be willing to “disturb our own axes” and shift our paradigm in order “enable alternative visions of society to emerge” (Dolan 2002, p. 170).

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     215

References Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58, 239–275. Adichie, C. N. (2009). The danger of a single story [Video file]. TED. https:// www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Aschemann-Witzel, J., deHooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larson, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer-related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability, 7, 6457–6477. Aschemann-Witzel, J., deHooge, I. E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., BossleBonzanini, M., Gronhoj, A. et al. (2017). Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste—A multiple case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 33–45. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Brown, V. A., Deane, P. M., Harris, J., & Russell, J. (2010). Towards a just and sustainable future. In V. A. Brown, J. A. Harris, & J. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 3–15). Washington, DC: Earthscan. Brown, V. A., & Lambert, J. A. (2013). Collective learning for transformational change: A guide to collaborative action. New York, NY: Routledge. Burns, D. (2014). Assessing impact in dynamic and complex environments: Systemic action research and participatory systemic inquiry. Centre for Development Impact: Practice Paper, 8, 1–10. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: Includes a 30 year retrospective. New York, NY: Wiley. Corrado, M. (2007). Understanding consumer food management behaviour. Waste and Resources Action Programme. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/ files/wrap/Understanding_consumer_food_management_behaviour_ jly_2007.0f60e631.6395.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Crosby, A., Fam, D., & Mellick Lopes, A. (2018). Transdisciplinarity and the ‘living lab model’: Food waste management as a site for collaborative learning. In D. Fam, L. Neuhauser, & P. Gibbs (Eds.), Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education (pp. 117–131). Cham: Springer. Crouch, C., & Pearce, J. (2012). Doing research in design. Oxford: Berg.

216     D. Lake et al.

Curtis, S. (2015). An investigation of living labs for sustainability: Reflections on the living lab methodology (Course Paper: Applied Research in Sustainable Consumption and Production (ARSCP), Master of Science in Environmental Management and Policy). Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Dolan, P. (2002). The sustainability of “sustainable consumption”. Journal of Macromarketing, 22(2), 170–181. Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. Community Development, 37, 19–35. Evans, D. (2014). Food waste: Home consumption, material culture, and everyday life. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Fam, D., Mellick Lopes, A., Crosby, A., & Ross, K. (2020). The transdisciplinary living lab model (TDLL). In W. Leal Filho, A. L. Salvia, R. Pretorius, L. L. Brandli, E. Manolas, F. Alves, … A. Do Paco (Eds.), Universities as living labs for sustainable development: Supporting the implementation of the sustainable development goals (pp. 167–182). Springer World Sustainability Series. Springer. Fauvel, A. M., Lake, D., & Sisson, L. (2017). Working with: Implementing a feminist pragmatist approach to support local food recovery. Public Philosophy Journal, 1. http://publications.publicphilosophyjournal.org/ record/?kid=76-2BC-25. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267. Fraser, C., & Parizeau, K. (2018). Waste management as foodwork: A feminist food studies approach to household food waste. Canadian Food Studies, 5, 39–62. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290–302. Goodwin, N. (2003). Five kinds of capital: Useful concepts for sustainable development. Global Development and Environment Institute Working Group Paper No. 03-07. http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/publications/working_ papers/03-07sustainabledevelopment.PDF. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Green, K., & Vergragt, P. (2002). Towards sustainable households: A methodology for developing sustainable technological and social innovations. Futures, 34(5), 381–400. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., & Sonesson, U. (2011). Global food losses and waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome: Food and Agriculture

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     217

Organisation of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Hebrok, M., & Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design—An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 151, 380–392. Hebrok, M., & Heidenstrøm, N. (2019). Contextualising food waste prevention—Decisive moments within everyday practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1435–1448. Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York, NY: John Wiley. Huutoniemi, K. (2015). Interdisciplinarity as academic accountability: Prospects for quality control across disciplinary boundaries. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 30, 163–185. Irwin, T. (2015). Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research. Design and Culture, 7(2), 229–246. Janus, A. (2019). More than half of all food produced in Canada is lost or wasted, report says. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/foodwaste-report-second-harvest-1.4981728. Accessed 26.2.2019. Johnson, M. (2015). 3 things to consider when choosing between calling someone out or calling them in. Everyday Feminism. https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/calling-in-and-calling-out/. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Kallbekken, S., & Saelen, H. (2013). ‘Nudging’ hotel guests to reduce food waste as a win-win environmental measure. Economics Letters, 119, 325–327. Kania, J., Kramer, M., & Senge, P. (2018). The water of systems change. Reimagining Social Change. http://efc.issuelab.org/resources/30855/30855. pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. New York, NY: Routledge. Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Lake, D., Lehman, M., & Chamberlain, L. (2019). Engaging through design thinking: Catalyzing integration, iteration, innovation, and implementation. eJournal of Public Affairs. http://www.ejournalofpublicaffairs.org/ engaging-through-design-thinking-catalyzing-integration-iteration-innovation-and-implementation/. Accessed on 5.5.2019. Lake, D., McFarland, A., & Jennrich, J. (2018). Remaking the academy: The potential and the challenge of transdisciplinary collaborative engagement.

218     D. Lake et al.

In A. Stoller & E. Kramer (Eds.), Contemporary philosophical proposals for the university. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Lieberman, L., Golden, S. D., & Earp, J. l. (2013). Structural approaches to health promotion: What do we need to know about policy and environmental change? Health Education & Behavior, 40, 520–525. Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R., & Searchinger, T. (2013). Installment 2 of “Creating a sustainable future:” Reducing food loss and waste. World Resources Institute. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.360.951&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 26.2.2019. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17, 445–459. Lynch, K. (1990). Wasting away: An exploration of waste: What it is, how it happens, why we fear it, how to do it well. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books. Mathews, L. G., & Jones, A. (2008). Using systems thinking to improve interdisciplinary outcomes. Issues in Integrative Studies, 26, 73–104. McHugh, N. A. (2015). The limits of knowledge: Generating pragmatist feminist cases for situated knowing. Albany: State University of New York Press. Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., & Yurt, O. (2011). The causes of food waste in the supplier-retailer interface: Evidence from the UK and Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 648–658. Meneely, L., Burns, A., & Strugnell, C. (2009). Age associated changes in older consumers retail behaviour. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 37(12), 1041–1056. Murray, T. (2010). Exploring epistemic wisdom: Ethical and practical implications of integral studies and methodological pluralism for collaboration and knowledge building. In S. Esbjorn-Hargens (Ed.), Integral theory in action: Applied, theoretical, and constructive perspectives on the AQAL model. Albany: State University of New York Press. Neff, R. A., Spiker, M. L., & Truant, P. L. (2015). Wasted food: U.S. consumers’ reported awareness, attitudes, and behaviors. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127881. Nigbur, D., Lyons, E., & Uzzell, D. (2010). Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental behaviour: Using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict participation in a kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 259–284. Niitamo, V., Kulkki, S., Eriksson, M., & Hribernik, K. A. (2006, June). Stateof-the-art and good practice in the field of living labs. Paper presented at the

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     219

IEEE International Technology Management Conference, Milan, Italy, 26–28. Norton, L. (2012). Integral design thinking, guessing the future. Integral Leadership Review. http://integralleadershipreview.com/6725-integral-design-thinking-guessing-the-future/. Accessed on 26.2.2019. O’Connell, E. (2012). Talking trash: Bringing research into action while reducing household solid waste (Order No. 3513501). Available from Psychology Database (1027764327). O’Kane, G. (2016). A moveable feast: Contemporary relational food cultures emerging from local food networks. Appetite, 105, 2018–2231. One Acre Fund. (2019). https://oneacrefund.org. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioural science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behaviour experiments. Environmental Behaviour, 44(2), 257–299. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 3065–3081. Pateman, C. (1983). Feminist critiques of the public/private dichotomy. In S. I. Benn., & G. F. Gaus (Eds.), Public and private in social life (pp. 281– 303). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Pearson, D., Minehan, M., & Wakefield-Rann, R. (2013). Food waste in Australian households: Why does it occur? Locale: The Australian-Pacific Journal of Regional Food Studies, 3, 118–132. Plumwood, V. (1999). Paths beyond human centeredness. In A. Weston (Ed.), An invitation to environmental philosophy (pp. 69–106). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Porpino, G., Parente, J., & Wansink, B. (2015). Food waste paradox: Antecedents of food disposal in low income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39, 619–629. Porpino, G., Wansink, B., & Parente, J. (2016). Wasted positive intentions: The role of affection and abundance on household food waste. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 22, 733–751. Pourdehnad, J., Wexler, E. R., & Wilson, D. V. (2018). Integrating systems thinking and design thinking. The Systems Thinker, 22. https://thesystemsthinker.com/integrating-systems-thinking-and-design-thinking/. Accessed on 26.2.2019. ReFED. (2016). A roadmap to reduce U.S. food waste by 20 percent. Rethink Food Waste Through Economics and Data (ReFED). http://www.refed.

220     D. Lake et al.

com/downloads/ReFED_Report_2016.pdf?mc_cid=1c10ce6033&mc_ eid=56f456c1e3. Accessed on 26.2.2019. ReFED. (2018). U.S. Food Waste Policy Finder; Federal tax incentives. ReFED. https://www.refed.com/tools/food-waste-policy-finder/federal-policy/federal-tax-incentives. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Ritchey, T. (2011). Wicked problems, social messes: Decision support modeling with morphological analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Roberts, P. (2009). The end of food: The ending crisis in the world food industry. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Roodhuyzen, D. M. A., Luning, P. A., Fogliano, V., & Steenbekkers, L. P. A. (2017). Putting together the puzzle of consumer food waste: Towards an integral perspective. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 68, 37–50. Schmidt, K., & Matthies, E. (2018). Where to start fighting the food waste problem? Identifying most promising entry points for intervention programs to reduce household food waste and overconsumption of food. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 139, 1–14. Selinger, E., & Whyte, K. (2011). Is there a right way to nudge? The Practice and ethics of choice architecture: Practice and ethics of choice architecture. Sociology Compass, 5, 923–935. Shiva, V. (2013). Our violent economy is hurting women. Yes! Magazine. http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/violent-economic-reforms-and-women. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Slow Money. (2019). https://slowmoney.org/. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 282–292. Sofoulis, Z., Hugman, S., Collin, P., & Third, A. (2012, November 28). Coming to terms with knowledge brokering and translation: Background paper. Knowledge Ecologies Workshop, Institute for Culture and Society, University of Western Sydney, Parramatta. http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0020/405650/Coming_to_Terms_Background_Paper.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Stahel, W. R. (2016). Circular economy. Nature, 531, 435–438. Stöckli, S., Niklaus, E., & Dorn, M. (2018). Call for testing interventions to prevent consumer food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 462–554.

8  Creating Resilient Interventions to Food Waste …     221

Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Thompson, P. B. (2017). The spirit of the soil: Agricultural and environmental ethics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2018). How to cut food waste and maintain food safety. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/ Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm529381.htm#connect. Accessed on 26.2.2019. van Geffen, E. J., van Herpen, H. W. I., & van Trijp, J. C. M. (2017). Quantified consumer insights on food waste. REFRESH. https://eu-refresh. org/quantified-consumer-insights-food-waste. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Vercillo, S. (2016). Food waste—What do women have to do with it? Food waste studies. https://foodwastestudies.com/2016/03/18/food-waste-whatdo-women-have-to-do-with-it/. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology & Society, 9(2), 5. Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5, 131–153. Watson, M., & Meah, A. (2012). Food, waste and safety: Negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. The Sociological Review, 60, 102–120. Wealth from Waste. (2017). Wealth from waste: Collective research of Interdisciplinary Lab B 85302. Design School, University of Technology Sydney. https://wealthfromwaste.wordpress.com/. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24, 141–148. WRAP. (2017). Development of best practices on food date labeling and storage advice. The Waste and Resources Action Programme. http://www.wrap.org. uk/sites/files/wrap/Food%20date%20labelling%20information%20sheet. pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Part III Constituting Sociocultural Meanings

9 Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns: A Visual Analysis Ulla-Maija Sutinen

Introduction Food waste can be regarded as a wicked problem concerning all parts of the food chain, the largest and the most significant contributor being the consumer (Stenmarck et al. 2016). There are multiple reasons behind consumer food waste, making it a very complex issue to solve (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2017). In the tackle against consumer food waste, institutions and organisations (both for-profit and notfor-profit) can take a significant role by establishing initiatives and campaigns around reducing food waste (Principato 2018). One of the most well-known food waste campaigns is the “Love Food, Hate Waste” campaign initiated by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in the United Kingdom. This campaign has been suggested to be a key contributor, along with other factors such as changes to labelling and increases in food prices, to the significant reduction in food waste in the U.-M. Sutinen (*)  Faculty of Management and Business, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_9

225

226     U.-M. Sutinen

UK between 2007 and 2012 (Quested and Parry 2017). Similar types of food waste campaigns have been initiated around the world by different national and international institutions and organisations. Food waste campaigns and initiatives have recently become of interest also in academic research (see, e.g., Principato 2018; AschemannWitzel et al. 2017). Principato (2018) identified five clusters of consumer food waste initiatives: food waste redistribution, food waste reduction, awareness-raising campaigns, food waste reuse and the sale of short-dated products. Based on research by Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2017), consumer-related food waste initiatives can also be divided into the following three categories: information and capacity building initiatives; redistribution initiatives; and retail and supply chain alteration initiatives. Food waste campaigns and initiatives can be viewed as social marketing, and this viewpoint is adopted in this chapter. Social marketing refers to the utilisation of marketing viewpoints, techniques and theories in attempt to change consumers’ behaviour for the sake of individual or societal well-being (see, e.g., Kotler et al. 2002). Although many of the food waste initiatives and campaigns have been directly targeted at the consumer, existing research has not focused on the assumptions about consumers mirrored by these initiatives. Questions about theoretical foundations of different food waste initiatives and assumptions about consumers have remained unanswered in earlier research. This chapter argues that in order to create, plan and run effective campaigns around food waste, the prevailing assumptions about consumers in the fight against food waste need to be carefully and critically evaluated. The research reported in this chapter focuses on the assumptions about consumers in food waste-related campaign material. The main purpose of the chapter is to identify and analyse the assumptions about consumers in food waste campaign materials. To fulfil its purpose, two research questions are asked: “How is food waste portrayed in campaign materials?” and “How is the consumer portrayed in campaign materials?” In its theory section, the chapter draws on social marketing literature and its different approaches to consumer behaviour change. The research data consists of visual food waste campaign materials published in Finland and Sweden from 2012 to 2018. The analysis method is

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     227

inspired by semiotic analysis and emphasises the role of signs and their meanings (see, e.g., Ball and Smith 1992). Through intensive analysis and interpretation, six different assumptions about consumers are identified. The assumptions of economical, environmental and ethical consumer reflect the assumed orientation of consumers. The latter three assumptions, childlike, uninformed and active consumer, describe the assumed agency level of the consumer. The research positions itself in a gap in the literature introduced by Porpino (2016), who points out the lack of marketing and consumer behaviour focus in previous food waste research, and suggests the topic of communications initiatives for mitigating food waste as an opportunity for future research. This research aims to contribute to the growing area of research around food waste reduction by focusing on the consumer perspective and viewing the campaign materials as social marketing efforts to transform consumers’ behaviour towards sustainability. In addition, the research provides useful insights for food waste campaign initiators and campaign material creators; the research highlights the importance of careful and critical evaluation of the prevailing assumptions about consumers before launching any new initiatives or campaigns aiming to change consumers’ behaviour.

Changing Consumer Behaviour Through Social Marketing This chapter approaches food waste initiatives and campaigns as social marketing. The innermost purpose of food waste initiatives is to make consumers waste less food, that is, to change their behaviour. The core idea of social marketing—to “influence behaviours that benefit individuals and communities for the greater social good” (iSMA 2013, p. 1)—is strongly connected to the theoretical concept of behaviour change. However, the discipline of social marketing does not aim to provide a single theory of behaviour change. Instead, it is more of a general approach to solving the troubling problems of the world (Lefebvre 2013). The main theoretical approaches to consumer behaviour change

228     U.-M. Sutinen

utilised in social marketing can be roughly divided into cognitive, conative, affective and sociocultural approaches. It is important to note that this division is not the only one presented; for instance, Brennan et al. (2014) proposed as many as seven different theoretical approaches utilised in social marketing, including a multi-theory perspective and commercial marketing models. Next, different approaches adopted in social marketing are reviewed. In line with the aim of this chapter, the following approaches are based on the theoretical viewpoints as well as the assumptions about consumers and their behaviour instead of, for instance, strategy-level applications or methodological approaches. To give an overall idea of how these approaches have been utilised in the context of food waste, some illustrating case examples are also presented.

Focus on Thinking: Cognitive Approach The cognitive approach presents the most commonly adopted theoretical approach to consumer behaviour change in social marketing (Wymer 2011). Theoretical models following this approach often have their roots in psychology and economics. These models include, for instance, prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979), theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980) and theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991). The cognitive approach relies strongly on individuals being self-reflexive, rational decision-making consumers (Spotswood and Tapp 2013). When applied in social marketing, the assumptions include individuals’ capability to understand the risk, respond to the message given and consciously adjust their behaviour according to external factors (Brennan et al. 2014). Hence, the cognitive approach depends on consumers’ ability to change their behaviour after receiving new information. A majority of campaigns related to food waste have their roots in the cognitive approach. For instance, Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2017) proposed that a large share of food waste initiatives can be categorised as information campaigns that share facts about the severity of food waste

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     229

problems. A well-known campaign in Great Britain, “Love Food, Hate Waste”, is one example of this type of information campaign that aims at influencing consumers’ behaviour regarding food waste by providing information about the consequences and magnitude of food waste (Principato 2018).

Focus on Actions: Conative Approach The conative approach emphasises the role of the realised behaviour of the consumer and has been introduced in part to oppose the assumption of rational consumers proposed by cognitive models (Brennan et al. 2014). Within the conative approach, the focus is on the actions of consumers instead of thoughts and feelings. The approach builds upon the idea that behaviour can be changed only if the consumer does something differently. The perspective has its roots in behavioural economics. For instance, the idea of a nudge (Thaler and Sunstein 2008) relies on the conative perspective of consumer behaviour. A nudge is a perspective of behavioural economics introducing the idea that consumers can be “nudged” to make better decisions without restricting their freedom of choice (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Within this perspective, individuals’ behaviour is seen as not (always) rational, but largely habitual and unconscious instead. Furthermore, consumers are seen more as reactive than proactive (Brennan et al. 2014). Several food waste campaigns can be seen as following the conative models of behaviour change. Some efforts have been made to ban “buy one, get two” types of discounts that often lead consumers to make excess purchases (Calvo-Porral et al. 2017). Furthermore, a research conducted in Canada found out that people do not want to see themselves as wasting more food than their peers, highlighting how comparing consumers’ behaviour in relation to their peers could be a useful way to “nudge” consumers to reduce their food waste (Parizeau et al. 2015). Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2018) have suggested that the nudging approach could be especially beneficial in influencing food waste behaviour of the “least concerned” consumers.

230     U.-M. Sutinen

Focus on Emotions: Affective Approach The affective theoretical approach utilised in social marketing relies strongly on emotional engagement (Brennan et al. 2014). Within this approach, consumers are assumed to be driven (at least partly) by their unconscious emotions rather than rational cognitions (Parkinson et al. 2018) and as constantly trying to maximise the net balance between their positive and negative emotions (Brennan et al. 2014). To influence and encourage behaviour change, the key is to get consumers emotionally engaged. Evoking negative emotions, such as guilt, shame and fear, have played an important role in social marketing (Brennan and Binney 2010). The focus on negative emotions has, however, raised some critique among researchers who suggest that influencing consumers’ behaviour by evoking positive feelings might actually be more effective and ethical (Hastings et al. 2004; Henley et al. 1998). In addition to emotions, theories concerning values, beliefs and norms can be positioned under this approach (Brennan et al. 2014). In the context of food waste, some campaigns have followed this approach and have relied on consumers’ feelings of guilt around wasting food by showing piles of food wasted yearly or comparing the amount of food waste with the needs of people suffering from hunger. As an opposite to provoking negative emotions, there have been some food waste campaigns aiming at evoking positive feelings about reducing food waste. For instance, in France, an award-winning campaign by a French retailer “Inglorious fruits and vegetables” displayed misshapen fruits and vegetables in a positive light to emphasise the beauty of the produce (Block et al. 2016). Furthermore, a recent study proposed that the use of anthropomorphism when selling misshapen produce triggers positive affective reactions, thereby strengthening taste perceptions and purchase intentions (Cooremans and Geuens 2019).

Focus on Cultural and Social Surroundings: Sociocultural Approach The sociocultural approach views the consumer’s behaviour and behaviour change from the perspective of the individual’s environment rather

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     231

than the individual themselves (Brennan et al. 2014). According to this approach, consumers’ behaviour stems from larger constructs embedded in the social and cultural surroundings of the consumer. While the aforementioned approaches emphasised processes happening “inside” the consumer’s head or their realised actions, this approach focuses on the sociocultural structures shaping consumers’ behaviour; to change behaviour, something has to change in the sociocultural surroundings of consumers. Theoretical approaches focusing on cultural and social aspects currently play a minority role in social marketing, although they have been applied in practice and research in some cases. Theories within this approach and utilised in social marketing research include, for instance, social practice theory (see, e.g., Spotswood et al. 2017), community-based theories (see, e.g., McKenzie-Mohr 2011) and Bourdieu’s theory of habitus (see, e.g., Spotswood and Tapp 2013). The sociocultural approach to behaviour change has not been very central in food waste initiatives. Grassroot movements and campaigns engaging consumers, however, can be regarded as examples of taking a more holistic, sociocultural perspective on food waste and consumer behaviour change. For instance, a blog campaign in Finland, “From waste to delicacy”, which aimed at changing the negative connotations around food waste, could be regarded as an initiative following this approach (see, e.g., Närvänen et al. 2016, 2018).

Other Theoretical Approaches to Consumer Behaviour Change Within Social Marketing Theories of behaviour and behaviour change are the vital foundations of social marketing research as well as initiatives and campaigns in practice. Careful consideration of the role of theory in social marketing can offer valuable benefits such as stronger outcomes and savings in money and time (Brennan et al. 2014). Although social marketing is an established field of practice and research, it has been a target of critique due to several issues (Spotswood et al. 2012; Truong 2014; Wymer 2011). For instance, one critique is the narrow theoretical base of the discipline (see, e.g., Lefebvre 2011; Rundle-Thiele et al. 2019). Social marketing

232     U.-M. Sutinen

has also been criticised as overemphasising consumers as drivers and roots of change while ignoring the role of policymakers and policies (Vihalemm et al. 2016). Recently, interest has increased in social marketing for social change at the macro-level (see, e.g., Brennan et al. 2016; Lefebvre 2013) with the idea of changing behaviour by changing the broader structures and environment.

Summarising the Approaches from the Perspective of This Research As the review of previous research shows, changing consumers’ behaviour is not a simple or universally agreed process. Within social marketing, the issue of changing consumers’ behaviour has been approached from different theoretical perspectives; recently, even more perspectives have been introduced. The theoretical approaches all have their strengths and weaknesses, and none of them have been proven to work in every situation. However, as Brennan et al. (2014) suggest, different theories offer researchers and practitioners a way to simplify a complex phenomenon into manageable elements, and each theoretical approach can be applied only to a certain unit of analysis. The chapter will return to these approaches in the discussion section where empirical findings are evaluated in the light of the different theoretical approaches.

Material and Methods The nature of this research is exploratory, and the research adopts an interpretive, qualitative methodology to gain new understanding of a certain phenomenon in its own context (see, e.g., Justesen and MikMeyer 2012): assumptions about consumers in food waste campaigns in Finland and Sweden. Reality is regarded as socially constructed, and to access these realities, one must focus on social constructions such as language and shared meanings (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2015). Different kinds of visuals are a significant part of socially constructed reality and consumers’ everyday lives (Moisander and Valtonen 2006; Schroeder

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     233

2002). It can be argued that research on pre-existing images is important because it “attends to the role of visuals in the circulation of cultural meanings but also draws attention to the different – often invisible – forms and relations power infused in them” (Moisander and Valtonen 2006, p. 89). Building on these premises, this research is focused on visual images and the assumptions they reflect about the consumer.

Data The data used in this research consists of food waste campaign materials published in Finland and Sweden, so the data is naturally occurring (Silverman 2014). The generation of the data involved three steps (see Fig. 9.1). The first step aimed at finding food waste campaigns conducted in Finland and Sweden. First, campaigns were searched for in Finland, then in Sweden. Due to the sociocultural perspective of the study, the choice of these two countries with a similar cultural background was seen as important. Both of the countries are part of the Nordic region, and they share a similar welfare model and

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

• Google search for food waste campaigns in Finland and Sweden in Finnish, Swedish and English. • 20+ food waste campaigns and initiatives were identified.

• Narrowing down the number of food waste campaigns by leaving out campaigns initiated by commercial actors and commercial target audiences. • Altogether 14 food waste campaigns were identified.

• Collecting the visual materials, such as posters and social media advertisements online through Google search, websites and social media pages. • Altogether 91 visual campaign materials were gathered.

Fig. 9.1  Phases of data generation

234     U.-M. Sutinen

a long history, as Finland was a part of Sweden for almost 700 years (Götz 2003). In terms of the research topic, the levels of household food waste have been estimated to be somewhat similar between the two countries; the estimated amount of annual food waste (both unavoidable and avoidable) is 63.6 kg/person in Finland and 71.5 kg/ person in Sweden (Stenmarck et al. 2016). As a result of the first step of data generation, 20–30 different food waste campaigns initiated by commercial and public entities were identified. The second step of data gathering involved narrowing down the identified food waste campaigns based on two criteria: the initiator and the target. Some campaigns were targeted specifically at commercial companies such as restaurants; these campaigns were eliminated from the data as this study focuses on consumers. The second criterion regarded the initiator of the campaign. This research is positioned within social marketing literature, and it is still debated whether forprofit organisations can be involved in social marketing (see, e.g., Hastings and Angus 2011; Polonsky 2017). Even though also several commercial actors have established initiatives around food waste, only campaigns initiated by public or non-governmental actors were selected. However, in some of the selected campaigns, there was some collaboration between public and commercial actors, which is very common in these types of campaigns (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2017). This step resulted in identifying a total of 14 food waste campaigns: eight from Finland and six from Sweden. The campaigns included a variety of different kinds of campaign materials. Each of the campaigns had a specific emphasis, but they all aimed to reduce food waste and targeted, either directly or indirectly, consumers and households. Campaign materials included posters, social media postings, videos, texts, logos, websites, tweets and social media shares. All of the selected campaigns had different kinds of visual materials. In the third step, these visual materials were collected online, through Google picture searches and campaigns’ websites and/ or social media accounts. The third and final step in the data gathering process resulted in the collection of 91 visual campaign materials (Table 9.1).

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     235 Table 9.1  Description of data Campaign name

Country

Analysed materials (published 2012–2018)

Bäst Före 2017 (Best before 2017) Hävikkiviikko (Waste week) Matsvinnet.se (Foodwaste.se) Ota iisisti (Take it easy) Ruokaa vai roskaa (Food or waste) Ruokahukka ruotuun (Food loss into order) Ruokarahaa kuin roskaa (Grocery money as waste) as a part of “Do you pay it forward” campaign Rätt i Påsen (Right in the bag) Saa syödä (Can eat) Släng inte maten (Don’t waste food) Stoppa matsvinnet (Stop food waste) Svinnkampen (Waste fight) Tähteitä nolla (Zero leftovers) Ät upp maten (Eat up food)

Sweden Finland Sweden Finland Finland Finland Finland

8 32 2 4 1 5 3

Sweden Finland Sweden Sweden Finland Finland Sweden

1 3 9 2 10 9 2

Research on Visual Materials and Data Analysis In this research, the campaigns’ visual materials are viewed as social marketing advertisements, and data is analysed from a cultural marketing perspective (Moisander and Valtonen 2006). The visual food waste campaign materials are seen as both carriers and producers of meanings that participate in the process of constructing and/or maintaining a social reality around the issue of food waste and food waste reduction. The analysis method draws inspiration from semiotic analysis, which emphasises signs and their meanings. In this study, semiotic analysis is used to study the signs in the material and figure out the meanings carried by these signs and the logic behind them (Ball and Smith 1992). Ferdinand de Saussure (1974) is the founding father of semiotic approach, also called as the science of signs; signs bring together an image/word (signifier) and a concept (signified) (Silverman 2014). Another well-known semiotic researcher, Barthes (1964), extends this idea by introducing two layers of meaning: denotation and connotation. For instance, a picture of a bed on a road sign (signifier) denotes an

236     U.-M. Sutinen

accommodation by the road. However, this type of roadside accommodation can have several connotations such as a place for rest or a dirty roadside motel. The connotation cannot be separated from the viewer’s sociocultural or personal characteristics (Fiske 1990). In addition to images, several campaign materials also included ­textual elements. The significance of the text varied; in some cases, the text had a very central, dominating role, and in some other materials, the text was used as an anchor that positioned the picture in a certain paradigm and instilled the picture with the desired connotation (see, e.g., Barthes 1964). For instance, the text provided an explanation of why a certain picture was brought into the context of food waste. When analysing the textual elements within the materials, also the tone (for instance, command versus neutral) of the text was analysed as a sign ­signifying a particular meaning. In this study, the food waste campaign materials were regarded as “assemblages of signs”, as advertisements are often approached from the cultural perspective (Moisander and Valtonen 2006). Thus, each visual material is a composition of different signs that are connected to certain sociocultural meanings. The analysis progressed through three stages. In the first stage, the materials were carefully and thoroughly reviewed to establish familiarity with and a general understanding of the data. In the second stage, each visual material was analysed separately with the help of analytic tools inspired by semiotics (see, e.g., Rose 2016). During the third stage, all the identified meanings were grouped together, and special emphasis was placed on the meanings’ connections to the portrayal of food waste and the consumer in the materials. The last stage of analysis and interpretation led to the identification of six different assumptions about consumers. To illustrate the campaign materials without compromising any copyright issues, mock campaign posters were created to reflect each assumption about consumers. First, the author sketched out these illustrations on the basis of the analysis, and then a professional graphic designer, Kaisa Eskola, designed the final illustrations. These illustrations are positioned within the next section of the chapter, which presents the findings.

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     237

Findings: Assumptions About Consumers in Campaign Materials The intensive analysis and interpretation resulted in the identification of six assumptions about consumers in campaign materials. Three of the assumptions are strongly connected to the assumed orientation of the consumer (i.e. how consumers are seen to be driven), and the other three assumptions are related to the assumed agency of consumers (i.e. how capable consumers are seen to be). There was a rather large variance in the data since the campaigns had different perspectives and approached the issue from different angles; however, several recurring themes were identified. One intriguing notion was that despite the consumer-driven focus of the campaigns, the consumer is not actually portrayed in the majority of the campaign materials. There are few exceptions where the face or the body of a person is portrayed, but most of the materials consist of pictures of food products and other items related to food, such as cooking equipment. The dominating absence of a human made the last analysis stage focusing on the portrayal of the consumer very interesting but also challenging. The main findings of the study—the six assumptions about consumers—are presented in the following.

Assumptions Related to the Orientation of Consumers Economical consumer. Some of the analysed campaign materials carry the assumption that consumers are driven by money-related issues. The visual materials carrying this assumption focus strongly on the current situation regarding food waste, for instance how much money is wasted yearly. The campaign materials include signs such as banknotes, coins, shopping lists, grocery bags, trucks, numbers, roller coasters and trash bins. Banknotes and coins reflect the direct meaning of money and spending. However, some of the identified signs also carry meanings related to the extent of the food waste problem. For instance, a picture of several grocery bags shows the volume of the wasted food in a

238     U.-M. Sutinen

concrete manner. Not only do the pictures convey meaning, but also the text in the campaign materials includes provocative messages such as “Grocery money as trash?” (“Grocery money as waste” campaign) and “Household food waste takes 125 euros from the wallets of Finnish people each year” (“Food loss into order” campaign). Positioning money-related signs in the context of food waste conveys a strong message of food waste as a waste of finances. The campaign materials have illustrations of food being thrown into the garbage along with money (as in Fig. 9.2), which can be seen as an extreme way to illustrate the point. In one campaign material, the issue of food waste is depicted as an amusement park, reflecting abundance. Conflicts between the signs, their meanings in the pictures and their context in food waste highlighted the absurdity of wasting food from an economical perspective. The visual campaign materials contest certain cultural conceptions such as the appreciation of money, food as a valuable

Fig. 9.2  Economical consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola)

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     239

resource and the ability to handle money wisely (for more discussion on the Finnish ethos of economism, see Huttunen and Autio 2010). By highlighting the severity of the current food waste situation and portraying food waste as excessive and a waste of money, these campaign materials convey a strong assumption of the consumer as economical. Environmental consumer. Some of the campaign materials reflect the assumption of the environmental consumer. Similarly to the campaign materials that assume an economical consumer, these campaign materials also focus on the current problem with food waste. However, the difference here is that the food waste is portrayed as a waste of resources from an environmental perspective and the materials highlight issues such as environmental consequences and emissions. The campaign materials include signs such as green arrows, cars, houses, food products, numbers, green colour, packages and water. The textual elements within the campaign materials provide facts about the environmental consequences such as “the environmental effect of throwing away one slice of ham is larger than the environmental effects of producing one package of ham” (“Take it easy” campaign). In these campaign materials, the environmental consequences of food waste are in many cases compared to other types of pollutants such as cars, plastic packages and factories, which are often in the centre of environment discussion. The negative environmental consequences of one’s actions are usually difficult to understand because they are not connected to the present moment but are often a matter of the future, and related issues such as CO2 emissions or climate effects are not visible. Hence, a picture of a car or several cars in the context of food waste illustrate that food waste causes high pollution rates and is environmentally unfriendly (as in Fig. 9.3). Some of the campaign materials also include signs with more positive meanings. For instance, one of the analysed materials includes a campaign logo of a plate, knife and fork, as well as green arrows on the plate. The arrows refer to recycling and the circular economy, both of which have very positive connotations in today’s society. Through this visual design, the material proposes that reducing food waste can cause the consumer to be perceived as pro-environmental. By illustrating the negative environmental consequences of food waste in a concrete manner and depicting decreases in food waste

240     U.-M. Sutinen

Fig. 9.3  Environmental consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola)

with as environmentally friendly, these campaign materials assume that the consumer cares about as well as is motivated by environmental issues. Ethical consumer. The third assumption identified in the campaign materials was the ethical consumer. Here, the word “ethical” refers to moral principles of right and wrong (Cambridge University Press 2018). Although everyone has their own perception of what is right or wrong, a person’s social environment has a significant impact on these perceptions. The campaign materials carrying this assumption emphasise food waste as morally wrong and champion reducing food waste as the right thing to do. The campaign materials reflecting this assumption vary quite widely and include different ways to illustrate this assumption. The signs identified in the campaign materials include, for instance, different food products, faces, trash bins and bags, kitchen appliances, plates and human eyes and mouths. In addition, the word “right” and similar

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     241

variants are repeated. In addition, mentions about consumers suffering from hunger were identified. The majority of the campaign materials reflecting this assumption include anthropomorphised food products. Products such as eggs, lemons and milk are given human eyes and mouths. By giving faces and voices to food products, the campaign materials connect the potential leftover food with human feelings and thoughts (as in Fig. 9.4). Although some of the campaign materials carry a rather lecturing tone, a more positive approach was also identified. For instance, in one campaign material that includes a cartoon, food products are having a conversation about “good” or “heroic” consumers who made exactly the right amount of food for a party so that there were no leftovers. In addition to humanising food products, some campaign materials bring up the reality of people starving in other parts of the world. This suggests the virtuous “duty” of the wealthy well-fed citizens to take care

Fig. 9.4  Ethical consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola)

242     U.-M. Sutinen

of the underprivileged, an idea that is strongly rooted in the social system of Nordic countries. The campaign materials carrying the assumption of ethical consumer have a lot to do with the conceptions of right and wrong. By assuming that the consumers behave according to their moral principles and norms, the campaign materials include several signs and meanings intensifying the idea of “wrongness” and the immorality of wasting food and attempt to evoke strong emotions by appealing to the consumer’s moral principles.

Elaborating on the Orientation-Related Assumptions The campaign materials assume that the consumer is driven by economical, environmental and/or ethical influences. The materials vary in their overall orientation towards the issue of food waste, thus answering the question of how consumers are assumed to be driven. One of the reasons food waste is considered to be a “wicked problem” can be traced back to its multidimensional nature, in connection with economic, environmental and social problems (see, e.g., Papargylopoulou et al. 2014). As the issue of food waste can be approached from multiple viewpoints, also the orientations of the consumers can vary. Table 9.2 summarises the identified assumptions related to consumer orientation and drive. The identified assumptions are reflected with the help of the two research questions: “How is food waste portrayed?” and “How is the consumer portrayed?”

Table 9.2  Assumptions related to orientation Assumption

Food waste as …

Economical consumer A waste of money Environmental consumer An environmental problem Ethical consumer

Wrong or bad

Consumer as … Rational money saver Responsible for the environmental consequences Ethical actor who cares about food and others

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     243

Assumptions About the Consumer Related to Agency Childlike consumer. It was identified that certain campaign materials reflect the assumption of childlike consumers who have limited agency and capability to change their behaviour. The signs of this assumption include plates, trashcans, chefs, people, police and anthropomorphised food products and animals. The campaigns’ text uses different tones including commands such as “take as much as you can eat” (“Zero leftovers” campaign) as well as jokes and wordplays (not always even related to the issue of food waste). Two broader meaning categories were identified in the campaign materials carrying this assumption. First, there are signs that reflect some kind of an authority. The materials include commands or direct guidelines, such as how much food one should put on their plate. In this way, the materials act as authority figure that has the power to tell consumers what they should do. Explanations of “why” are absent. The other broader meaning is connected to the “active agents” in the campaign materials. Some of the materials portray anthropomorphised food products or animals that act like human beings. This kind of representation resembles children’s books, which often tell stories with anthropomorphised animals as main characters. Furthermore, the materials include amusing elements (jokes and wordplays) similar to children’s books and shows (as in Fig. 9.5). These campaign materials reflect the assumption of a naive, reactive childlike consumer. The consumer is treated as though they will change their behaviour regarding food waste based on what they are told to do or with the help of a funny story. Uninformed consumer. The uninformed consumer refers to the assumption that consumers do not know enough about the issue of food waste. The focus is strongly on the current food waste situation and the consequences of it. These campaign materials include signs such as numbers, infographics, food products, trash bins and trash bags. The tone is quite neutral and the focus is on the facts such as “every tenth piece of bread, potato or fruit ends up in waste” (“Waste week” campaign) or questions such as “Do you know what the best before date means?” (“Best before 2017” campaign).

244     U.-M. Sutinen

Fig. 9.5  Childlike consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola)

Textual elements play a central role in these campaign materials. Sometimes the picture, an apple for instance, is depicted in the background while the text constitutes the most important part of the campaign material (as in Fig. 9.6). The presented numbers and percentages highlight meanings related to the severity of the food waste situation. The textual elements’ neutral tone used in the materials also reflects a “news-like” approach of sharing facts. The campaign materials reflect the assumption that consumers are not aware of the real quantities or consequences of food waste and just need more information in order to change their behaviour. Most of the materials do not give much information on what could or should be done differently. Active consumer. The sixth and the final assumption identified in the campaign materials is the active consumer. The campaign materials reflecting this assumption portray the consumer as capable of and motivated to change their behaviour if the tools and inspiration for

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     245

Fig. 9.6  Uninformed consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola)

change are provided. The signs within these campaign materials include food products, pictures of consumers, dishes and human hands. The textual elements within these campaign materials consist of recipes, concrete tips on reducing food waste, that is, “using clean spoons in jars lengthens the life of pesto, olives and salsa et cetera” (“Don’t waste food” campaign) and inspirational quotes directed at consumers such as “be creative, challenge yourself and acquire cooking skills” (“Waste fight” campaign). The signs are connected to the concrete actions of what the consumer could do to reduce food waste. Overall, the campaign materials reflecting this assumption convey fairly positive meanings related to the appreciation of food and active, motivated nature of the consumer. The materials focus on the possibilities of future action instead of the current situation or the negative consequences of food waste (as in Fig. 9.7). The portrayal of potential food waste in a positive light,

246     U.-M. Sutinen

Fig. 9.7  Active consumer: A mock-up campaign poster (illustration by Kaisa Eskola)

emphasising the beauty and aesthetics of leftover food, can also be seen as a renegotiation of the typically negative connotations of food waste. This assumption that consumers are active and involved is strongly connected to the consumers’ concrete behaviour and focuses on how they can reduce food waste in their everyday life. In addition, this assumption is connected to broader sociocultural meanings regarding food waste and food waste reduction. Consumers are assumed to change their behaviour related to food waste when inspired and motivated, and broader sociocultural meanings around the issue make the tone and portrayal more positive.

Summarising Agency-Related Assumptions Childlike, uninformed and active consumers differ from each other in their assumed level of agency. The level of agency here refers to the

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     247 Table 9.3  Assumptions related to agency Assumption

Food waste as …

Consumer as …

Childlike consumer Uninformed consumer

Not allowed A significant problem

Active consumer

An opportunity

A reactive actor Unaware of the consequences and amount of food waste Eager to “take charge” if given the right resources

ability to act in order to reduce food waste. While the orientationrelated assumptions focused on how consumers are seen to be driven, the agency-related assumptions reflect the capabilities and knowledge level of the consumers. Table 9.3 illustrates the assumptions by focusing on the two research questions “How is food waste portrayed?” and “How is the consumer portrayed?”

Discussion: Tracing the Foundations of the Identified Assumptions As the findings suggest, the analysed visual campaign materials reflect different kinds of assumptions about consumers as viewed from two perspectives: orientation and agency. Although these six assumptions are introduced by highlighting their specific features, it is important to remember that these assumptions also overlap. The assumptions do not necessarily rule each other out, but sometimes even complement one another. For instance, the assumption of the uninformed consumer was often identified along with the assumption of the economical or environmental consumer. However, the assumptions of the childlike consumer and the active consumer were not identified in the same materials since their overall idea of agency is so different. Some assumptions pair better with other because of their theoretical foundations, as each assumption can be viewed in the light of the broader theoretical approaches to consumer behaviour change reviewed in the second section of this chapter. The assumptions of an economical, environmental and uninformed consumer can be seen as following the cognitive approach to consumer

248     U.-M. Sutinen

behaviour change. These assumptions rely strongly on the thinking ­process happening inside consumers’ heads and the consumers’ rationality in making a change in their behaviour after receiving new information. By emphasising facts about the current food waste situation, either from a financial or environmental perspective, the consumers’ capability to change is taken for granted. The effectiveness of this approach and the consumer assumptions it reflects, however, have raised concern. Especially among Western consumers, it can be argued that consumers are well-informed about the environmental, social and economic issues around food waste (Evans 2012). However, the consumers’ knowledge has not lowered levels of consumer food waste in the developed countries. The assumption of an ethical consumer can be connected to the affective approach. Emotional appeals (both negative and positive) often play a significant role in social marketing campaigns (Hastings et al. 2004). However, as discovered in earlier research, wasting food is already connected with feelings of guilt; therefore, evoking guilt and other negative emotions might not lead to the desired outcome when it comes to food waste reduction (Evans 2012; Gjerris and Gaiani 2013). The conative approach, on the other hand, is connected to the assumption of a childlike consumer (particularly the campaign materials carrying authoritative meanings). The conative approach has been criticised due to its “paternalistic” ideas of policymakers and marketers as “nudging” consumers towards a desired outcome (see, e.g., Hausman and Welch 2010). It is important to take this criticism into consideration when choosing to implement the conative approach in a campaign. The sixth assumption, an active consumer, is slightly more challenging to connect with the broader approaches to consumer behaviour change in social marketing. The assumption focuses not only on the behaviour of the consumer—following the conative approach—but can also be traced back to the sociocultural approach. For instance, in representing the skills, meanings and materials around food waste reduction, this assumption can be viewed through the practice-theoretical lens of behaviour (see, e.g., Närvänen et al. 2016). It can be argued that the assumption of an active consumer takes a shift up from the individual level to everyday societal practices and sociocultural meanings around

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     249

the issue. The importance of positive sociocultural meanings around food waste and the agency of the consumer have also been introduced in earlier literature. In their article, Närvänen et al. (2018) suggest that taking a more positive stance towards food waste and food waste reduction, and also providing space for consumers to participate and contribute to the discussion, could offer fruitful way to create novel ways to approach food waste reduction through campaigns and initiatives. Building upon different theoretical approaches to consumer behaviour change, the identified assumptions about consumers reflect certain ideas of how consumers can or should act. For instance, the varying assumptions related to consumers’ agency allow different kind of space for human action. For instance, the assumption of a childlike consumer does not take into consideration the consumers’ willingness to think by themselves and make decisions without persuasion. The assumption of an uninformed consumer, however, speaks to the consumers’ rational side and does not attempt to provoke action based on feelings or the social environment.

Conclusions The purpose of the research was to identify and analyse assumptions about consumers in food waste reduction campaign materials. As a result of intensive analysis and interpretation, six main assumptions were identified. The identified assumptions reflected either the assumed orientation of consumers or the assumed agency of consumers. These assumptions also reflected different theoretical approaches to consumer behaviour change adopted in social marketing research. Although initiatives and campaigns have gained increased interest among food waste researchers (see, e.g., Principato 2018; AschemannWitzel et al. 2017), their focus has differed from the purpose of this study. Instead of focusing on the characteristics or aims of the campaigns, this research has taken a closer look at the visual materials of different campaigns and has emphasised the consumer, the target of the campaign materials. Taking a close look at the visual campaign materials, it was possible to identify different assumptions reflected by them.

250     U.-M. Sutinen

The assumptions about consumers have not previously been evaluated within food waste literature although the assumptions are directly connected to the ways in which consumers can be persuaded to change their behaviour. The findings of this research reflect an emphasis on the cognitive approach that focuses on the rational perspective of consumer, an approach that is typical of social marketing research (see, e.g., Brennan et al. 2014; Spotswood and Tapp 2013). However, as the findings from previous research show, the problem of consumer food waste is seldom connected to the lack of knowledge (see, e.g., Evans 2012). Thus, other perspectives and approaches are needed in order to facilitate change. To date, food waste reduction has remained a narrowly researched phenomenon within social marketing with few exceptions (e.g. Pearson and Perera 2018). By drawing on theoretical foundations of social marketing and consumer behaviour change, this research contributes to this under-researched area and highlights recent food waste campaigns’ approaches to consumer behaviour change. This research illustrates how each visual material, even if small, aimed at reducing consumer food waste can carry several meanings that reflect different kinds of assumptions about consumers. Following the constructionist perspective, these kinds of recurring assumptions about consumers shape the reality around the food waste issue and steer the consumer’s position in the fight against food waste.

Implications for Food Waste Campaign Initiators In addition to its contribution to academia, the purpose of this chapter was also to provide “food for thought” for practitioners. Both the assumed orientation of the consumer and the agency of the consumer should be critically evaluated when establishing any type of new initiative or campaign targeted at consumers. Different assumptions arise from different perspectives on consumer behaviour change, all of which having their strengths and weaknesses. Instead of copying ideas from existing campaigns, each initiator should think about their own perspectives and more detailed aims. For instance, while price-centric

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     251

consumers typically report low levels of food waste (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2018), grounding the entire food waste initiative in the assumption of an economical consumer may not turn out to be very successful. Furthermore, it is important for campaign initiators to know and understand their target audiences. The power, the sources of information and media literacy of consumers are currently better than ever before. Although many of the campaign materials analysed in this study did not include direct representations of the consumer, it was possible to make conclusions about the assumptions of the consumer beyond the campaign material by identifying their different signs, meanings and their connotations. Conveying strong assumptions about consumers can easily raise neglection or even resistance towards the issue if consumers do not feel related to the assumption. As has been suggested in previous research, initiators should understand consumers as a heterogeneous group of people with differing standpoints on food waste; to effectively approach different groups of consumers, the initiator should adopt different strategies and viewpoints on behaviour change (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2018). The underlying reasons for food waste are very complex and connected to different issues. It is easy to say that the problem will be solved when consumers stop wasting food. However, it is not enough that consumers are simply told to stop wasting food or told that wasting is wrong. There is a plenty of research focused on the causes of consumer food waste (see, e.g., Evans 2011, 2012), and some research has also been interested in the ways consumers have been able to reduce food waste (see, e.g., Närvänen et al. 2016; Mattila et al. 2018). These studies offer fruitful foundations for campaign initiators in planning and anchoring their campaigns.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research The findings of this research are based on food waste campaign materials published in Finland and Sweden, so it is important to notice that certain themes and issues elaborated here may be strongly related to Finnish and Swedish cultural contexts. The assumptions about

252     U.-M. Sutinen

consumers might look different if the same type of data was collected and/or analysed in another cultural context. Furthermore, due to the analysis method, the data utilised in this research consisted only of visual materials for food waste campaigns that were available online. This means that the analysis did not reach the multiple events, videos or websites connected to these food waste initiatives. If other materials were also included in the data, more assumptions might have been identified. This research did not focus on the specific target audiences of the analysed campaign materials. However, different assumptions are likely to resonate with different groups of people so it is possible that the campaign materials reflecting a certain assumption have targeted a specific segment of consumers. This research opens up several avenues for future research, both within food waste research and social marketing. Future research could explore the assumptions about consumers viewed from the consumers’ perspective by interviewing a group of consumers, for instance, using photo elicitation techniques (see, e.g., Harper 2002). While the success of different kinds of social marketing programs is difficult to measure, this kind of approach could offer rich, qualitative information about how consumers feel about or relate to different types of assumptions. A greater focus on the entire journey of a food waste campaign from the founding idea to the final outcome could also offer interesting insights about the ways in which the idea and assumptions change during the process through negotiations among different actors such as campaign planners, campaign designers and coordinators.

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I. E., Almli, V. L., & Oostindjer, M. (2018). Fine-tuning the fight against food waste. Journal of Macromarketing, 38(2), 168–184.

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     253

Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I. E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M. B., Grønhøj, A., et al. (2017). Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste—A multiple case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 33–45. Ball, M. S., & Smith, G. W. (1992). Analyzing visual data. London: Sage. Barthes, R. (1964). Elements of semiotics. London: Cape. Block, L. G., Keller, P. A., Vallen, B., Williamson, S., Birau, M. M., Grinstein, A., et al. (2016). The squander sequence: Understanding food waste at each stage of the consumer decision-making process. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 292–304. Brennan, L., & Binney, W. (2010). Fear, guilt, and shame appeals in social marketing. Journal of Business Research, 63(2), 140–146. Brennan, L., Binney, W., Parker, L., Aleti, T., & Nguyen, D. (Eds.). (2014). Social marketing and behaviour change: Models, theory and applications. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Brennan, L., Previte, J., & Fry, M. L. (2016). Social marketing’s consumer myopia: Applying a behavioural ecological model to address wicked problems. Journal of Social Marketing, 6(3), 219–239. Calvo-Porral, C., Medín, A. F., & Losada-López, C. (2017). Can marketing help in tackling food waste? Proposals in developed countries. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 23(1), 42–60. Cambridge University Press. (2018). Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary & thesaurus. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ethical. Accessed on 11.3.2019. Cooremans, K., & Geuens, M. (2019). Same but different: Using anthropomorphism in the battle against food waste. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915619827941. Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2015). Qualitative methods in business research: A practical guide to social research. London: Sage. Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the consumer—Once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429–440. Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56. Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to communication studies. London: Routledge. Gjerris, M., & Gaiani, S. (2013). Household food waste in Nordic countries: Estimations and ethical implications. Etikk i praksis-Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 7(1), 6–23.

254     U.-M. Sutinen

Götz, N. (2003). Norden: Structures that do not make a region. European Review of History: Revue Europeenne D’Histoire, 10(2), 323–341. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26. Hastings, G., & Angus, K. (2011). When is social marketing not social marketing? Journal of Social Marketing, 1(1), 45–53. Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology & Marketing, 21(11), 961–986. Hausman, D. M., & Welch, B. (2010). Debate: To nudge or not to nudge. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 123–136. Henley, N., Donovan, R. J., & Moorhead, H. (1998). Appealing to positive motivations and emotions in social marketing: Example of a positive parenting campaign. Social Marketing Quarterly, 4(4), 48–53. Huttunen, K., & Autio, M. (2010). Consumer ethoses in Finnish consumer life stories—Agrarianism, economism and green consumerism. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(2), 146–152. iSMA. (2013). Consensus definition of social marketing. International Social Marketing Association (iSMA), European Social Marketing Association (ESMA), & Australian Association of Social Marketing (AASM). http:// www.i-socialmarketing.org/assets/social_marketing_definition.pdf. Accessed on 11.3.2019. Justesen, L. N., & Mik-Meyer, N. (2012). Qualitative research methods in organisation studies. Copenhagen: Hanz Reitzels Verlag. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, XVLII, 263–291. Kotler, P., Roberto, N., & Lee, N. (2002). Social marketing: Improving the quality of life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lefebvre, R. C. (2011). An integrative model for social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(1), 54–72. Lefebvre, R. C. (2013). Social marketing and social change: Strategies and tools for improving health, well-being, and the environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mattila, M., Mesiranta, N., Närvänen, E., Koskinen, O., & Sutinen, U.-M. (2018). Dances with potential food waste: Organising temporality in food waste reduction practices. Time & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/09614 63X18784123.

9  Assumptions About Consumers in Food Waste Campaigns …     255

McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2011). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Moisander, J., & Valtonen, A. (2006). Qualitative marketing research: A cultural approach. London: Sage. Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., & Hukkanen, A. (2016). The quest for an empty fridge. In B. Cappellini, D. Marshall, & E. Parsons (Eds.), The practice of the meal: Food, families and the market place (pp. 208–219). Abingdon: Routledge. Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., Sutinen, U.-M., & Mattila, M. (2018). Creativity, aesthetics and ethics of food waste in social media campaigns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 102–110. Papargylopoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Management, 35, 207–217. Parkinson, J., Russell-Bennett, R., & Previte, J. (2018). Challenging the planned behavior approach in social marketing: Emotion and experience matter. European Journal of Marketing, 52(3/4), 837–865. Pearson, D., & Perera, A. (2018). Reducing food waste: A practitioner guide identifying requirements for an integrated social marketing communication campaign. Social Marketing Quarterly, 24(1), 45–57. Polonsky, M. J. (2017). The role of corporate social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing, 7(3), 268–279. Porpino, G. (2016). Household food waste behavior: Avenues for future research. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), 41–51. Principato, L. (2018). Food waste at consumer level: A comprehensive literature review. New York, NY: Springer. Quested, T., & Parry, A. (2017). Household food waste in the UK, 2015. Banbury: Waste and Resources Action Programme. Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage. Rundle-Thiele, S., David, P., Willmott, T., Pang, B., Eagle, L., & Hay, R. (2019). Social marketing theory development goals: An agenda to drive change. Journal of Marketing Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/02672 57X.2018.1559871.

256     U.-M. Sutinen

de Saussure, F. (1974) (1st edition 1916). Course in general linguistics. London: Fontana. Schroeder, J. E. (2002). Visual consumption. London: Routledge. Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage. Spotswood, F., Chatterton, T., Morey, Y., & Spear, S. (2017). Practicetheoretical possibilities for social marketing: Two fields learning from each other. Journal of Social Marketing, 7(2), 156–171. Spotswood, F., French, J., Tapp, A., & Stead, M. (2012). Some reasonable but uncomfortable questions about social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing, 2(3), 163–175. Spotswood, F., & Tapp, A. (2013). Beyond persuasion: A cultural perspective of behaviour. Journal of Social Marketing, 3(3), 275–294. Stenmarck, A., Jensen, C., Quested, T., & Moates, G. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. Stockholm: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. http://eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/ Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste%20levels.pdf. Accessed on 11.3.2019. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Truong, V. D. (2014). Social marketing: A systematic review of research 1998– 2012. Social Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 15–34. Vihalemm, T., Keller, M., & Kiisel, M. (2016). From intervention to social change: A guide to reshaping everyday practices. London: Routledge. Wymer, W. (2011). Developing more effective social marketing strategies. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(1), 17–31.

10 From Scarcity to Abundance: Food Waste Themes and Virtues in Agrarian and Mature Consumer Society Outi Uusitalo and Tuomo Takala

Introduction Food waste is a severe problem with economic, ecological, social and ethical consequences. Excess food and leftovers arise in the food chain unavoidably, but wasted food has become a critical issue and a recognised problem in recent decades. Numerous international initiatives to address this problem have been launched (Abdelradi 2018), indicating that avoidance of food waste can be achieved with successful and urgent intervention and solutions from those in power (Filimonau and Gherbin 2017). The food waste problem often is attributed mainly to consumers’ purchasing habits and consumption patterns (Van Doorn 2016), socio-demographic factors, situational factors (poor skills, lack O. Uusitalo (*) · T. Takala  School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] T. Takala e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_10

257

258     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

of planning, etc.), retail and marketing stimuli, behavioural and cultural factors and food industry procedures (Porpino 2016). While these reasons are obvious in explaining consumers’ everyday food behaviours and food chain actors’ practices, little attention has been paid to the socio-philosophical and ethical issues that may underlie consumers, retailers and food industry actors’ food waste behaviours. Food waste, as a societal phenomenon, refers to the economic, social and environmental consequences of food produced, but not consumed. It is a sustainability issue, because the wasted food affects local, global and future stakeholders’ well-being (Becker 2017). This chapter’s objective is to broaden the understanding of food waste and its relationship to societal themes, with a particular emphasis on how virtues related to food waste practices have manifested themselves in agrarian and mature consumer society. As a societal and ethical issue, food waste refers to food institutions, business sectors and consumers’ duties and responsibilities. Extant academic food waste research has addressed the problem in relation to corporate social responsibility (CSR), for example, Devin and Richards’ (2018) research indicating that sustainable practices often are conducted for the sake of CSR reporting, rather than for moral reasons. Likewise, food waste responsibility in the production-consumption system has been examined (Welch et al. 2018), including analysis of institutional norms and rules’ roles in food ecosystems, spotlighting the existence of ethical issues inherent in food waste and food waste prevention (Baron et al. 2018). The issue of food waste is also connected inherently with societal values and ideals, but ethical principles such as values and virtues as guidelines to behaviour have been rarely discussed in extant literature. To suggest ideas on how to understand and deal with the food waste problem, it is necessary to analyse food waste as a societal problem, in addition to a consumption phenomenon. Examining virtues, as well as the values linked to them, and practices through which virtues are enacted, can provide important insights and justifications for making food waste avoidance a viable goal.

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     259

While virtues have been discussed broadly in extant philosophicalethics literature, we draw on the Aristotelian view, which regards virtues as personal characteristics and traits that lead a person to adopt good practices that become inherent behaviours in all situations (Airaksinen 1993, p. 230). The virtue ethics perspective allows us to broaden the ethical discussion around food waste beyond social responsibility reporting and food chain actors’ functional roles and practices. In the present study, we analysed media texts from Finland covering two time periods, agrarian society (1885–1917) and mature consumer society (2008–2017), to examine understanding of food waste and these periods’ parallels and divergences in this regard. The study uncovers how ethical principles can underpin our understanding of the food waste phenomenon, and how virtues that food chain actors assume can guide their practices towards more sustainable ways of handling excess food. This approach contributes to understanding of food waste by showing how traditional, deep-rooted conceptions and assumptions about standards of excellence, that is, what is considered good or bad, underlie the ways in which excess food has been discussed during different time periods, and what kinds of solutions are offered to deal with the problem. Many of the agrarian conceptions observed in the present study also underlie moral discussions on food waste today. However, new food waste themes have emerged as modern technology, innovative business models, and empowered consumers have created novel solutions to food waste. This article is structured as follows. First, we review extant literature on ethical principles and especially virtue ethics. After that, we discuss the manifestation of virtue ethics in food waste management in the food chain. We then present our empirical data collection and analysis procedures. Subsequently, we explore and discuss the themes describing food waste in different time periods. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of how new insights gained by applying virtues rooted in ethics provide the foundation for developing and implementing food waste prevention policies and practices in food chain actors’ daily lives.

260     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

Conceptual Framework Virtue Ethics in Classical Ethical Theories We draw our reasoning concerning the role of virtues in food waste from extant literature on business ethics, which has recognised and discussed various ethical approaches, such as deontological (duty-based), utilitarian, contract-based and virtue ethics (Kamtekar 2004; Velasquez 1998). Traditional virtues, such as gratitude, friendliness, forgiveness, mercy and love, are values to which people always will aspire. The virtue ethics perspective offers a practical approach to applying philosophical principles to everyday problems, such as food—namely how common virtues are connected to the food waste problem and its solutions (Solomon 2003). Classical ethical theories—that is, Platonism, Aristotelianism and Stoicism—are value-objectivistic and teleological. They are based on the view that human actions are intentional and that a person makes decisions to reach goals. Virtue ethics derives from teleological ethical theory, which considers values from a teleological perspective, for example, human actions’ ends are the most important. Thus, it is a branch of value ethics. Consequences of actions are stressed when evaluating whether an act or rule is good or bad (Juurikkala 2012). Virtue ethics shifts the analytical emphasis away from rule-based decision-making (deontological ethics) or consequences of actions (e.g. utilitarianism) towards the ethics of individuals and human character. For example, where a utilitarian would argue that giving to charity maximises societal well-being, and a deontologist would argue that we have a duty to help others, a virtue ethicist would point to the fact that helping others displays desirable virtues, such as being charitable or benevolent. Other desirable virtues include honesty, courage, friendship, mercy, loyalty, modesty and patience (e.g. Brandt 1959, p. 470). Duty ethics (e.g. Kantianism), the second major ethics theory, differs from teleological virtue ethics. We can say that a duty to do something is a more demanding term or order than a wish to be a virtuous person. Virtue is more like a good-minded feature by its nature, and virtue ethics offers a hopeful line of action, instead of strict rules inherent in duty

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     261

ethics. Value ethics assumes that value is a basic term to obey and seek. For example, happiness is a value to seek, but is happiness a virtue? Not necessarily. Whereas virtues can be values, like honesty, all values are not virtues. However, it is clear that overlap exists among values, virtues and vices, understood as empirical phenomena. Moreover, our conventional language usage often confuses these terms’ meanings (Takala 2012). No simple way to classify all virtues exists. We suggest, based on Velasquez (1998, p. 138), that some dispositions can be classified as “instrumental virtues”, which enable people to pursue their goals effectively as individuals (e.g. persistence, carefulness, determination, transparency) or as part of a group (e.g. cooperativeness). Other virtues are “non-instrumental” because they are desirable for their own sake (e.g. integrity, fairness, trust, respect, empathy, benevolence), that is, basic virtues (Takala 2012, p. 58). Some virtues are cognitive and comprise understanding moral requirements for ourselves and others. All humans need to maintain common trust, which is regarded as a basic value of human life and, thus, a basic virtue. The virtue of integrity refers to a set of features that an individual may possess; thus, it is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles (Juurikkala 2012). It is a personal choice to hold oneself to standards consistently (Harman 1999). The virtue of benevolence inclines one to maximise people’s happiness. The virtue of respect for others inclines one to exercise consideration for individuals’ rights. The virtue of fairness inclines one to behave according to the principles of justice, and the virtue of empathy inclines one to live up to tenets of care (Velasquez 1998, p. 138). Theories that elaborate further on virtue ethics include Aristotelian classic virtues (Aristotle 1980), MacIntyre’s (1981) “after virtue” thinking and various classifications concerning professional virtues (Brandt 1959; Dent 1984; Foot 1978; Solomon 2004) and business virtues (Velasquez 1998). Importantly, MacIntyre recommends applying the Aristotelian virtue of aiming to realise proper goals in life. Finally, one traditional virtue can be recognised that is common to all people: integrity (Airaksinen 1993, p. 249; Solomon 2003). Virtue ethics looks at moral issues from a different perspective than action-based ethics that concerns individuals’ actions instead of moral rules. However, virtue ethics’ conclusions will not differ radically from

262     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

those of action-based ethics. Some virtues are correlated with utilitarianism (e.g. benevolence), rights (e.g. respect), justice and caring. Thus, instead of replacing other streams of ethics, virtues provide an additional perspective to, for example, Kantianism or utilitarianism (Juurikkala 2012; Velasquez 1998). Virtue ethics theory provides a criterion for evaluating consumers and business actors’ actions, as well as social institutions and practices. For example, we can pose arguments that some economic institutions make people greedy, that large bureaucratic organisations make people less responsible and that some corporations do not treat their customers fairly. All such arguments evaluate institutions and practices on the basis of the theory of virtues. These arguments concerning organisations appeal to the idea that institutions are defective morally when they tend to form ethically acceptable practices (Alzola 2017; Velasquez 1998). In common business realms, institutional (ideal) virtues can be quite similar to those expressed in ordinary people’s everyday lives. Good business behaviour, benevolence, integrity and respect for stakeholders are all present in ideal business practices. However, a business goal to make more and more profit could lead to vices, rather than virtuous behaviour. The important characteristic of virtues is that they are learned entities and are a kind of “automatic” feature in an acting subject. Regarding food waste, this means that avoiding waste generating actions and practices should be “in the backbone” of the acting subject. Thus, virtues surface automatically in consumption situations, so avoiding waste does not require case-by-case reflection. This concerns both individuals and institutions (Airaksinen 1993).

Virtue Ethics in Food Waste Management Food Chain Actors’ Waste Management Practices One way to consider food waste is to contemplate food waste management practices in food chain organisations and consumers’ everyday lives. Food waste reduction is a strategic issue within many retail chains that have established systematic food waste management practices and

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     263

effective procedures. For example, food loss is monitored and registered regularly at the wasted item level (Finnish Grocery Trade Association 2018; Katajajuuri et al. 2014). Retailers are committed to effective actions for economic reasons (Devin and Richards 2018), but also to enhance their reputations in sustainability and CSR. However, the food waste problem in retail remains significant and requires further actions in various countries (Filimonau and Gherbin 2017). The food service sector entails business enterprises and public and private institutions preparing and serving food and meals outside consumers’ homes. These institutions have diverse goals and their own reasons for and sources of waste, for example, technical issues, legislation, practical reasons, misinformation and communication problems, and organisational culture (Heikkilä et al. 2016). Public-service organisations that prepare and serve food often are concerned about healthy diets, care, education and culture. Conversely, organisations following a business strategy aim to meet customers’ needs and expectations to achieve customer satisfaction and outdo competitors. Customers seeking green options require timely and accurate information about sustainable options (Heikkilä et al. 2016). An organisation’s adopted business model embraces the goals, ideologies, values and practices that are connected to the creation and management of food waste. Thus, the business model can be founded on practices that utilise food waste instead of those that create it. Virtues and values that an organisation adopts guide sustainable practices aimed at food waste reduction. Moreover, households interact with upstream food chain actors, retail stores and food service organisations. This interaction provides opportunities to participate in mutual practices, as retailers and food service organisations provide service settings and encounters in which consumers purchase food and participate in everyday dining outside the home. Given that food management practices are crucial to solving the food waste problem, the societal view that this chapter adopts considers virtues interconnected with practices. Research fields such as business ethics, ethical consumption and sustainable consumption have addressed ethical virtues as standards that guide consumers and organisations in pursuing moral values and sustainable goals in their everyday practices. Virtue ethics highlights the focal role of practices that a person

264     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

may adopt not only for the sake of the practices themselves, but also to develop virtues and eventually to be a good person. Essentially, practices involve standards of excellence that indicate what behaviours are considered good or bad (Garcia-Ruiz and Rodriguez-Lluesma 2017). Thus, practices can be virtuous in character, or serve as context and occasion for virtue development.

Virtues in Food Waste Management The virtue ethics approach connects the problem of food waste to deeply rooted societal values and norms. Extant food waste literature so far has not addressed virtues’ role in solving the food waste problem, though several articles have discussed the topic on a broader level, for example, virtues in CSR and businesses sustainability (e.g. Becker 2017; Devin and Richards 2018; Ketola 2017). Virtues can be considered worthy of aspiring to and useful when setting standards for performance excellence to prevent food waste. In trying to realise sustainable values (Becker 2017), consumers may develop virtuous practices (Garcia-Ruiz and Rodriguez-Lluesma 2017). Consumption practices are domain-related. Every practice involves standards of excellence, which serve to identify what counts as good or bad. Thus, virtuous goals guide consumption as practice—goals that depend on principal practices’ internal goodness, with which those practices interlock. In the context of reducing food waste, this means that those standards also must be set up in every food-producing/ processing practice in the food chain to ensure that food is used or recycled. Some virtues are needed in any practice, for example, integrity, whereas others seem particularly unique to consumption, for example, frugality, moderation and simplicity (Garcia-Ruiz and RodriguezLluesma 2017). Moderation is the ability to use resources proportionately in ways that befit the standards that the practice imposes on consumption acts. Frugality and simplicity have been important virtues, for example, in agrarian society, in which material resources are scarce. A virtuous consumer is economical regarding money and materials, with saving and self-sufficiency being valuable goals (Heinonen and Autio 2013).

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     265

To pursue these goals, a consumer needs practical wisdom, which is a mindful habit through which one is excellent in each case at judging available means to accomplish a worthy goal. A contradiction can exist between the idea of ethical virtues and food chain members’ goals, decisions and behaviours. Consumption has been disparaged amply by academics and public opinion alike allegedly for being a source of materialism, hedonism and bad taste, among other personal and social maladies (e.g. Kozinets and Handelman 2004). Considering these potentially harmful effects from consumption, we complement this view by arguing that consumption also can become a context in which people improve themselves ethically. In studying ethical consumption, scholars have focussed on special-interest groups— such as fair-trade enthusiasts, eco-village dwellers and boycotters—and the moral dilemmas that those consumers face, for example, concerning “the right” choices to make (e.g. Hong and Handan 2016). Virtue ethics adds to this the question of the consumer’s and food chain actors’ character development, for example, what kind of moral person one wants to be (Garcia-Ruiz and Rodriguez-Lluesma 2017). Virtues are developed through practices, which can be regarded as important sustainability skills. Food waste reduction practices interrelated with virtues could become a moral code and habit that will pave the way to better morals for mankind. Food waste management requires such behaviour among workers, management and consumers. Professional skills—such as care, meticulousness and the ability to follow instructions—are, in a way, standards of excellence in professional practices. Furthermore, while providing healthy food and appropriate diets for people, the canteens could control food waste not only for diners (Ferreira et al. 2013), but also together with diners. This way, consumers cultivate the skills needed to behave in a manner that minimises food waste while dining. This kind of cooperation could generate virtues such as respect and benevolence, resulting in mutual benefits. Finally, the retail and food service sectors serve people belonging to different generations, from day-care centres to retirement homes, so they are in a position to practise common values and virtues with a broad cross-section of people.

266     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

Methodology and Data Newspaper articles disseminate information about societal norms and values, and they contain themes that describe the social order of people and organisations in everyday life (Pietilä 1976). We expect that media publicity may help widen awareness of food waste phenomena among consumers, business managers and public-policymakers (Takala 1989). Discussions and debates concerning various phenomena around food practices can be found in different time periods’ news media. Therefore, we decided to collect empirical data from newspapers and magazines, reflecting societal themes that underlie values, virtues and practices related to food waste. We expected the data to give us insights on the virtues that are viable in terms of enacting them into food waste practices. Since food waste generation and handling are rooted to households practices in consumers’ daily lives (Evans 2011), we expected the theme to have deep roots in Finnish culture. Indeed, during various time periods in Finnish history, excess food raised many questions and debates about the right solutions. The first dataset covering the years 1885– 1917 was collected from the Digital Archives of the National Archives of Finland. The search term “food leftovers” was applied to retrieve articles from the digital archive of Finnish newspapers and magazines. This data disclosed food waste issues that arose in an agrarian, self-sufficient and poor society. Finland was a Grand Duchy of Russia that became an independent nation in 1917. During this time period, important governmental structures and societal institutions were being created, but elements of a consumer society remained absent (Heinonen and Autio 2013, p. 47). Agriculture, raising cattle and forestry were the major branches of industry, and 87% of the population lived in rural areas (Heinonen 1998; Heinonen and Autio 2013, p. 52). Many changes gradually took place in society, such as the emergence of a monetary system, freedom of trade and retail shops in the countryside (Heinonen 1998, p. 49). Hard work was the lifeline for people struggling to produce food and survive harsh conditions, with the ever-present threat of

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     267

bad harvests. This period is described aptly as a time of scarcity. The importance of self-sufficiency and saving money, avoiding needless and unnecessary consumption and minimising waste were important everyday practices (Heinonen and Autio 2013). Notably, public enlightenment and popular education were provided widely and considered important even in the nineteenth century (Heinonen 1998). We refer to this period as the agrarian society. The dataset encompassing the years 2008–2017 was collected using three different variations of the search words “food waste” from the digital archive of the largest Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat. Arising out of its contemporary stage of escalation, food waste problems have been addressed frequently in media texts for the past decade. The texts reflect food waste issues during a modern period, which we refer to as the mature consumer society (Heinonen and Autio 2013, p. 59). Most people in Finland during this period lived in urban areas or small rural towns, with services comprising the principal engine of industry. Public education and the availability of free media, technology and information, as well as money and credit, allow consumers to gain and use resources, and live in abundance. Food chain operations have been separated, with food supply and demand functions allocated to different actors. Thus, specialised skills and professions in food production and delivery have been refined, and the food chain has become highly efficient. The data searches resulted in 26 articles reflecting agrarian society (1885–1917) and 199 articles describing mature consumer society (2008–2017) (see Table 10.1). A qualitative content-analysis technique (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2016) was applied during data analysis. The textual datasets first were read and coded according to meanings, practices and values related to food waste. The coding categories were developed during interactions with the data, and the interpretation of the text was developed based on a close reading of the text (Spiggle 1994). This analysis method allowed us to produce a deep understanding of food waste as a phenomenon connected to the societal context (Hsieh and Shannon 2005).

268     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala Table 10.1  Summary of data Years of publication

Number of articles

Examples of magazine/newspaper titles and headlines

1885–1917 1885–1899

26 1

Various newspapers/magazines Koitar: Savo-Karelian association’s album (Koitar: Savo-karjalaisen osakunnan albumi) Finland’s health care magazine (Suomen terveydenhoito-lehti) Koitto: Teacher associations’ health and temperance publication (Koitto: Opettajayhdistyksen terveys ja raittius julkaisema) Home and society (Koti ja yhteiskunta) Readings for Finland’s soldiers (Lukemisia Suomen sotamiehille) Dawn of day (Aamun Koitto) Field man (Peltomies), Threshold of a new era: Finland’s worker album (Uuden ajan kynnyksellä: Suomen työväen alpumi), Tuulikki, Pellervo, various other titles Home and society (Koti ja yhteiskunta), Housewife magazine: The voice of Marttaassociation (Emäntälehti: Martta-yhdistyksen äänenkannattaja) Finland’s woman (Suomen nainen), Hunting and fishing (Metsästys ja kalastus), Shepherdmessages: An evangelic monthly periodical (Paimen-sanomia: evankelinen kuukausilehti), various other titles

6 2

1 2 1900–1906

1 11

1907–1911

2

1912–1917

14

2008–2017 2008

199 1

2010

4

2011 2012 2013

6 14 10

2014

25

2015

37

2016

56

2017

46

Helsingin Sanomat Food purchased by the elderly should be cheaper (12.11.2008) It is imperative to intervene in wasting food (3.11.2010) Attacking hunger with small acts (27.2.2011) This is how you can reduce food waste (20.4.2012) Minimising food waste requires expertise (3.3.2013) Novel package tells you whether the food is spoiled (27.9.2014) Start-up wants to end food waste—restaurant day involved in the campaign (14.8.2015) Food made of leftovers becomes popular at once (3.2.2016) Overconsumption day and resource shortages remind us that the ability of nature to renew is being tested (21.4.2017)

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     269

Themes and Virtues of Food Waste During Different Periods Virtues as Guidelines for Food Chain Actors’ Practices A common feature across the data samples is the persistence of rules and norms regarding food behaviour. A distinct phenomenon in the agrarian-society data is moral blaming, which seems to refer to explicit and directive norms and rules that urge people to be particularly careful with handling food waste. Although moral blaming focuses on the negative, the theme contains moral messages that aim to do good in the community. It partly originates from the threat of food contamination, which is less of a threat in mature consumer society, though it still exists (Porpino 2016). For example, contemporary retail food chains prioritise food security in their food waste management (Finnish Grocery Trade Association 2018). These measures reflect virtues of trust and transparency. In agrarian-society data, giving leftovers to the poor appeared to be a norm. Donating excess food to charity in a mature consumer society is viewed in retail stores as a way to help disadvantaged people— an opportunity for mercy. Thus, the virtue of benevolence is present in both time periods. The media texts from these two very different time periods consistently contain ethical tones that reflect moral virtues that people should internalise. It is pointed out frequently that individuals have a moral duty to minimise waste, as waste signals carelessness and a lack of discipline in a household—vices that constitute a threat to desirable behaviour. Both datasets point to the adoption of various virtues that are specific to the consumption domain. For example, it is common to describe a housewife as resourceful and frugal, connoting the virtue of thriftiness. However, sometimes benevolence as a virtue can lead to overusing food. Overprovisioning and abundance of food, for example, are acts indicating care and “good mother” behaviour that drives to food wastage in certain cultural as socio-demographic contexts (Porpino 2016). The basic virtues of integrity, fairness, trust, respect, transparency and benevolence can be identified as guiding principles in food chain actors’

270     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

policies and practices in handling excess food. In addition, domainspecific virtues prevail in different societies. Because diverse virtues exist, people and organisations should explore and decide which virtues are appropriate for their goals, values and resources in different situations. A common feature of all virtues is that they are directed towards the societal well-being and aim to do good for the community (Velasquez 1998). Next, we reflect on what these virtues could mean in food chain actors’ daily practices and present examples based on the empirical data.

Food Waste Themes in Agrarian Society The themes in the data from the 1885–1917 period reflect issues and concerns connected with the life and conditions of Finnish agrarian society. The term “food waste” did not appear in the agrarian period data. Because excess amounts of food did not exist, food was not wasted, that is, all was consumed, used and eventually fully exploited in households. Instead of food waste, the discussion focused on food leftovers. The analysis revealed three themes on food leftovers that reflect Finnish agrarian society’s values and virtues. 1. Meticulous rules in handling excess food The data indicate the importance of adopting systematic practices, instructions and directions in processing excess food. Order and caution in food practices are presented as opposites to wasting food or throwing it away. The methodical utilisation of leftover food means economising and conserving: instructions are given on how to sort the leftovers into different types to facilitate future use. The sensible use of leftovers and various methods of reusing food are esteemed skills that are necessary to avoid waste. The data include a wide array of positive, encouraging ideas on reusing everything, making use of available resources and evaluating their suitability for reuse. These meticulous rules refer to the virtue of frugality, and a respect for food. Meticulousness is required because of hygiene, diseases and disorders associated with leftover food. Accordingly, leftover food is susceptible

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     271

to contamination and thereby regarded as a threat that can transmit severe diseases. Rules, instructions and warnings for handling leftovers are provided in the magazines and newspapers of this era. Furthermore, leftovers represent mess and disorder in the house, thereby signalling uncleanliness attributed to housewife characteristics. Signs of moral blaming and avoiding vices can be seen, by which ordinary people are reproached over a lack of tidiness and unwanted habits that they follow in their daily lives. People living in scarcity constantly avoid waste in their everyday lives. Correspondingly, food leftovers are not regarded as waste, and respect for leftovers helps people survive. Conversely, wasted food is connected to a lack of respect for resources, typical of “the Western way of life”. The careful usage of leftovers denotes avoidance of waste, while people inevitably depend on food leftovers. Although the rules provided to consumers are meticulous, they reflect an ideal of meticulous and simple living. The following data quotes illustrate these ideals: Leftovers. Do not throw away any leftover food. All can be used if you are meticulous. Stale pieces of bread can be softened in steam or cold water, and if you put them in the oven for a while, they taste very good. (01.03.1911 Emäntälehti: Martta-yhdistyksen äänenkannattaja no 3–4) I organise the usage of leftover food by writing in my menu about each day’s breakfast dish: “leftovers from the previous day’s dinner” either “warmed”, “fried” or renewed in some other way, depending naturally on each housewife’s tastes. Even if you can assume there are no leftovers, I still write down that “leftovers from the previous day’s dinner” and additionally the name of some other dish. If you see that this note about the previous day’s dish is omitted, leftover food is left in the cupboard, or they go in the slop bucket. A further benefit of using “leftovers from the previous day’s dinner” as a breakfast dish is that in that way, fuel is saved. Renewing a done food, you do not spend anywhere near as much gas or wood as cooking a totally new dish. (02.04.1917 Suomen nainen no 7)

2. Mercy put into practice: Food leftovers used for charity Leftover food is a resource that can be used to help people in need of the basics, including food. It provides those who possess food with an

272     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

opportunity to show mercy on the poor, which can allude to religious practices such as pardon. Nursing other people and animals implies caring for them—notably, the virtues of fairness and benevolence. Leftovers frequently are connected to benevolence, nurturing and caring for domestic animals. Instructions are given on how to prepare animal food from leftovers. The diligent use of leftovers shows caring for animals, along with frugality: the skill of saving money. The following quotes show that mercy towards poor people or defenceless birds gets religious tones: He who grants an amnesty on poor people lends to the Lord … I have seen with my own eyes how young men groped their hands in a pot, in which wash water from a food container had been poured in the hopes that they would find some leftover food in it. Meanwhile, the house folks were having their meals. They begged for potato peelings and heads of herring, which they ate with grateful minds. (03.06.1913 Paimensanomia: evankelinen kuukausilehti) So, there are many of us, but sometimes in winter, we remember them! I can’t be wrong in thinking that you readers, at least sometimes in winter, sprinkle hulled grain or leftover food on the yard for small birds to eat. … you cannot believe how good you feel when you give from your heart. … A merciful person is rich. (01.01.1903 Tuulikki no 12)

3. Uncovered societal hierarchies Endemic poverty and scarcity in society led people to gather and conserve excess food. The hierarchy between the haves and have-nots is visible through leftover food handling. A common perspective is that leftovers obviously are something to be given to servants or others considered lower in societal class. Meanwhile, in making these hierarchies visible, leftovers sometimes are connected with begging, which carries a negative stigma visible in comments such as: “begging forbidden by the law”. Thus, leftovers are connected with mendacity. In the following quotes, the hierarchical positions of not only masters and servants, but also the status differences between the rich, the poor and domestic animals are visible:

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     273

The housemaids must bolt down cold food leftovers standing up, after the master and mistress first have their meal and the quarter is located in the kitchen …. (01.01.1900 Uuden ajan kynnyksellä: Suomen työväen alpumi no 3) About using leftover food. In everyday households, it is very important to be able to create tasty meals using leftover food. … a rich person behaves incorrectly when throwing away something that is still worth eating, although he would feel his means justified this kind of conduct. Similarly, a poor person is wrong if he shows wastefulness in such a manner. Where either cats, dogs or pigs are kept, part of the household waste ends up to their benefit, that is, food …. (01.09.1906 Pellervo no 9)

Food Waste Themes in Mature Consumer Society The amount of food waste has been on the increase in mature consumer society, and consequently, it has become a burning question with a global reach and a contradictory character. While waste is generated because of abundance, in this era, a remarkable number of people live with food scarcity. Several food waste themes persist in society, and some themes resemble the data from the agrarian era. However, as the waste problem has expanded, the utilisation and reuse of excess food have become a source of innovation in contemporary living among consumers and companies’ business models. Modern technology has enabled many of these innovations to combat food waste. Actors in the food distribution chain recognise the food waste problem. We identified several themes and stories in the data, in which one or more precious virtues appeared to underlie food chain actors’ thoughts and practices. However, sometimes a virtue actually was discussed in terms of its absence, for example, a case in which distrust prevails between actors. Another breach stems from the challenges from acting out various virtues. Because virtues reflect a high level of ethics (Velasquez 1998), they can be regarded as idealistic, given the pragmatic goals and limited resources and skills of households and organisations in the food chain. For example, lack of awareness or time resources, or insufficient skills and education, impede the actualisation of virtues.

274     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

1. Food waste is a global threat to mankind Various large-scale global issues are addressed in the data when describing the food waste problem’s scope. The ultimate vision is that mankind’s downfall will result if climate change is not controlled. Solutions proposed range from strict rules and legislation to small pro-environmental acts easily carried out in everyday life. Accordingly, sustainable consumption is to be set as the guiding principle that can be carried out either by following rules and legislation or by realising that reducing food waste is one practice that anybody can do. The latter course of action means that the food waste problem denotes the achievement of fundamental virtues, such as integrity and fairness. The following data quotes portray the contradictory nature of food waste problem and show the ways how solutions are provided: Almost a billion people are starving. Meanwhile, food is produced more than ever, and millions of tons are thrown away every year. (HS 27.2.2011) Food production causes 26 percent of the global ecological footprint. It can be reduced, among other things, by reducing meat consumption and food waste. (HS 5.8.2017) The appeal that scholars made worrying about the future of mankind lists 13 examples of issues that mankind could do in order to achieve sustainability and avoid destruction. (HS 14.11.2017)

2. Food waste can help mitigate social problems Food waste is viewed as a way to address social problems such as poverty and scarcity. Several initiatives and programmes have been established in which excess food generated in food service institutions, kitchens and retail stores is distributed to disadvantaged people. A controversial aspect is that food waste donations are viewed predominantly as a way to reduce food waste, rather than as a solution to mitigate the fundamental problem of people in need, as poverty leads to exclusion from mainstream society. Food banks, charities, retailers and restaurants have exhibited practices aligned with integrity and fairness. Consumers and organisations

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     275

aim to show benevolence by donating excess food, but they also create negative associations because “breadlines” are viewed as a stigmatising mechanism. Thus, these arguments reflect a desire for fairness. Some newspaper articles demand solutions and fairness by stressing the importance of developing new business models to solve the food waste problem, or appealing to fairness when advising households not to throw away so much excess food. Trust has a well-recognised position as a cornerstone of business relationships (Morgan and Hunt 1994), although it rarely is mentioned as a virtue. Some articles mentioned the importance of state and municipal authorities in ensuring trust in the context of handling food waste. Nonetheless, voluntary food-sharing mechanisms are considered inevitable when organising leftover food distribution to the disadvantaged in society. Instead of trust, it seems that distrust has formed between those in need of donated food and the Finnish authorities and other official organisations. The following quotes portray examples of this distrust towards mitigating social problems through bread lines: In the bread line, one has to stand humble and obedient. In the world, there are social supermarkets where one can search for aid without drawing attention. There is a danger that a permanent market for the poor arises. … The line is an important symbol, but it is not a solution. (HS 2.4.2017) Members of Parliament want to change food legislation so that edible food that is removed from the marketplace would go to distribution or other utilisation. … this initiative is not about lending a hand to address poverty; politics should intervene poverty. But it is mindless to throw away food while there are people in need. (HS 25.5.2016)

3. Food waste as a resource in consumer lifestyles Food waste studies rarely have considered the phenomenon from the perspective of consumer lifestyles (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2018). Our data indicate that such a connection exists and that virtues play a role in them. Households and other food chain actors often are blamed for overconsumption and wasting edible food, which shows disrespect. Respect

276     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

and disrespect often are present simultaneously in accounts. For example, although food service institutions waste massive amounts of food, they express respect as they profess having a mission to educate children to value food. Furthermore, transparency appears to be present due to regulations concerning food safety and hygiene. While retail stores regard food waste reduction as a strategic issue (Devin and Richards 2018), and they have achieved remarkable improvements in practices, for example, in logistics and the recycling of waste (Katajajuuri et al. 2014), retail stores’ approach to consumers features critical areas in which further improvements might be possible. A case in point is providing food options in appropriate portions for different types of consumers and households. Smaller package sizes suitable for small households and sustainability-oriented consumers have been launched in recent years. Thus, packaging can support virtuous practices among food chain actors, as suggested in the following: Rational packaging reduces food waste … Properly packaged products keep for a long time and survive transport well. (HS 7.8.2017)

Although food waste usually is addressed merely as a problematic issue and clearly is something bad to a great extent, the present study’s data raise the prospect of new opportunities and possible solutions, in addition to threats. For example, food waste is portrayed as part of a fashionable consumer lifestyle. The data indicate that young hipsters, often living in urban areas, consider it “cool” to eat leftover food that restaurants, private households or various institutional kitchens generate. The concept of hipsters in our data represents a trendy lifestyle, that is, values, attitudes, knowledge and behaviour that characterise certain trendsetters’ consumption choices, that is, those who are enthusiastic about fashionable movements and styles. Marketers are interested in hipsters as forerunners guiding the way to new trends and styles in urban culture (Arsel and Thompson 2011), and restaurants preparing meals from excess food are part of a contemporary trend that involves hipsters, an appealing target group. Freegan Pony, for example, conveys the ideology of sustainability by disapproving the act of throwing away food and endorsing the use of food waste in cooking. This food waste restaurant

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     277

aims to instruct people about food waste by offering pleasurable meal experiences and bringing different people together. The following data quotes illustrate new opportunities and trends in food waste, also reflecting a potential for defining new virtues: In Paris, one can have a three-course dinner in the first food waste restaurant of the world. … Freegan Pony restaurant advertises itself as the world’s first waste restaurant … serving dinners made of food waste with a volunteer staff. One may pay for the dinner what one wants… the idea of the restaurant is to enlighten people about food waste through experience and to bring together different people … Hipster groups, parents with kids and dating couples are sitting at the tables. (HS 2.4.2016) Utilising food waste has rapidly become a global phenomenon. … Leftover food is predicted to become this year’s food trend. … Food waste already is competing in a business sense. In Finland, there are already three applications to supply restaurants’ leftover meals, and the developers currently are arguing with each other about who was the first to invent the idea. (HS 9.3.2016) This bar makes drinks out of rubbish; they even recycle lime slices – ecological restaurants and waste food are trends in the world, and now they found their way to Finland. (HS 19.5.2017)

The food waste challenge can be viewed as a game—flirting with poverty and making some kind of art from scarcity. Such challenges tend to seize topical debates and jump onto trends in food culture, with people testing whether the trend is feasible and would serve as a possible way of life. Furthermore, lifestyle offers an apt proving ground for adopting food waste as a trendy upscale dining alternative (see Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007, for a similar discussion of eco-food). 4. Counselling and instructing people and novel services: Normative guidelines and practical tools to reduce food waste One common theme across the datasets from different periods is the tendency to guide and advise people and organisations on how to reduce food waste. This is understandable in the light of the food waste conceived as an ethically and economically negative phenomenon that

278     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

should be combatted. The agrarian period data contain meticulous rules that guide people to not only respect food, but also carefully use food like a scarce resource. Media research on mature consumer society indicates an agenda of providing useful advice and guidelines to help empower and enlighten people to handle the abundant amounts of food, thereby changing their food habits, including general consumption behaviours, towards more sustainable levels. The versatility of the possible virtuous food practices is illustrated by the following data quotes: If a single person does not want to eat the same food for four days in a row, half the portion has to be frozen immediately. … Alongside the Marthas, the Finnish Consumer Union, … WWF and S-group give tips on reducing food waste. … as do libraries and parental clinics, HSY delivers small cards with recipes for leftover dishes and tips for reducing food waste. (HS 3.3.2013) Take photographs of your fridge – five tips for cutting food waste. (HS 21.3.2014)

Food Waste Virtues in Agrarian and Mature Consumer Society Many of the newspaper and magazine texts from different time periods refer to food leftovers and food waste directly, or they indirectly assume that the waste problem is attributable to consumers’ shopping, cooking, dining and general food handling practices and skills. Thus, although the role of institutions’ structures and practices also is acknowledged, the principal responsibility is placed on consumers (e.g. Chatzidakis et al. 2018; Welch et al. 2018). Meanwhile, the moral discourse on the food waste problem’s consequences addresses global concerns, such as climate change and the planet’s sustainability. The empirical data illustrate the multiple ways in which societal norms and habits guide consumers and other actors, or in which scarcity dictates necessities. Table 10.2 describes how food waste themes have changed, and how these changes reflect societal aspects and concerns in agrarian and

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     279 Table 10.2  Changing themes and virtues of food waste in different times Local to global

Virtues Nature of food waste

Virtues

Risks of waste—from contamination to inequality Virtues Benefits from food waste—from feeding animals to business models

Virtues

Agrarian society

Mature consumer society

Leftover food is a matter of coping with scarcity in households and individuals Waste from valuable, but scarce, resources in consumers’ everyday lives is managed Frugality, Simplicity, Moderation Leftover food is sometimes generated in households Small amounts of food are stuck on pans and pots Frugality, Moderation Respect

Food waste is a global issue with significant economic and ecological impacts that lead to climate change and pose a threat to mankind

Leftover food holds contamination potential and may cause diseases Respect, Benevolence, Transparency, Care Feeding domestic animals and pets. Smart reuse of excess food helps save money

Frugality, Simplicity, Moderation, Benevolence, Care

Respect, Fairness, Benevolence Food waste is generated at all stages of the food chain Enormous volumes of edible food are thrown away. Vices rather than virtues Standards of excellence lacking Donating unsold food to charity portrays inequalities in society Fairness, Respect, Benevolence Ideology and lifestyle in consumer-identity construction Opportunities to create sustainable business models Trust Potential for defining virtues

mature consumer societies. The focus has shifted from individuals, households and communities towards considering food waste as an issue of sustainability in large societies and in the global sphere. Different virtues can be viewed as underlying the themes; thus, not only have societal themes changed, but the desired characteristics of people or standards of excellence underlying these themes also have changed.

280     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

In agrarian society, food usually was prepared and consumed in a household. It was produced in people’s own gardens or in a nearby geographic location. Households were self-sufficient in producing and storing food, and domestic animals were common. Scarcity was a major aspect of food and food waste in this era. Thus, scarcity dictated many specific consumption virtues such as frugality, simplicity and moderation that guided food practices, that is, reasonable food preparation and innovative reuse of excess food in households. Risks from food storage frequently were addressed, for example, the threat of contamination and diseases. This illustrates the adoption of basic virtues such as care, benevolence, respect and transparency. The consumption-specific virtues of frugality, simplicity and moderation, as well as the basic virtues of benevolence and care, seem to underlie the beneficial usage of leftover food to feed animals and other people. In mature consumer society, people live with abundance. Consumers and households can afford to waste food without even noticing it. However, awareness of the negative consequences of food waste has been raised on a global scale, reflecting the virtues of respect, fairness and benevolence. The amount of food waste generated in the food chain raises questions about whether standards of excellence exist, and whether vices are guiding food chain practices rather than virtues. Nevertheless, retailers, as important food chain actors, prioritise food waste management as part of their corporate responsibility programmes, as well as for economic and efficiency reasons. The concern over inequality reflects the virtues of fairness, respect and benevolence. In mature consumer society, food waste is not only a problem, but also a solution, as it is capitalised on as a business resource. Indeed, innovative business models have been created, and mobile apps like ResQ, Lunchie and Matsmart have been launched quickly and adopted by pioneer consumer groups. The virtue of trust underlies use of these apps, providing a platform through which restaurants can sell excess food on short notice, usually at a reduced price, and consumers can locate places where food is available and place orders. In mature consumer society, resources are abundant, but there seems to be a call for a set of virtues guiding people towards realising positive and desirable characteristics that should drive their behaviour.

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     281

Discussion Changing Food Waste Practices and Virtues This chapter applied a socio-philosophical perspective to the food waste problem and suggested that virtue ethics can be applied to understand deep societal values, virtues and practices that foster food waste reduction. Analysis of media articles has disclosed food waste themes and virtues that underlie public debates in different time periods. This study contributes to the understanding of food waste management by illustrating how ethical virtues as standards of excellence are interlocked with food practices. As the societal themes of food waste are changing, virtues and food practices are changing as well. In agrarian society, leftover food was managed in households, whereas in mature consumer society, food waste is a problem that affects various functions and actors across the entire food chain and society. In agrarian society, traditional, consumption-specific virtues such as frugality, simplicity and moderation propelled the use of exemplary food handling practices. Conversely, in mature consumer society, universal, basic virtues appear to be lacking in prevailing practices. This study also adds understanding of food practices, namely that food practices often lack standards of excellence, that is, virtues are absent from these practices. Sometimes practices are based on vices rather than virtues. This highlights the need to scrutinise food practices and identify possible violations of excellent standards. Thus, a defined list of virtues for food waste management can help food chain actors to detect vices and incorporate virtues to food practices. This study contributes understanding of food waste as societal issue. Changing food waste themes can be seen to reflect a societal shift from gemeinschaft to gesellschaft, that is, the transformation from a rural existence to urbanisation, as described by sociologist Tönnies. His first book, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, published in 1887, analysed the gemeinschaft-gesellschaft distinction. While gemeinschaft concerns the community, and gesellschaft concerns society, the basic idea was to introduce the two fundamental methods of associating the communal with the societal. If this association is valuable and a goal in itself, it is a communal consortium, that is, the gemeinschaft relationship. Conversely, if the

282     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

interconnection is merely instrumental, it will result in transmitted or instrumental gesellschaft relationships. The values and virtues typical of gemeinschaft such as frugality, simplicity and moderation are seldom visible in food practices of mature consumer society. Accordingly, strengthening these traditional virtues guiding food waste management could act as the glue that associates the communal with the societal. Apart from outlining virtues or standards of excellence for food waste management, mentors and role models (Audi 2010) are needed to enable food chain actors to recognise and practise exemplary actions. Furthermore, as virtues elicit good habits, they must be practised to become commonplace guidelines for desired behaviours (Murphy et al. 2017). Education and enlightenment have been dominant themes in the data, and these could be possible solutions to entrenching desirable practices. Likewise, consumer awareness of sustainability is created and renewed through ideologies, for example, a worldwide overconsumption day to raise awareness creates an international communal spirit, and social media help nurture shared ideals and values. Inventive, common-sense practices were cultivated in agrarian society, when scarcity was a daily occurrence. Everyday virtues of thriftiness, rationality, communal spirit, innovativeness and low food consumption could be cherished and practised in mature consumer society to create a better future. In mature consumer society, fashion and lifestyle, such as hipsterism, may foster an ideal to reduce food waste. Sociologist Georg Simmel theorised that when lower social classes adopt fashions/trends, the upper classes dismiss them, then adopt the same fashions/trends on their own terms (e.g. Simmel 1957). Thus, trendy lifestyles with sustainable ideals could attract other groups who subsequently adopt these ideals in their own way. Bourdieu (1984) approached the phenomenon of fashion with similar ideas. Correspondingly, the middle classes in particular adopt certain trendy consumption practices aimed at combatting food waste. They do not adopt these practices for thriftiness, but to live by their ideals. Although virtues as guidelines to nurture the common good are suggested as a viable mechanism to prompt food chain actors to pursue sustainable food management and consumption practices, public discourse has examined the optimal balance of excellence that one should

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     283

seek (Airaksinen 1993). Deficiencies in virtues may lead to vices and damage, whereas excessive pursuit of standards of excellence can result in intolerance of other people’s behaviours or lifestyles (Murphy et al. 2017).

How Can Virtues Be Enacted? Virtues are not innate, but learned and internalised. Unlike legislation, regulations or rules and norms that come from external sources, virtues are individuals, households and organisations’ essential characteristics. Based on insights raised from empirical data and theoretical understanding on the nature of virtues, we make the following recommendations on how to act out virtues in everyday food behaviour to control and reduce food waste. Using education to increase respect towards food. Skills in food practices in the food chain are among the most important and promising avenues for solving the food waste problem. Many food service institutions aim to educate people on issues relating to food and have a platform to deal with the food waste issue as well. Professional skills in management, food service and retail practices have been improved, but could be improved further. Education that aims to affect consumers’ values concerning food, attitudes towards dining and routines in shopping, cooking and food consumption is recommended. In terms of virtue ethics, respecting food as a precious resource is one key to food waste reduction. Highlighting frugality as a virtue. Agrarian-society data indicated the importance of thrift and meticulousness in handling food, which was a precious resource in households during this period. Introducing the virtue of frugality to mature consumer society could raise awareness of food’s value. Promoting circularity, recycling and reuse as indicators of integrity and transparency. Recycling involves the idea that waste is the raw material of new products and services. The idea of reusing food is visible in agrarian-society data. It requires integrity and transparency for the sake of safety. Food recycling and reuse practices can be adopted at all levels of the food chain.

284     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

Promoting caring about the planet and other people as acts of benevolence. Donating food as a way to help people in need is addressed in both the agrarian and the mature consumer society data. While in the agrarian period, it was an act of mercy to donate leftover food, in mature consumer society, wasting food is commonplace, with donations connected to the virtue of benevolence, although the fundamental motive of donating may be purely selfish. Integrity, trust and transparency should guide food service institutions’ practices. Legislation concerning food safety and societal and cultural norms regarding food production and consumption are governing retail sector and food service institutions’ food practices in particular, but they also affect households. While legislation and regulation with respect to food are necessary, one focal implication of virtue ethics is that people and institutions not only should follow the law and norms, but also pursue high ethical standards through the virtues of integrity, trust and transparency.

Conclusions This paper has discussed the possibilities how ethical virtues can be applied in food chain actors’ food management practices. To conclude, we suggest the following solutions for reducing food waste: • Identifying virtues that help foster food waste reduction in food chain organisations, with a particular emphasis on nurturing widespread public respect for these virtues. • Advancing opportunities to practise such virtues and choose role models who enact behaviours that meet standards of excellence, and thus adopting moral codes of conduct based on virtues. • Fostering the revival of traditional, simple, and everyday life virtues. • Entrenching virtues as habits and routines in everyday practices and featuring values as integral aspects of fashionable consumption phenomena. • Paying attention to practices that feed vices and incorporate virtues into them.

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     285

Acknowledgements   The authors thank Adjunct Professor Maarit Knuuttila and M.Sc. Minna Oksanen for their valuable assistance in collecting the data used in this paper.

References Abdelradi, F. (2018). Food waste behaviour at the household level: A conceptual framework. Waste Management, 71, 485–493. Airaksinen, T. (1993). Moraalifilosofia. Juva: WSOY. Alzola, M. (2017). Corporate roles and virtues. In A. J. G. Sison, G. R. Beabout, & I. Ferrero (Eds.), Handbook of virtue ethics in business and management (pp. 47–56). Dordrecht: Springer. Aristotle. (1980). The Nicomachean ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arsel, Z., & Thompson, C. J. (2011). Demythologizing consumption practices: How consumers protect their field-dependent identity investments from devaluing marketplace myths. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 791–806. Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I. E., Almli, V. L., & Oostindjer, M. (2018). Fine-tuning the fight against food waste. Journal of Macromarketing, 38(2), 168–184. Audi, R. (2010). The place of ethical theory in business ethics. In G. Brenkert & T. L. Beauchamp (Eds.), Oxford handbook of business ethics (pp. 46–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baron, S., Patterson, A., Maull, R., & Warnaby, G. (2018). Feed people first: A service ecosystem perspective on innovative food waste reduction. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 135–150. Becker, C. U. (2017). Social approach: Virtue ethics enabling sustainability ethics for business. In A. J. G. Sison, G. R. Beabout, & I. Ferrero (Eds.), Handbook of virtue ethics in business and management (pp. 1383–1394). Dordrecht: Springer. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brandt, R. (1959). Ethical theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chatzidakis, A., Shaw, D., & Allen, M. (2018). A psycho-social approach to consumer ethics. Journal of Consumer Culture. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469540518773815. Dent, N. J. H. (1984). Moral psychology of virtues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

286     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

Devin, B., & Richards, C. (2018). Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 199–210. Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative methods in business ethics. London: Sage. Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the consumer—Once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429–440. Ferreira, M., Martins, M. L., & Rocha, A. (2013). Food waste as an index of food service quality. British Food Journal, 115(11), 1628–1637. Filimonau, V., & Gherbin, A. (2017). An exploratory study of food waste management practices in the UK grocery retail sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1184–1194. Finnish Grocery Trade Association. (2018). Ruokahävikin vähentäminen kaupoissa. Finnish Grocery Trade Association. https://www.pty.fi/ruokahaevikki/. Accessed on 28.5.2018. Foot, P. (1978). Virtues and vices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garcia-Ruiz, P., & Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2017). Consumer behavior: Vices, virtues, and the search for the good life. In A. J. G. Sison, G. R. Beabout, & I. Ferrero (Eds.), Handbook of virtue ethics in business and management (pp. 1067–1075). Dordrecht: Springer. Harman, G. (1999). Moral philosophy meets social psychology: Virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 99(3), 315–331. Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A., Katajajuuri, J. M., Silvennoinen, K., & Hartikainen, H. (2016). Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector. Waste Management, 56, 446–453. Heinonen, V. (1998). Talonpoikainen etiikka ja kulutuksen henki: Kotitalousneuvonnasta kuluttajapolitiikkaan 1900-luvun Suomessa [Peasant ethic and the spirit of consumption: From household advising to consumer policy in 20th-century Finland]. Bibliotheca Historica 33. Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura. Heinonen, V., & Autio, M. (2013). The Finnish consumer mentality and ethos: In the intersection between East and West. In V. Heinonen & M. Peltonen (Eds.), Finnish consumption!—An emerging consumer society between East and West (pp. 42–85). Studia Historica 83. Helsinki: The Finnish Literature Society. Hong, S., & Handan, V. (2016). Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 120–136.

10  From Scarcity to Abundance …     287

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to the qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Juurikkala, O. (2012). Likeness to the divinity? Virtues and charismatic leadership. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 17(2), 3–14. Kamtekar, R. (2004). Situationism and virtue ethics on the content of our character. Ethics, 114(3), 458–491. Katajajuuri, J.-M., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2014). Food waste in the Finnish food chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 322–329. Ketola, T. (2017). Genuine sustainability as virtuous sustainable development. In A. J. G. Sison, G. R. Beabout, & I. Ferrero (Eds.), Handbook of virtue ethics in business and management (pp. 1367–1370). Dordrecht: Springer. Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 691–704. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. London: Duckworth. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. H. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. Murphy, P. E., Laczniak, G. R., & Harris, F. (2017). Ethics in marketing: International cases and perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Pietilä, S. (1976). Sisällön erittely. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Porpino, G. (2016). Household food waste behavior: Avenues for future research. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), 41–51. Simmel, G. (1957). Fashion. American Journal of Sociology, 62(6), 541–558. Solomon, R. C. (2003). Victims of circumstances? A defense of virtue ethics in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 43–62. Solomon, R. C. (2004). Aristotle ethics and business organizations. Organization Studies, 25, 1021–1043. Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503. Takala, T. (1989). Discourse on the social responsibility of the firm in Finland, 1930–1940 and 1972–1982: Theoretical framework and empirical findings. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5(1), 5–19. Takala, T. (2012). Essays on business and leadership ethics. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Series B, No. 348. Turku: University of Turku. Thompson, C. J., & Coskuner-Balli, G. (2007). Countervailing market responses to corporate co-optation and the ideological recruitment of consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 135–152.

288     O. Uusitalo and T. Takala

Van Doorn, J. (2016). Commentary: Why do we waste so much food? A research agenda. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(1), 53–56. Velasquez, M. G. (1998). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Welch, D., Swaffield, J., & Evans, D. (2018). Who’s responsible for food waste? Consumers, retailers and the food waste discourse coalition in the United Kingdom. Journal of Consumer Culture. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469540518773801.

11 Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste Reduction in Finnish Media Discourse Liia-Maria Raippalinna

Introduction While the historical visibility or invisibility of waste and food waste in Western societies has been disputed in academia (Evans et al. 2013; O’Brien 2007; Åkesson 2012), the discursive visibility of food waste has undeniably increased enormously in the past ten years. Food waste has been perceived as an enormous sustainability problem due to the use of resources and the environmental impact related to food production and the global food system. In the European Union, a remarkable factor in constructing the food waste problem has been the political and scientific interest taken in the issue (Evans et al. 2013; Evans 2014). Many food waste-related governance initiatives in the EU have focused on changing consumer behaviour and reducing household food waste (Evans et al. 2013; Evans 2014; Gille 2013). In Finland, food waste became a subject of public discussion at the turn of the 2010s, as the L.-M. Raippalinna (*)  University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_11

289

290     L.-M. Raippalinna

Finnish Institute for Agriculture and Forestry (hereafter MTT) started their investigations into the theme. While food waste was investigated across the Finnish food chain, the research started from households. The problem of food waste was taken up in the media, which played a decisive role in introducing the issue to a wider audience and mobilising consumers for food waste reduction. It has been argued that the consumer-oriented approach taken in the EU not only serves the practical aim of reducing food waste but is attached to the political agenda of producing consumer–citizens and aiming to relocate social and environmental responsibility on individual consumers (Gille 2013; also Evans 2014). However, there has been only little empirical research on how—and if—consumers and consumer responsibility actually are constructed and mobilised in different contexts promoting food waste reduction. Evans et al. (2017) note that most critical approaches to sustainability initiatives “do not explicate the mechanism by which authorities and intermediaries attempt to responsibilise consumers” (p. 1399). They call for investigations on “the ways real and discursive figure of ‘the consumer’ features in the project of sustainable consumption” (p. 1400). Following Trentmann (2005), they claim that consumers should be recognised as a discursive category and subjectivity constructed together with food waste (p. 1400). The way people are framed as they are being mobilised—as consumers and as citizens—encourages certain kinds of action and frames their opportunities to exert influence (Bevir and Trentmann 2007; Soper and Trentmann 2008; Maniates 2002; Rumpala 2011). In this chapter, I answer the call presented by Evans and colleagues by investigating how consumers are mobilised in media discourse: I analyse the discursive construction of food waste and consumers in the major Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat 2010–2017. In current Western societies, media play a major role in constructing and mediating food-related trends and anxieties (Dickinson 2013; Halkier 2010; Karrebæk et al. 2018) as well as producing food practices and policies (Phillipov 2017). However, in the study of food waste reduction, the role of media in constructing the food waste problem and mobilising consumers remains largely unexplored (see however Närvänen et al. 2018; Thompson and Haigh 2017). Most research has focused on food

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     291

waste reduction campaigns and, as Närvänen et al. (2018) point out, on the (short-term) success of campaigns, ignoring their content and message (e.g. Pearson et al. 2017; Pearson and Perera 2018). Research treating the media as a mere channel for consumer education offers a rather limited perspective on the role of media in mobilising consumers. The role of media has been more fully acknowledged in the field of challenged, particularly sustainable, consumption (e.g. Halkier 2010; Podkalicka 2018; see also Goodman et al. 2017). Podkalicka (2018) proposes that in relation to sustainability and household consumption, media should be regarded as an actor, an intermediary and a culture. Regarding media as a culture emphasises that media representations are both constituted by and constitutive of cultural conceptions and practices related to food (waste); it contributes to sustaining (un)sustainable practices as well as transforming them. In this chapter, the view of media as culture, rather than channel, is emphasised. In this chapter, I present three discourses in which food waste and consumer responsibility are most prominently constructed in Helsingin Sanomat. I adopt a critical discourse analytical approach in the analysis and make use of discourse analytical and intertextual methods. The theoretical framework combines governmentality studies with a practice theoretical approach on sustainable consumption. I argue that in media discourse, responsibilising consumers is not just imposed by governance initiatives but derives from a wide range of sociocultural conceptions, discourses and social practices related to food, citizenship and consumption. I proceed to consider the potential for action and impact related to the framing of people as consumers vs. as citizens as they are mobilised in media discourse. Finally, I reflect on the practical implications of media discourse discussing if and how the media discourse can contribute to transforming practices in a more sustainable direction and lead to food waste reduction. The chapter contributes to the scholarly discussion on food waste reduction deriving from governmentality studies (McIlvenny et al. 2016; Miller and Rose 2008) and other critical (e.g. practice theoretical) approaches to governance initiatives promoting behavioural change among (individual) consumers (see Evans et al. 2017; Gille 2013; Podkalicka 2018).

292     L.-M. Raippalinna

Consumer–Citizen and Sustainable Consumption Many sustainability initiatives, including food waste reduction initiatives, are based on approaches seeking behaviour change (Evans et al. 2017). These approaches, based on rational choice theory, seek and investigate sustainability in terms of (altering) consumer behaviour. They emphasise individual choice, based on available knowledge and individually held attitudes as the bases of un/sustainable consumption. The initiatives based on this approach rely on information sharing and value education as the bases of behavioural change. However, it has been shown that neither knowledge nor attitudes and values necessarily transform into sustainable practices (Bartiaux 2008; Shove 2010). The behaviour change approach has met with criticism from practice theory approaches (see, e.g., Southerton and Evans 2017; Warde et al. 2017). Sustainability issues need to be resolved in terms of practices rather than individual behaviour. Methodological individualism, inherent in behaviour change approaches, renders the totality of practices elusive. According to Shove et al. (2012), social practices consist of meaning (ideas, discourses), competences (practical knowledge, routinised actions) and materials (materials, infrastructures) and in order to change them, changes are required in all these elements. The “strong version” insists that social, economic and technical structures, often treated as external factors obstructive or conducive to sustainable practices, are an integral part of practices, not exterior “conditions” of them (Van Vliet and Spaargaren 2017; Watson 2017). Food waste reduction is a particularly complicated issue as wastage is integrated into a variety of interlinked practices—both at level of everyday life (Evans 2014) and at the level of the global food system (Gille 2013). My focus in this chapter is on (media) discourse as part of the totality of practices. Sustainability approaches grounded in governmentality studies share the critique presented by Shove and others claiming that current governance initiatives are often based on the neoliberal responsibilisation of consumers. According to them, many sustainability and environmental

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     293

initiatives seek to hold individuals responsible and mobilise them to police their own conduct (Evans et al. 2017; also Lindegaard 2016; McIlvenny et al. 2016; Rumpala 2011). The governmentality studies perspective calls for the analysis of the empirical forms that mobilising consumers takes in different sociocultural settings (Lindegaard 2016, p. 100; McIlvenny et al. 2016, p. 29; Miller and Rose 2008, pp. 19–21). The approach puts the focus on individual and social bodies as objects of governance and investigates how they are produced as subjects in sustainable consumption. Miller and Rose (2008) emphasise that social and economic problems (or environmental problems, such as food waste) are not preordained, but have to be constructed and made visible: to be governed, they need to be problematised. Framing a problem in a common language already implies a possible solution, technologies of intervention that allow authorities to manage the conduct of individuals or collectives. Governing takes place through different assemblages of actors and discourses, including the media: “issues and concerns have to be made to appear problematic, in different ways, different sites and different agents” (p. 14). Thus, framing the problem (food waste issue) and framing the subject of consumption (consumer–citizen) go hand in hand. Studies on citizenship (see Bevir and Trentmann 2007; Soper and Trentmann 2008), as well as governmentality approaches to food consumption (Coveney 2006; Mayes 2014, 2017) ethical consumption (Barnett et al. 2010) and sustainable consumption (Rumpala 2011) raise the question how framing people as consumers or citizens determines their opportunities to act and exert influence. Focus on consumer behaviour may divert attention from big questions requiring major structural changes and political decisions (Rumpala 2011; also Maniates 2002). While consumerist initiatives have been criticised for discouraging the more traditional forms of citizenship and political participation, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive but co-occur in various forms of consumer–citizenship (Bevir and Trentmann 2007; Soper and Trentmann 2008).

294     L.-M. Raippalinna

Data and Methods The data consist of 193 articles on food waste published in Helsingin Sanomat (hereafter HS ) 2010–2017. HS, published in the Helsinki metropolitan area, is the major Finnish newspaper and the only daily newspaper in Finland with a nationwide readership. The data were collected from the newspaper’s electronic archive using search term ruokahävikki, which is a core concept in the current Finnish food waste discourse (see the next section). The literal English translation would be food loss, but in most cases, the term refers to eatable food waste. The time period investigated (2010–2017) starts with the appearance of ruokahävikki in HS and is long enough to explore how the framing of the concept changes over time and as it travels between textual and sociocultural contexts. The data include articles from various genres and sections of the newspaper. These include, for example, local, domestic and foreign news, economics and science news, opinion, such as editorials, guest writers, columns and letters to the editor and articles published in sections related to food, home, city and lifestyle and in the weekly supplement Nyt [Now]. Methodologically, my analysis derives from critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1992; Fairclough et al. 2011) and intertextual analysis (Blommaert 2005; Fairclough 1992). In critical discourse analysis, language use is analysed as consequential social action that takes place in particular textual, situational and sociocultural contexts. Following Fairclough (1992), I use a discourse (plural, discourses) to refer to “a particular way of constructing a subject-matter” (p. 128). First, to identify the most significant discourses in which consumers are mobilised in the data I focused on frequently used expressions (terms, utterances and metaphors) and implicit assumptions that were made concerning the food waste issue and consumer’s role in it. I identified three major discourses of consumer mobilisation: the scientific–political discourse, the home economics discourse and the discourse of new urban food culture. Second, to explicate these discourses, the following characteristics are analysed: (1) construction of the food waste problem, (2) construction of the consumer, (3) related social practices and sociocultural

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     295

context. To analyse the construction of the food waste problem, I paid attention to how it was framed in the discourse and to the presentation of the reasons for and solutions to it. To analyse the construction of the consumer, I paid attention to the ways of framing the consumer’s role in relation to the food waste problem (generation and reduction of food waste). To contextualise the discourses in the wider sociocultural context, I looked for intertextual resources occurring in the data (Fairclough 1992; Blommaert 2005). By intertextual resources, I mean explicit intertextual references (manifest intertextuality) and subtle interdiscursive resources (constitutive intertextuality) (Fairclough 1992, pp. 100–136). By the latter, I mean particularly voices and discursive conventions, most importantly prior discourses utilised in the discourses of consumer mobilisation. The basic idea in intertextual analysis is that every text builds on features borrowed from previous ones; the intertextual and interdiscursive resources utilised in the production of texts, both constrain and constitute resources for creativity in text production. The way in which texts (or discourses) derive from various textual and discursive resources points towards the social structures and relationships established, maintained and reformed in the discourse (Fairclough 1992). For example, traditional home economics discourse, a central resource for one of the discourses presented here, is situated in the social practice of consumer education and home economics advice, aimed at producing responsible citizenship via everyday household practices.

Constructing Food Waste and Consumers The discourse on food waste gained momentum in HS in 2010, when MTT went public with their first research project on food waste, FOODSPILL 1 (2010–2012). Along with this research, a new concept, ruokahävikki, was introduced and established in public discussion, replacing the older term, ruokajäte, which literally means (inedible) food waste. The introduction of this new term indicates a discursive shift that occurs as wastage of food is perceived to cause sustainability problems in the food system; the matter of food waste [ruokajäte ] was

296     L.-M. Raippalinna

turned into an issue [ruokahävikki ]. Earlier food waste [ruokajäte ] was discussed as an environmental concern only in relation to (the environmental effects of ) waste disposal; the generation of food waste was not discussed nor deemed problematic per se. The new term drew attention to loss of resources and environmental impact caused in the food production chain, inviting consumers—along with other actors—to take responsibility for the environmental impact of the food they waste. After the new concept was introduced, the use of other related terms, such as hävikkiruoka [surplus food, waste food], ylijäämäruoka [surplus food, excess food], ruokajäte [food waste], ruokaa roskiin [throwing food away, binning food], in HS decidedly increases, as the emerging discourse opens up space for terms and topics previously outside or in the margins of public discourse. Scientific research and related consumer education materials have provided important discursive resources for a variety of other actors that discuss and promote food waste reduction in the data; many articles in the data refer directly or indirectly to MTT research. Even the use of the term ruokahävikki follows the definition proposed by MTT (Silvennoinen et al. 2012) as edible food that ends up being wasted instead of consumed. Although the term would apply to food loss as well as edible food waste, mostly consumer food waste is discussed in the data (on definitions of food waste see Papargyropoulou et al. 2014, p. 108). Texts found in the data are often build around one (or more) sectors/levels in the food system: Households are the most discussed sector (main focus in 53 articles) followed by retailers (30) and caterers and restaurants (23). Eight articles assign food waste to the food industry. A few articles consider food waste across the food system in a global perspective, connecting the food waste issue to other questions concerning food sufficiency and the sustainable use of agricultural resources. Nevertheless, HS represents a polyphonic discourse on food waste that emerges as the concept of food waste ruokahävikki travels between socio­ cultural contexts deriving from different intertextual resources. The discourses of consumer mobilisation analysed here feature as overlapping “phases” in the food waste discourse. More importantly, they are attached to different sets of sociocultural practices taking place at different levels (areas) of society: The scientific–political discourse, featured in 105 articles,

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     297

Articles per year / a discourse

Number of articles

25 20 15 10 5 0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year

scientific-political

home economics

urban food culture

Fig. 11.1  Number of articles featuring the discourses of consumer mobilisation

evolved around scientific research and political interests framing the problem at the level of society and the Finnish food chain. Having framed the (political) rationality of food waste reduction, the discourse was followed by the home economics discourse and the discourse of new urban food culture, featuring in 50 and 33 articles. The former delimits the problem and its solutions inside a household, and the latter situates the problem and its solutions in urban communities. Figure 11.1 describes the occurrence of these discourses in HS 2010–2017. It should be noted that several discourses of consumer mobilisation may feature in one article.

Scientific–Political Discourse The ultimate objective of researching the food waste problem is its ­prevention. In order to efficiently plan measures to this end we need first to scrutinise the origins and causes of the problem. The waste is due above all to ignorance, a lack of knowledge, indifference and the decline in people’s respect for food. There needs to be an extensive discussion in Finland about wasting food, what a serious matter it is and how it can be prevented. (03.11.2010, Opinion, Quest by MTT researchers, emphases added) (Quotations translated from Finnish)

298     L.-M. Raippalinna

The objective of FOODSPILL 1 was to evaluate the extent and environmental impact of the food waste generated in the Finnish food supply chain and to investigate the reasons for wasting food (Katajajuuri et al. 2014). Accordingly, the scientific–political discourse in the media operates on the level of the food system, particularly the Finnish food chain, and solutions to food waste problems are sought across society and in various parts of the food system. Whereas the general tone is that addressing the food waste question requires collaboration across the food supply chain, connections between different sectors seldom are properly illustrated in the media texts. MTT studies originate in the political–scientific food waste discourse then predominant in the European Union (see Evans et al. 2013; Evans 2014). Connected to this wider European framework, the scientific–political discourse constructs food waste as a sustainability issue, in particular as an environmental concern. Food waste is represented as problematic because of the negative environmental effects of food production, above all climate change. The discourse crystallises in representations of the volume of food waste: “400 million kilos thrown away annually”, “Greenhouse gases equivalent to 100,000 cars”. These figures constitute a point of reference for the material reality of food waste and testify to the magnitude of the problem. The fact that these representations are very similar to those found by Evans et al. (2017) in their study in the UK underlines the connectedness of this discourse to the European framework and previous food waste reduction initiatives. FOODSPILL 1 measured food waste sector by sector, including households, retailers, catering and restaurants, and food industry. Figures demonstrating wastage in different sectors and levels of the food chain are frequently repeated in the media discourse: It was reported in Helsingin Sanomat that according to a study – 20 per cent of the food waste is from restaurants, 18 from retailers, 27 from the catering industry and 35 from households. Thus private households are the main source of waste. The choices they make could have the greatest effect on the amount of waste. (15.08.2015, Opinion, a letter to the editor) The waste occurring in the domestic food chain is under 400 kilos a year, according to an MTT estimate. The greatest wastage occurs in households, where every year large quantities of edible food are thrown away. (19.04.2012, Domestic)

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     299

Based on existing European research, MTT assumed households to constitute the most important source of food waste (see Silvennoinen et al. 2012). They were in the focus of media discourse even before the assumption was proved right by research results. Households were also established as the most important cause of food waste. Statements like “households are the biggest wasters”, “30% of all food waste is produced in households”, “every Finn throws away 24 kg of food annually” or “Finnish consumers waste 20-30 kg food in a year” occur in the data. Reiterative representations of the share, amount and environmental effect of household food waste construct consumers as the actors responsible in relation to food waste and its environmental impact. Lack of knowledge and a decline in cultural respect for food are represented as the prime reason for wasting. Food waste is represented as a result of individual choices that consumers make based on their knowledge and values: Each one of us can reduce the environmental burden considerably by paying attention to how they procure, process and prepare food. An effective and simple action for the good of the environment is not to throw food away. Food that gets thrown out burdens the environment more than the packaging, for example. Half a loaf of rye bread or a single slice of ham going into the rubbish bin causes a greater burden on the environment than making the packaging or waste disposal does. (03.07.2011, Opinion, Quest by MTT representatives, emphases added) If a citizen wants to preserve Nature they should eat everything on their plate. A slice of ham in the rubbish bin burdens the environment more than the stuff the ham was wrapped in. (29.08.2011, Economy, emphases added) It’s about time for all of Finns to consider their own consumption practices, in order to reduce binning eatable food. (12.09.2014, Opinion, a letter to the editor, emphases added)

The discourse is featured as consumer education, oriented towards altering the individual performance of the consumer. It seeks to evoke consumer responsibility by illustrating how food waste generation (in households) is related to environmental issues and global food security. In the meantime, food waste reduction is offered as an easy solution

300     L.-M. Raippalinna

to these complicated problems: whereas the environmental impact of different food items is hard to compare and not enough consistent information on their environmental impact is available to consumers, reducing food waste offers an effective and simple route to sustainable conduct, available to anyone. Major changes in lifestyle and consumption are not required, only cutting down on unnecessary wastage: “The most important thing is to avoid unnecessary wastage” (05.06.2014). The scientific–political discourse rendered food waste discursively visible by disseminating information on the volume and environmental impact of the food wasted in the Finnish food chain. Repetitive use of wastage figures in the newspaper resulted in their transformation into generally known facts establishing households as the major cause of wastage. The discourse calling for consumer responsibility was quickly taken up by various actors, such as political authorities, consumer educators and environmental organisations. It was even advocated as a “line of the paper”, most evidently articulated in editorials. Taking care of one’s own consumption behaviour is represented as a civic duty incumbent upon everyone.

Home Economics Discourse The home economics discourse shifts the focus from constructing the food waste problem to solving it at household level. The focus is put on everyday practices and household skills. The discourse consists of three strains deriving from slightly different social practices and discursive resources: at the initial stage of the food waste discourse, consumers were educated by giving rather general advice, for example, to avoid food waste and plan grocery shopping. Later a more practical type of education, household advice, took up connected to food waste reduction campaigns. The third variation takes place in food and lifestyle journalism promoting a new kind of food culture along with easily accepted education and advice. The first variation, consumer education, gives general advice on avoiding food waste while disseminating information on the food waste issue. Background assumptions concerning household food waste and

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     301

consumer responsibility are derived from the scientific–political discourse. The discourse is employed by researchers, authorities and campaigners, as well as by media representatives: Food gets thrown too easily into the rubbish. You get a long way when you learn two markings in the industry. The “use by” date is the date by which the product should be consumed. On the other hand the “best before” date does not mean that the product should already be discarded. It may no longer be at its best but it may still be fit for use. (06.09.2015b, Editorial)

The second variation derives from the more practical strand of household economics. In this discourse simple but often detailed advice is given on planning, purchasing, storing, preparing and re-using food. Promoting practical household management skills, the discourse recontextualises food waste in household economy and frames sustainable consumption within thrifty and reasonable consumption and good housekeeping. The discourse is employed by consumer educators, home economics organisations and others interested in food-related housekeeping practices, including journalists and individual citizens. In the following, a regional leader of the national home economics organisation, the Martha organisation, is interviewed: You should not go to either the supermarket or to the marketplace without a plan. “However tempting things may look, it is worthwhile considering what use you can make of the products. Some of the vegetables and berries will keep for many days, and some will easily spoil”, says [the leader of a regional Martha organisation]. By keeping in mind a few rules of thumb you can avoid unnecessarily wasting food. [Continues with the rules of thumb.] (22.07.2015, Food)

The third variation derives from food journalism and other forms of mediated food culture, including previous European food waste reduction campaigns (see Evans et al. 2017, p. 1404). With emphases on cooking and recipes, the discourse seeks to maintain and revitalise food culture—on the one hand, deriving from traditions, on the other by

302     L.-M. Raippalinna

encouraging creativity and innovation. Leftover recipes are especially promoted as part of modern, sustainable cooking. Ordinary recipes turn into leftover recipes simply by adding advice to “hide” in leftovers or food about to go off: Hint: Chili sin carne is like a fryup of potatoes or an omelette – that is, you can hide in it vegetables forgotten in the fridge. This is a way to reduce food waste and vegetables being thrown into the rubbish. Instead of Cheddar cheese you can grate in whatever was forgotten in the fridge. (09.04.2015, Food, recipe)

The home economics discourse contradicts ideal consumers with typical consumers in real situations. The ideal consumer makes a shopping list, buys wisely and knows how to use excess and leftover food but in real life, refrigerators are filled with food on the way to being wasted. Practices and values are interconnected, and the banal representations of household practices are coupled with an ideological dimension. Along with promoting non-waste behaviour, the discourse reproduces the traditional ideal of the thrifty, skilful consumer-housekeeper, devoted to serving the family with a proper home-cooked meal (see Ekström and Jonsson 2009). Food waste and wasteful practices may be represented as decay of food culture, especially of traditional values and skills. Past generations are represented as role models or sources of inspiration for today’s consumers. The ideal consumer combines a modern lifestyle with the traditional ideology of household education and home cooking: I have noticed that not many people eat their own packed lunches from home at work. It’s so much more trendy and easier to buy something readymade from the shop or eat in the canteen… I always take my own packed lunch to work. It generally consists of leftovers from what I have made for my family. After the meal I put the leftovers in plastic boxes that I can grab from the fridge to take with me. – that way good homemade food is available at work and really very little is wasted. (09.09.2016b, Opinion, a letter to the editor)

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     303

In the discourse, identities of thrifty, capable and creative householder-consumers are provided, and assumed, who show appreciation for food in their everyday practices. Individual consumers—the readers— are both addressed and represented as key actors in (household) food waste reduction. Consumers, struggling with everyday life, wasteful practices and the ambivalent feelings they arouse, are guided towards more sustainable practices by education and advice. A typical way of setting the scene for giving advice is to reconstruct a typical situation where food is about to be wasted: “Is there still half a lemon hanging about in the fridge?” (13.06.2017b). The home economics discourse frames the food waste problem inside a household, putting emphases on everyday consumption practices. Consumers’ role in food waste reduction is to learn to manage their consumption practices, and performance of non-wasteful practices is represented as being a part of good citizenship.

The Discourse of New Urban Food Culture The third discourse, which I call new urban food culture, proposes practical means of tackling food waste in public space. The rationale of preventing and reducing food waste are introduced through representing waste reduction practices and services while they emerge in urban space, mostly in the city of Helsinki. They include establishing a restaurant serving “wasted food” a zero-waste bar and mobile applications that help to share, buy and donate leftover food from supermarkets, restaurants and private homes. The discourse also manifests in small articles and announcements about campaign happenings, which invite consumers to enjoy a free meal made of “waste food”. Sharing and consuming excess happens in public and in wider social networks. Connected to locality, communality, sustainability and urban lifestyle, sharing and consuming excess creates and strengthens social relationships: We want to change people’s eating habits. Instead of going to the fast food place, we want them to fetch food from the neighbours. (01.04.2017, Economy)

304     L.-M. Raippalinna

In this discourse, ruokahävikki is coupled with another new concept hävikkiruoka [surplus food, waste food]. Whereas the former refers to food waste as a phenomenon, a problem and a process, the latter is used for food as a matter that is wasted or at risk of being wasted and for food as a matter that has been saved from being wasted. In this discourse, surplus discarded in one context is transformed into socially and culturally acceptable food in another. Food served in “food waste restaurants” is repeatedly represented as food that would have otherwise been wasted, thrown away, rejected et cetera. Recovering and consuming excess food is represented as “salvaging” food (05.09.2016) or “giving it another chance” (18.11.2016) or “another life” (04.08.2016), thus constructing this as ethical and sustainable conduct. New form of food culture is established on creating value from excess. The culinary value of recovered food is evoked in textual and visual representations of ingredients and dishes as perfectly eatable as well as delicious. Cultural expectations are somewhat revised along with the practice of cooking. In the context of waste food restaurants, ad hoc creativity is encouraged, as available ingredients form the bases for cooking: The helpings [in the restaurant] consist solely of food that would otherwise have gone to waste. That is food past its shelf life in the shops that would otherwise have been slung into the rubbish. – A casserole flavoured with mayonnaise has a soft flavour and the pieces of meat are tender. Afterwards I hear [from the cook] that most of the pieces of meat in the casserole are ox or pork tongue. – You cut your coat according to your cloth [says the cook]. (09.03.2016b Nyt [Now], weekly supplement)

The discourse of new urban food culture creates responsible consumption by introducing opportunities to take part in food waste reduction. Consumers participate in the reduction of food waste outside their own plate and household, as they consume and help others to consume food that would otherwise end up as waste. New audiences are approached by providing interesting products and convenient solutions for everyday food consumption, serving sustainability alongside. Appreciation

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     305

for food is constructed in the practice of consuming waste food. On the other hand, participating provides an opportunity to perform individually held values and attitudes in public: Could you taste that it had been made of leftovers [jämäruoka ]? “No way”, says [a customer] on a lunch break with a plate of meatballs. It’s really good food and a fantastically good idea that you can recycle in this way and use up waste food [hävikkiruoka ]. (04.04.2016b, City)

A cultural change is conducted by offering opportunities for sustainable food consumption in an urban environment. Food waste reduction is situated in a network connecting political, economic and civil society actors, and consumers are represented as potential innovators in tackling food waste. People behind the new services are represented as consumer–citizens actively contributing to the construction and reform of society: The idea for a waste food restaurant came from [name]. As a volunteer she collected food from shops whose shelf life was expiring and saw how vast quantities of eatable food were being thrown away… “We want to introduce the Amsterdam model into Helsinki.” (11.12.2015, Nyt )

Media play a major role in constructing the new urban culture by featuring it in media discourse. Several articles on a single restaurant project were found in the data. Often different cases are drawn together in a single article as representations of the same cultural phenomenon. This serves to construct a general trend—or an emerging culture—out of single cases. The emerging local culture, steadily connected to the city of Helsinki, is set in an international context and represented as a global phenomenon. References are made to international examples in Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Paris, London and New York. Representing food waste reduction as a trendy urban phenomenon may help to reach new audiences, but it also risks to making it just another passing trend or an exclusive niche occupied by a knowledgeable urban middle class:

306     L.-M. Raippalinna

Better than basic meat in gravy is the new German urban middle class with its desire for novelty. The restaurant’s [in Berlin] customers pay to dine on waste food. This is the foodsharing phenomenon; people share meals and ingredients and the ecological new urban way of life. For them the good life means that they can afford to consume in an ethical manner. (18.11.2016, Foreign)

Discussing food waste in terms of redistributing and consuming excess the discourse of new urban food culture constructs new modes of food consumption. Consumers are represented as a potential source of change as they are offered opportunities to participate in food waste reduction in urban communities.

Discussion: Mobilising Consumer–Citizens in Media Discourse In HS, various actors and voices participate in the food waste discourse reproducing the representations of good citizen/consumer. The topdown governmentality of the scientific–political discourse meets the more horizontal forms that the mobilisation of consumers takes in the other discourses. While the scientific–political discourse framed food waste as a political issue, prior discursive recourses invoked in the media discourse contributed to the acceptance and escalation of the discourse and provided a cultural basis for holding consumers responsible. In the following, I discuss the discursive resources utilised in the discourses of consumer mobilisation and consider how the framing of people as responsible consumers and citizens in the discourses outlines their actions and possibilities to influence. In media, the discourses mobilising consumers in food waste reduction are situated among a variety of other discourses that challenge consumption, seek behavioural change and put responsibility on individual consumers (Halkier 2010; Phillipov 2017). Food consumption has been a prominent issue in the two major discourses of contested consumption—the health and sustainability discourses. In this context, responsibility put on individual consumers makes sense. In the

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     307

scientific–political discourse on food waste responsibilisation of consumers followed the line laid down in the sustainability discourse (see Evans et al. 2017), extending the notions of sustainability and consumer responsibility to the area of food consumption (household food waste), which until then had remained outside the mainstream political interest. However, the discourse has roots beyond sustainability and contested consumption. The representations of wastage employed frequently throughout the discourse invoke traditional food-related norms and values. For instance, “wasting food”, “throwing away food” and “binning food” are less practical representations of the act of wasting than metaphorical expressions resonating the traditional sociocultural norm of not throwing away food. A recurrent visual representation of breaking the norm in the data is a photograph of a biowaste bucket or a rubbish bin filled with food (waste). Wastage of food is often followed by feelings of shame (Evans 2014, p. 45). The wastage metaphors utilised in the media discourse feature as collective representations of shame and blame related food waste. The traditional values also manifest in the home economics discourse ideal of good citizen. In Finland, domestic science and household economic organisations have educated people in thrifty and reasonable household practices for more than a century. They had a significant role in civic education and nation-building in the first half of the twentieth century (Heinonen 1998). Household work was framed as political as people were educated to perform good citizenship by exercising thrift and cleanliness in household practices. As the scientific–political discourse raised the food waste issue in the 2010s, food waste-related practices taking place in private kitchens were again framed as political and reconstructed as a form of responsible citizenship. While home economics offered both discursive resources and practical means to tackle the food waste problem in households, the scientific–political discourse on food waste provided home economics education with renewed political currency. While sharing and consuming leftovers has traditionally been restricted to the private sphere of home and family (Cappellini and Parsons 2013), the discourse of new urban food culture constructs new

308     L.-M. Raippalinna

modes of consumption based on sharing and consuming excess food in public. The wastage figures established in the scientific–political discourse lend this discourse its political rationality, and traditional norms and values upheld in the home economics discourse constitute some of its sociocultural appeal. However, international food trends, food journalism and the overall mediatisation of food culture provide the discursive resources from which the discourse of new urban food culture derives in creating new forms of food consumption. Traditional foodrelated norms and values are updated to fit the new urban lifestyle and foodscape. Both the scientific–political discourse and the home economics discourse revolve around individual performance of consumer responsibility. In the scientific–political discourse, citizens’ role in food waste reduction is restricted to minimising their own food waste; people perform good citizenship by “doing their bit” and choosing to consume reasonably. Consumers are to manage their own conduct based on motivation and knowledge provided by experts and educators. In the home economics discourse, the consumer’s role is above all to manage their own household practices, and these practices are reconstructed as a form of responsible citizenship. While good household skills are occasionally represented as an ability to resist the temptations of the consumer society and marketing, the discourse seeks to change consumer behaviour—not to transform the structures of economy and markets (see Mayes [2014] for health discourse and consumer choice). Along with vertical household economics education, the home economics discourse displays horizontal consumer-to-consumer governmentality implying that responsible consumption can emerge through reforming food culture and consumption practices (Närvänen et al. 2018); consumers can participate in the reform by sharing practical tips and posing as role models for other consumers. In the discourse of new urban food culture, food waste reduction and the new modes of food consumption are represented in terms of opportunities rather than responsibilities. The discourse allocates responsibility, emphasising collaboration among different actors in the food system, but at the same time consumer–citizens are exhorted to perform active citizenship and entrepreneurship in the issue.

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     309

Mostly the role of consumer remains restricted to managing their own consumption and household practices and more or less local participation as consumer–citizens. While seeking to transform consumption behaviour and practices, the discourses of consumer mobilisation remain inside the structures that initially shape them. The discourses represent the “end of pipe” view (Alexander et al. 2013) on the food waste issue: pre-consumption food waste is clearly absent in the data, and drivers of food waste across the food system remain invisible in the contexts where consumer responsibility is built. The economic system, global trade, finance, production subsidies and other economic and political factors affecting food waste generation and sustainability are absent from the discourse (see Alexander et al. 2013; Gille 2013). The relative absence of large-scale structural issues and solutions in the discourses mobilising consumers implies that they are treated outside the reach and interest of ordinary consumers. In the discourses analysed here, people are not framed as citizens having the opportunity (or responsibility) to participate and demand political action. They could be encouraged to call for extensive changes in the food system, but in the discourses analysed here any larger-scale questions concerning the food system are left to experts and politicians. Citizens are even told to focus on their own food waste and leave other sustainability issues to scientists and professionals. In this chapter, I have contributed to the critical academic discussion on food waste and sustainability initiatives that put responsibility on individual consumer. I have done this by presenting a nuanced and empirically informed analysis of the forms that mobilising consumers takes in the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat. Adopting governmentality and citizenship studies perspective, I investigated the framing of the food waste problem and the consumer in the discourses that mobilise consumers for food waste reduction. I demonstrated that consumer responsibility is not merely imposed by consumerist governance initiatives but derives from various discursive resources, such as traditional ideals related to good citizenship. However, I also pointed out that while the categories of consumer and citizen merge in the discourses of consumer mobilisation, the role assigned to the consumer–citizen is framed in terms of private consumption rather than active civic or political participation.

310     L.-M. Raippalinna

Focusing on discourses of consumer mobilisation leaves some remarkable discussions beyond the scope of this article, most importantly the discussions concerning retail food waste and its redistribution as food aid. From the perspective of citizenship, however, the construction of primary vs. secondary consumers taking place in this discussion would be an important research topic (see, e.g., Kortetmäki and Silvasti 2017). In addition, more investigation is needed into the allocation of responsibility and representation of structural drivers and solutions in media discourse on food waste.

Practical Implications: From Media Discourse to Sustainable Practices? Practice theoretical approaches on sustainability emphasise normalisation as a prerequisite of successful transformation of social practices. A relevant question concerns whether media discourse will contribute to normalisation of non-waste practices and thus contribute to reducing food waste and increasing the sustainability of the food system. Although the reception and impact of media discourse are tricky to investigate (Halkier 2010; Podkalicka 2018), I offer some reflections on these issues based on current discussions in the field of sustainable consumption. My analysis supports the argument that the valuation and appreciation of food, which many food waste reduction initiatives declare to be missing and seek to evoke, actually do persist in everyday cultural conceptions (Evans 2012). As Evans et al. (2013) suggest, these topics just did not fit the discursive domain until the sustainability discourse made food waste once again a public and political issue. Media discourse that started by lamenting the lack of values ultimately features their prevalence: while the framings of the food waste problem and its solutions may be disputed, the (economic, environmental, social and moral) importance of food waste reduction remains unchallenged in media discourse. As Evans (2014, p. 45) notes, the problem seems to be that food is wasted despite these widely held norms and values. There exists a widely acknowledged gap in between values and practices, as knowledge, values or even widely held social norms do not

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     311

necessarily materialise into sustainable practices. Especially practice theory approaches to sustainable consumption have questioned the feasibility of influencing individual behaviour by information and value education, maintaining that consumption is embedded in everyday practices (Evans 2014; Evans et al. 2017; Podkalicka 2018; Shove 2010; Southerton and Evans 2017; Watson 2017). Constituted by and constitutive of food-related practices media discourses both perpetuate the existing practices and have an ability to change them. Whether or not media discourses will contribute to changing food consumption practices on any larger scale depends on their ability to transform a wide range of food-related practices and normalise them as routinised everyday practices (see Evans 2014, pp. 95–96; Watson 2017). Strong practice theoretical approaches maintain that changing practices requires transforming the social and economic infrastructures, as they are essential part of the practices. The scientific–political discourse and the home economics discourse feature as consumer education based on sharing knowledge, information and advice. While the latter does put the focus on household practices and the reorganisation of daily routines, ultimately both discourses feature methodological individualism as they seek to change and challenge consumer behaviour. Food waste prevention and reduction are constructed as a social norm, but little effort is made to truly abolish and replace the prevailing (unsustainable) social practices. The discourse of new urban food culture, however, is clearly involved in establishing new social practices, and HS is active in marketing the new practices to the public. Nevertheless, it risks constructing them as alternative instead of widely held practices spreading across society. In addition, as the discourse puts the focus on allocating and consuming excess, it provides no means to prevent it in the first place and leaves social, economic and material structures untouched. Media discourse on food waste constructed food waste prevention as a social norm with political currency, but to normalise the non-waste practices beginning to emerge in the discourses would require going beyond consumer education, leftover recipes and representations on alternative modes of consumption. In the media, this would mean integrating food waste prevention and reduction into all aspects of mediated food culture, including recipes, commercials, restaurant reviews et cetera. Currently,

312     L.-M. Raippalinna

food waste is framed as just another issue of contested consumption, detached from other food-related discourses; for instance, the data include several articles on a single food waste restaurant, but only one “conventional” restaurant review mentions food waste. In order to transform food-related practices, food-related discourses also need to be changed. The discourses analysed here represent food waste as “excess” that can be eliminated, not as an elementary function of society or the food system (see O’Brien 2007; Reno 2015). As represented in the discourses, food waste can be reduced without having to give up anything (unlike in the case of reducing meat consumption, for example) and without having to change the social, economic and material (technological) structures in which the generation of food waste is embedded. Only one of the 193 articles in the data suggests reforming the global economic structures: according to this article, food is too cheap and sustainability problems require large-scale political solutions, for example, abandoning subsidies on meat production. Focusing on certain framings and solutions, the media discourse on food waste may mask other possible means of solving the food waste problem; in the bigger picture, it may mask other, possibly more effective means to tackle the sustainability issues of the global food system. As the major Finnish newspaper, HS is influential in giving different voices a hearing. On the other hand, the paper quite uncritically reproduces the discourses provided by others and the given framings and solutions are rarely challenged. Stories are needed which illustrate food waste more ambitiously as part of the global food system, across national borders and at different levels of the food system. This way the social, economic and material infrastructures could be seen as an integral part of (un)sustainable practices, featured in individual performances of (ir)responsibility.

Conclusions In this chapter, I investigated how consumers are mobilised in food waste reduction in the major Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, during the period of 2010–2017. Building on governmentality studies,

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     313

I analysed how the food waste problem and consumers were constructed in relation to each other in the data. I identified three major discourses in which consumers are mobilised: the scientific–political discourse, the home economics discourse and the discourse of new urban food culture. The first two discourses frame food waste in the Finnish food chain and Finnish households. Focusing on household food waste, they feature as consumer education and underline individual consumers’ responsibility in food waste reduction. The role of individual citizens is delimited to managing their own consumption and household practices. The third discourse concentrates on establishing new modes of food consumption based on consuming surplus food and represents food waste reduction in terms of opportunities instead of responsibilities. While giving consumers a more active role in participating the generation of new social practices, it risks constructing these practices as alternative modes of food consumption instead of widely held social practices. Both pre-consumption food waste and (structural) drivers of food waste across the food chain remain invisible in the discourses and thus remain beyond consumers-citizens’ reach and interest. In order to contribute to a transformation of practices, the media discourse would need to overcome education, advice and international food trends and normalise food waste prevention and reduction by integrating them into all food-related discourses and genres of journalism. In addition, food waste should be illustrated as a part of the global food system, not as an excess that can be wiped out without transforming social, economic and material-technological structures.

References Åkesson, L. (2012). Waste in overflow. In B. Czarniawska & O. Löfgren (Eds.), Managing overflow in affluent societies (pp. 141–154). New York, NY: Routledge. Alexander, C., Gregson, N., & Gille, Z. (2013). Food waste. In A. Murcott, W. Belasco, & P. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of food research (pp. 471–483). London: Bloomsbury.

314     L.-M. Raippalinna

Barnett, C., Cloke, P., & Clarke, N. (2010). Globalizing responsibility: The political rationalities of ethical consumption. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Bartiaux, F. (2008). Does environmental information overcome practice compartmentalization and change consumers’ behaviours? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1170–1180. Bevir, M., & Trentmann, F. (2007). Introduction: Consumption and citizenship in the new governance. In. M. Bevir & F. Trentmann (Eds.), Governance, consumers and citizens: Agency and resistance in contemporary politics (pp. 1–22). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cappellini, B., & Parsons, E. (2013). Practicing thrift at dinnertime: Mealtime leftovers, sacrifice and family membership. The Sociological Review, 60, 121–134. Coveney, J. (2006). Food, morals and meaning: The pleasure and anxiety of eating (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Dickinson, R. (2013). Food and the media: Production, representation, and consumption. In A. Murcott, W. Belasco, & P. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of food research (pp. 439–454). London: Bloomsbury. Ekström, M. P., & Jonsson, I. M. (2009). Family meals: Competence, cooking and company. In H. Janhonen-Abruquah & P. Palojoki (Eds.), Food in contemporary society (pp. 23–28). Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Evans, D. (2012). Beyond the throwaway society: Ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1), 41–56. Evans, D. (2014). Food waste: Home consumption, material culture and everyday life. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Evans, D., Campbell, H., & Murcott, A. (2013). A brief pre-history of food waste and the social sciences. The Sociological Review, 60, 5–26. Evans, D., Welch, D., & Swaffield, J. (2017). Constructing and mobilizing ‘the consumer’: Responsibility, consumption and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(6), 1396–1412. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity. Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourses studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 357–367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gille, Z. (2013). From risk to waste: Global food waste regimes. The Sociological Review, 60, 27–46.

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     315

Goodman, M. K., Johnston, J., Cairns, K. (2017). Food, media and space: The mediated biopolitics of eating. Geoforum, 84, 161–168. Halkier, B. (2010). Consumption challenged: Food in medialised everyday lives. Farnham: Ashgate. Heinonen, V. (1998). Talonpoikainen etiikka ja kulutuksen henki: Kotitalousneuvonnasta kuluttajapolitiikkaan 1900-luvun Suomessa [Peasant ethics and the spirit of consumption: From household advicing to consumer policy in the 20th century Finland]. Helsinki: Suomen historiallinen seura. Karrebæk, M. S., Riley, K. C., & Cavanaugh, J. R. (2018). Food and language: Production, consumption, and circulation of meaning and value. Annual Review of Anthropology, 47(1), 17–32. Katajajuuri, J., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2014). Food waste in the Finnish food chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 322–329. Kortetmäki, T., & Silvasti, T. (2017). Charitable food aid in a Nordic welfare state: A case for environmental and social injustice. In A. L. Matthies & K. Närhi (Eds.), The ecosocial transition of societies: The contribution of social work and social policy (pp. 219–233). London: Routledge. Lindegaard, L. B. (2016). The discursive intersection of the government of others and the government of self in the face of climate change. In P. McIlvenny, J. Z. Klausen, & L. B. Lindegaard (Eds.), Studies of discourse and governmentality (pp. 95–117). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Maniates, M. (2002). Individualization: Plant a tree, by a bike, save the world? In T. Princen, K. Conca, & M. Maniates (Eds.), Confronting consumption (pp. 43–66). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mayes, C. (2014). Governing through choice: Food labels and the confluence of food industry and public health discourse to create ‘healthy consumers’. Social Theory & Health, 12(4), 376–395. Mayes, C. (2017). Food at the nexus of bioethics and biopolitics. In M. Rawlinson & C. Ward (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of food ethics (pp. 167–177). London: Routledge. McIlvenny, P., Klausen, J. Z., & Lindegaard, L. B. (Eds.). (2016). Studies of discourse and governmentality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. Oxford: Polity. Närvänen, E., Mesiranta, N., Sutinen, U., & Mattila, M. (2018). Creativity, aesthetics and ethics of food waste in social media campaigns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 102–110.

316     L.-M. Raippalinna

O’Brien, M. (2007). A crises of waste: Understanding the rubbish society. London: Routledge. Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. Pearson, D., Mirosa, M., Andrews, L., & Kerr, G. (2017). Reframing communications that encourage individuals to reduce food waste. Communication Research and Practice, 3(2), 137–154. Pearson, D., & Perera, A. (2018). Reducing food waste: A practitioner guide identifying requirements for an integrated social marketing communication campaign. Social Marketing Quarterly, 24(1), 45–57. Phillipov, M. (2017). Becoming food: Eating media. Geoforum, 84, 241–242. Podkalicka, A. (2018). Actor, intermediary, and context: Media in home renovation and consumption practice. Communication Research and Practice, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2018.1507326. Reno, J. (2015). Waste and waste management. The Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 553–572. Rumpala, Y. (2011). “Sustainable consumption” as a new phase in a governmentalization of consumption. Theory and Society, 40, 669–699. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42(6), 1273–1285. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. London: Sage. Silvennoinen, K., Koivupuro, H.-K, Katajajuuri J.-M., Jalkanen, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2012). Ruokahävikki suomalaisessa ruokaketjussa. Foodspill 2010–2012 – hankkeen loppuraportti [Food waste in the Finnish food chain. Foodspill 2010–2012 report]. MTT Raportti 41. Jokioinen: MTT. http:// www.mtt.fi/mttraportti/pdf/mttraportti41.pdf. Accessed on 12.3.2019. Soper, K., & Trentmann, F. (2008). Introduction: Consumption and citizenship in the new governance. In K. Soper & F. Trentmann (Eds.), Citizenship and consumption (pp. 1–16). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Southerton, D., & Evans, D. (2017). Consumption policies within different theoretical frameworks. In M. Keller, B. Halkier, T. Wilska, & M. Thuringer (Eds.), Routledge handbook of consumption (pp. 204–214). London: Routledge. Thompson, K., & Haigh, L. (2017). Representations of food waste in reality food television: An exploratory analysis of Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares. Sustainability, 9(7), 1139.

11  Mobilising Consumers for Food Waste …     317

Trentmann, F. (2005). Knowing consumer—Histories, identities, practices: An introduction. London: Birkbeck ePrints. Van Vliet, B., & Spaargaren, G. (2017). Structural conditions for and against sustainable ways of consuming. In M. Keller, B. Halkier, T. Wilska, & M. Thuringer (Eds.), Routledge handbook of consumption (pp. 353–362). London: Routledge. Warde, A., Welch, D., & Paddock, J. (2017). Studying consumption through the lens of practice. In M. Keller, B. Halkier, T. Wilska, & M. Thuringer (Eds.), Routledge handbook of consumption (pp. 25–35.) London: Routledge. Watson, M. (2017). Sustainable consumption and changing practices. In M. Keller, B. Halkier, T. Wilska, & M. Thuringer (Eds.), Routledge handbook of consumption (pp. 343–351). London: Routledge.

Part IV Innovating Practical Solutions

12 Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste Trevor M. Fowles and Christian Nansen

Introduction As detritivores and herbivores, the diversity of insect species includes groups highly specialized in their ability to thrive on different organic substrates as food sources. Some of these substrates resemble food wastes from agriculture and food processing industries. In the literature, this is referred to as insects-based “bioconversion” and represents an economically viable method for turning large quantities of food waste into valuable materials—including feed for animals (insect biomass as a supplement added to animal feed), food for people, secondary industrial compounds (biofuel, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, dyes, etc.), and the leftover food waste can be used as organic matter and nutrient-rich T. M. Fowles (*) · C. Nansen  Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. Nansen e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_12

321

322     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

soil amendments. Consequently, the services rendered from insectbased bioconversion provide marketable solutions for reducing food waste that are fiscally manageable, modest both in space and energy requirements, environmentally friendly, associated with real market/ commercial opportunities, and yielding higher feed conversion ratios than conventional livestock (Li et al. 2013; van Huis and Oonincx 2017). Though a relatively nascent industrial sector, mass production of insects for feed and secondary products is a rapidly growing enterprise with significant potential for growth (Dossey et al. 2016; van Huis and Oonincx 2017). Presently, only a few insect species are commercially used for insect-based bioconversion of food waste, with black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens L. ) being the most commonly used species (Wang and Shelomi 2017). This is juxtaposed by the immense diversity of insects adapted to a wide range of food sources and therefore likely capable of providing effective bioconversion of a wide range of food waste materials. Considering the diversity of food waste streams generated from numerous crop varieties and their by-products from downstream processing, there appears to be ample opportunity for exploration of optimized combinations of food wastes-to-insect pairings to maximize both bioconversion and insect biomass production. In this chapter, we argue better food waste-to-insect pairings and selective breeding of insects are needed to increase capacity of using insects-based bioconversion of food waste. In addition, we provide both theoretical and practical solutions (businesses), and regulatory hurdles relating to insect-based bioconversion of food waste.

The Case for Insects—Why Bioconversion of Food Waste? insect-based bioconversion of food waste is the controlled breakdown of an initial feedstock (food waste) into insect biomass and frass (waste residuals) (Barry 2004), with the latter consisting of predominantly insect frass and to a lesser extent, shed exoskeletons, dead insect parts, and potentially uneaten feedstock. The process of insect-based

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     323

bioconversion of food waste mirrors the natural breakdown of organic matter in ecosystems (Lim et al. 2016). In such systems, naturally occurring insects, earthworms, a wide range of other invertebrates, fungi, and bacteria colonize and break down food waste, converting the nutrients for their own metabolic and reproductive needs. Under controlled conditions, the species responsible for the decomposition process can be regulated and the ambient conditions can be optimized to favour the growth and bioconversion by the given species performing the service. Importantly, value may be produced at multiple steps in the bioconversion process (Barry 2004). For instance, value can be gained from the elimination of the initial waste itself (Mutafela 2015) (disposal fees), sales of insect biomass for food and feed (Anankware et al. 2015), sales from fractionated secondary products (Zheng, Li, et al. 2012), and sales of the remaining bioconverted waste for soil amendments (Suantika et al. 2017). Industrial insect rearing can efficiently turn many tonnes of food waste feedstock into valuable products, with some sources suggesting most food waste can be diverted to insect-based bioconversion (Ortiz et al. 2016; Veldkamp et al. 2012). Currently, Agriprotein’s South African facility has the capacity to process 72 megagram (Mg) tonnes of food waste each day, in turn generating 16 Mg of “insect meal” (dried powder from ground insect biomass), 9 Mg of insect oil, and 88 Mg of fertilizer (www.agriprotein.com). Agriprotein uses black soldier fly for its food waste bioconversion and is looking into using other species as they expand. They are one of several companies in the rapidly expanding insect-based bioconversion sector, with others including Ynsect (www.ynsect.com), Nextalim (www.nextalim.com), UNIQUE (www. gzunique.com.cn), and Alapre (www.insectmeal.com.co). Commercialization of insect-based bioconversion represents a promising shift in providing alternative options for food waste reduction (Nyakeri et al. 2017; Wang and Shelomi 2017), as the industrial production of insects requires significant quantities of cheap, reliable feedstock (Ortiz et al. 2016). With supplies of global food waste estimated at 1.3 billion tonnes and growing (Ambuko 2014; FAO 2017), and demands for protein, biofuels, and fertilizers increasing (Parfitt et al. 2010), businesses adopting insect-based bioconversion make economic sense (Barry 2004). Moreover, insect-based bioconversion of otherwise

324     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

disposable food wastes provides a much-needed link for recirculating nutrients and resources from consumers back into agricultural supply chains. With consumers evermore concerned about the environmental profile of goods, insect-based bioconversion of waste is a marketable asset that may appeal to the sustainably minded customer (D’Souza et al. 2007). On a philosophical level, the concept of insect-based bioconversion hinges on the notion of completely re-thinking the concept of “food waste”. In the Webster’s English Dictionary, “waste” is defined as “an unwanted by-product”. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations makes a further distinction between “food loss” (early stages of the food supply chain) and “food waste” (later in the food supply chain) (FAO 2017). The concept of insect-based bioconversion means that by-products from one food production system become the input in bioconversion systems, so the concept of “waste” and “loss” really cannot be applied. Thus, the trend trail-blazed by insect-based bioconversion and described in this chapter represents a re-thinking of nutrient and resource flows within and among food production systems, and it is expected to become a critical part of more sustainable food production systems in the twenty-first century.

Waste-to-Insect Pairings While the most commonly used species of bioconverters may be very suitable in some situations, one species cannot adequately capitalize on the immense diversity of food waste streams (Lardé 1990; Smetana et al. 2016). Within the diversity of insects, there are undoubtedly species with specific attributes that make them uniquely suited as bioconverters of a highly specialized food waste. To optimize pairings of insect species and food waste, one must consider a combination of abiotic interactions and functional traits of the insect for handling the waste. Abiotic attributes are non-living chemical and physical characteristics of the food waste (i.e. moisture content, phenolics, nutrient load, etc.). Whereas, functional attributes of insects include: feeding behaviour, morphology (i.e. large mandibles (mouth part) for masticating, soft bodies for moving through substrates, behavioural avoidance of poor

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     325

egg laying sites), development time, ability to resist diseases, and a range of other attributes. It is the combination of these abiotic and functional attributes that allow some insects to be well suited for bioconversion of waste, while rendering others as maladapted (Fig. 12.1). For example, vegetative food wastes can be fed to both black soldier fly larvae and mealworm larvae (Li et al. 2013; Manurung et al. 2016), but this waste is too low in protein content for housefly larvae (Hogsette 1992). Conversely, restaurant and kitchen wastes containing meat are well suited for housefly and black soldier fly larvae, but are too wet for mealworms, which can get moisture directly from the air and thus perform optimally in drier wastes (Cheng et al. 2017). Further, black soldier fly larvae tolerance of wet wastes and high temperatures (from bacterial and colony metabolism) allow them to capitalize on many waste streams (Table 12.1). But husbandry practices also require specific lighting for breeding, the flies are intolerant to temperature drops, and perform poorly in some low nutrient wastes (beet pulp

Fig. 12.1  Two adult black Soldier flies. Adults live only a couple of weeks, while they mate and lay eggs (a). Black soldier fly larvae on restaurant waste (b). Once growing to their full size, larvae exhibit self-extraction behaviours and move away from their food source

326     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen Table 12.1  Some insects used for bioconversion, the different wastes that they can be fed, and the final products Species

Organic wastes

Country

Bioconversion output

Reference

Black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens )

Rice straw, restaurant waste (3:7)

China

Biofuel

Zheng, Hou, et al. (2012)

Rice straw

Indonesia

Biomass

Coffee pulp, husk

El Salvador, Indonesia

Biomass, fertilizer

Waste from pears, banana, and cucumber (5:3:2) Corn stover

Sweden

Biomass

Manurung et al. (2016) Lardé (1990), Suantika et al. (2017) Mutafela (2015)

China

Corncob Sorghum

China United States

Biofuel, soil amendment Biofuel Biomass

Cowpea

United States

Biomass

Cassava peel

Indonesia

Biomass

Vegetable trimmings, spent coffee grounds, and tea leaves Vegetables, peels of yam, cassava, plantain Restaurant waste (70%) Corn silage, sawdust (30%) Starch and cheese wastewater sludge

United States, Biomass Hong Kong

Housefly (Musca domestica )

Codling moth (Cydia pomonella )

Wang et al. (2017) Li et al. (2015) Tinder et al. (2017) Tinder et al. (2017) Supriyatna et al. (2016) Cheng (2016)

Ghana

Biomass

Bonso (2013)

China

Biomass, biofuel, fertilizer

Niu et al. (2017)

Canada

Biomass

Brar et al. (2008)

(continued)

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     327 Table 12.1  (continued) Species

Organic wastes

Country

Bioconversion output

Reference

Cambodian field crickets (Teleogryllus testaceus )

Cassava plant tops, spent grain, mung bean sprout waste, field weeds Wheat straw, bruised cabbage leaves

Cambodia

Biomass

Miech et al. (2016)

China

Biomass

Corn stover

China

Biofuel

Yellow Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor )

Wang et al. (2017)

(Smetana et al. 2016)). This combination of abiotic interactions and functional traits of the flies translate to actual economic trade-offs, as drying food wastes and using special equipment (lights) add costs to commercial operations. As such, considering appropriate waste-to-insect pairings is a significant component in using insects in food waste reduction. Table 12.1 illustrates examples of appropriate waste-to-insect pairings, while not an exhaustive list, it highlights the extent to which more insects should be studied for their potential bioconversion performance. Table 12.1 also includes products of economic value generated from bioconversion, with the inclusion of less commonly used insect species.

Selective Breeding Due to their short lifespans, high reproductive rates, and variable genetic expression, insect adaptation (evolution) may occur within economically relevant time scales (Jensen et al. 2017). When adaptation is controlled by humans, the process is referred to as artificial selection or selective breeding and will play an important role in developing/engineering insect lines for bioconverting specific food ­ wastes (Jensen et al. 2017). For example, some by-products of food processing are high in plant defensive chemicals and are largely inedible.

328     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

These “recalcitrant” food wastes may be high in tannins and phenolics (for instance, the chemicals partially responsible for the specific/unique tastes associated with wine, cranberries, coffee, chocolate, and cinnamon) and are difficult to bioconvert using insects. These chemicals are plant adaptations evolved to repel or even kill herbivores (van Dyk et al. 2013). However, studies focusing on insect-plant defensive interactions have demonstrated insects can be adapted to detoxify these chemicals (Carroll et al. 1998; De Jong and Bijma 2002). Using selective breeding, insects could be bred to overcome defensive chemicals found in recalcitrant wastes and thus allow for bioconversion of troublesome food wastes (e.g. wine and olive pomace). Other examples of insect breeding may include, improving germlines to increase yields of secondary products (oils and pharmaceuticals) (Li et al. 2012), larger body size (Jensen et al. 2017), and shifts to novel food sources (Alves et al. 2016). Selective breeding in industrial mass production of insect occurs actively or passively (Jensen et al. 2017). Passive selective breeding involves permitting mated females to self-select waste oviposition (eggs laying) sites across generations. For breeding and bioconversion operations, female self-selection may pose a cost-efficient method for capitalizing on insect instinctive (innate) survival behaviours (Nansen et al. 2016). For example, silkworm “innate recognition templates” are programmed to specific chemical cues that indicate the best food for her offspring even after thousands of years of domestication (Garlapow et al. 2015). Active selective breeding involves forming separate lines for each waste and using inbreeding, linebreeding, and outcrossing to control gene expression (Jensen et al. 2017). In general, active selective breeding requires more maintenance and containment and therefore can be cost prohibitive for some operations. However, active selective breeding is more controlled, which may appeal to capital intensive operations, and it represents an opportunity to develop and commercialize specific insect strains. In conclusion, insect breeding for more efficient food waste reduction is still in a preliminary phase academically, which contrasts to the proprietary lines already used by commercial enterprises. Nevertheless, as businesses continue to develop around industrial insect production there will be more funding and research interest in advanced insect breeding programs.

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     329

Business Processes Food waste may be viewed as a problem by some, but others view it as an appealing opportunity for business. The last two decades have seen an explosion of growth in businesses using insects to convert food waste (Table 12.2). Yet, businesses centred on the mass production of insects have existed for centuries (honey bees, silk moths, lacquer bugs) (van Huis 2013). Additionally, many businesses developed in second half of the twentieth century selling insects for biocontrol, medical research, and for supporting the pet trade (Ortiz et al. 2016). Drawing on research and methods developed for mass production of insects for other purposes, new companies are finding significant opportunities producing insects for feed and food. An indispensable component for these businesses is acquisition of inexpensive, abundant, and consistent sources of feedstock, and for many the preferred and economical choice is food waste. In the following, we describe the basic design of mass production of insects for bioconversion, with different steps for producing valu­able materials (Fig. 12.2, steps 1–11). Operations begin with an incoming food waste feedstock (1). Food waste feedstock may require preprocessing before it can be used as feedstock for the given insects (2). Some pre-consumer food wastes like juice pulps are already processed and can therefore go directly into the bioconversion process. Once the feedstock is ready, insect inoculum is added either as eggs or as small immatures (3). For all insect species, most of the growth and bioconversion occurs during the immature stages. To optimize biomass production, the ideal harvesting time is during late (well-developed) immature stages. Harvesting/extraction (4) may be done by mechanically sifting immatures from frass; however, some insects have selfextraction behaviours which allow them to be collected by controlling their evacuation routes. The sifted frass may then be further broken down via microbial decay (10) or mixed with additives and packaged as a fertilizer (7). Depending on the business, populations of extracted insects may be sold live (5) or further refined into valuable commodities such as biodiesel, defatted insect meal, pharmaceuticals, etc. (6–7).

330     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

Fig. 12.2  Typical business process for insect-based bioconversion of food waste. Note that value can be extracted from both the elimination of waste and downstream materials, such as insect protein (biomass), oils, frass, and pharmaceutical ingredients (Image is modified from an original design by www.eawag.ch/ and licensed under CC BY 2.0.)

In addition, each of these steps may require external inputs of electricity, water, labour, etc. (11). It should be noted that there is a range of opportunities provided within the production chain, from highvalued small-volume products to low-value bulk commodities. Below, we briefly review some of the possible revenue streams from insect bioconversion systems.

Bioconversion to Produce Fertilizers The chemical and physical properties of insect frass used as a fertilizer are compatible to other commercial products (Salomone et al. 2017). For example, in one study the growth rate and chemical composition of cabbages grown using black soldier fly frass were identical to commercial fertilizers (Choi et al. 2009). Similarly, onion production was identical for both insect frass and compost amendments (Zahn 2017). This may be due to the added ammonia (NH4+) from nitrogen in insect

100% traceable EU approved by-products

Organic waste and animal by-products

Nextalim

Alapre 24 Mg

41 Mg

72 Mg Pre- and post-consumer organic waste

Agriprotein

Daily reduction (estimate)

Food waste eliminated

Company

Products sold

Country

South Africa Black soldier fly Protein feed ingredient (MagMeal™), oil feed ingredient (MagOil™) and compost (MagSoil™) Black soldier fly Insect fertilizer, France black soldier fly larvae live or dried, black soldier fly larvae defatted proteins and BSF oil Black soldier fly Insect meal and Colombia compost sold under the trademark “ENTHOS”

Insects used

(continued)

2014

2013

2008

Founded (year)

Table 12.2  Examples of insect bioconversion companies. Reduction rates estimated from a Feed Conversion Ratio of 1.7 and 68% moisture content of extracted larvae

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     331

Hermetia

Organic inconsumable food matter Bruised rye

22 kg Former foodstuff including milk and eggs

Insectum

Nextprotein

100% vegetal by-products

Entofood

4.3 Mg

4.5 Mg

240 kg

confidential

Vegetable by-products

Proti-farm

Daily reduction (estimate)

Food waste eliminated

Company

Table 12.2  (continued) Products sold

Lesser mealVarious appliworm + various cations with focus on food: buffalo’s frozen, freezedried, grinded (EntoPure) Black soldier fly Whole insect meal, defatted insect meal, insect oil Black soldier fly Black soldier fly larvae frozen, dried and/or defatted Black soldier fly Insect protein meal, oil, and fertilizer Black soldier fly Dried larvae, insect meal, insect oil, fertilizer

Insects used

Germany

France/Tunisia

Lithuania

Malaysia

Netherlands

Country

(continued)

2006

2015

2016

2012

1978

Founded (year)

332     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

Pre-consumer organic waste

Cereal by-products

Pre-consumer recycled food products Vegetal material only, like cereal by-products

F4F

Innovafeed

Enterra feed

Ynsect

Food waste eliminated

Company

Table 12.2  (continued)

confidential

confidential

1.1 Mg

1.3 Mg

Daily reduction (estimate)

Products sold

Black soldier fly Starter feed functional ingredients (fish and poultry), exotic pet snacks, fertilizer and feed development trials Black soldier fly Defatted meal and purified fat of black soldier fly larvae Black soldier fly Whole dried larvae, meal, and oil Mealworm Protein, oil, frass

Insects used

France

Canada

France

Chile

Country

2011

2007

2015

2014

Founded (year)

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     333

334     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

frass, which has been shown to increase fivefold relative to the non-fertilized plants (Green and Popa 2012). In addition, benefits of insect frass compost include reduction of pathogenic microbes and pesticides (Lalander et al. 2016). However, there are concerns that heavy metals may accumulate in the frass of some insects (Diener et al. 2015).

Bioconversion for Biodiesel Biodiesel is a promising non-fossil fuel; however, concerns about the resources diverted for its production have sparked debate over a reliance on oilseeds, which require large tracts of arable land and impact food prices. Insects are an alternative source for generating precursors for biodiesel (fats and oils), due to immature insect’s predisposal for sequestering high energy fat prior to pupating into adults (Manzano-Agugliaro et al. 2012). In addition, food wastes that are naturally high in fat such as palm oil cake and restaurant waste may be used as a feedstock with the added benefit of reducing the food waste problem while generating sustainable biodiesel. The methodology for producing biodiesel from insects is similar to producing biodiesel from other biological fat sources (Fig. 12.3) (Tyson and McCormick 2006). Fat contents harvested from insects vary between species, food waste source, and development stage—with the larval stage containing the highest fat content (Manzano-Agugliaro et al. 2012). The immatures of many species have fat contents above 25%, with some in excess of 77% (moth, Phassus triangularis ) (Manzano-Agugliaro et al. 2012). Biodiesel yields can be doubled by first pre-extracting fats from the food waste,

Fig. 12.3  Representative process for production of insect biodiesel

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     335

then feeding the post-extraction remains (solid residual fraction) to insect immatures that are later harvested (Yang et al. 2012; Zheng, Li, et al. 2012). Examples of insects used for biodiesel production include; black soldier fly larvae with added microbes (Rid-X) to convert rice straw (30%) and restaurant waste (70%), producing 43.8 g of biodiesel from 1 kg of waste (Zheng, Li, et al. 2012); yellow mealworm larvae fed decaying vegetables and dry leaves, producing 34.2 g of biodiesel from 234.8 g of dried mealworm larval biomass (Zheng et al. 2013); yellow mealworms fed fruit waste and palm oil cake (Leong et al. 2016); latrine fly larvae (Chrysomya megacephala Fabricius ) and common housefly (Musca domestica ), fed restaurant waste were ~24% and ~20–35% oil by dry weight, respectively; flesh fly (Boettcherisca peregrine ) fed solid residual fraction of restaurant waste (~31% oil by weight) (Yang et al. 2012). Finally, indicative of the interwoven utility of insect-based bioconversion, one study found waste corn cobs too lignified for direct consumption by black soldier fly larvae were first fermented anaerobically, then given to black soldier fly larvae to make biodiesel—resulting in 87 L of biogas and 3 g of biodiesel from 400 g of corncobs (Li et al. 2015). In conclusion, many steps in insect-based bioconversion of food waste can be used for extraction of fuel sources, providing an alternative to our finite fossil fuel resources.

Bioconversion for Food and Feed Human populations are expected to exceed 9 billion before the next century; this will accompany a 60–70% increase in consumption of animal products (Godfray et al. 2010). Insect-based bioconversion of food waste has the potential for supplementing future protein demands and is an extremely underutilized resource (van Huis 2013). As such, multiple agencies including the FAO, European Union, and U.S. Department of Agriculture encourage the use of insect protein as a logical component for feeding future populations (FAO 2017; Mlcek et al. 2014). However, despite their support, current legislative and oversite infrastructure are underdeveloped for human consumption (EFSA 2015) (see section ‘Regulations’). Instead, insect protein is entering

336     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

markets as animal feed, and a growing number of companies use food waste as the feedstock to sustain their operations (Table 12.2). For animal feeds, the most well studied and commonly used species are black soldier fly larvae, house fly, mealworms, and crickets. Black soldier fly larvae are an especially lucrative feed source, rich in protein and fat, with faster development than other species used for bioconversion (Wang and Shelomi 2017). When ground into insect meal they may be used as a replacement for soya- and fishmeals in many animal feeds. Studies have shown that they are suitable for monogastric animals such as pigs, poultry, freshwater prawns, and some fish species, but not suitable for alligators, some frogs, or ruminants (cows) (Makkar et al. 2014). Larvae fed fish offal from processing plants were on average 30% lipid, of which 3% was omega-3 fatty acids (St-Hilaire et al. 2007). Table 12.1 lists a wide range of food wastes used as feedstock for black soldier fly larvae (and other insects) processed into animal feed. A life cycle assessment from one pilot bioconversion facility employing black soldier fly larvae for food waste treatment found 10 megagram (Mg) tonnes of food waste input, generated 0.3 Mg of dried larvae and 3.3 Mg of compost (Salomone et al. 2017). These results are consistent with figures provided from large full-scale operations such as Agriprotein and Nextalim (Table 12.2). In animal production, comparison of inputs to outputs is referred to as the Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR), with the inverse being the Conversion of Ingested food (ECI) (Waldbauer 1968). Low FCRs indicate higher efficiencies and therefore conversion of the food waste into animal biomass. The literature on conventional livestock feed often uses the FCR, which we will also use to compare insects to other livestock. Studies have found the following FCRs for insects: black soldier fly larvae = 1.4–2.6, mealworms = 4.1–19.1, and crickets = 2.3–10.0 (Oonincx et al. 2015). In comparison, conventional livestock FCRs are: poultry = 2.3, pork = 4.0, and beef = 8.8 (Wilkinson 2011). This suggests, it takes a larger quantity of feed to produce a kg of beef or pork than it takes to produce a kg of insects. For example, if 100 kg of restaurant food waste was fed to black soldier fly larvae, chickens, or a cow, the food waste would yield 58 kg of black soldier fly larvae, 25 kg of chicken, or 2.9 kg of beef. It should be noted that the FCR of

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     337

insects can be highly variable depending on the source feedstock and density of insect populations. However, using average FCR of black soldier fly larvae, we can assess how much income would be generated per unit of food waste. For example, assuming an FCR for black soldier fly larvae of 1.7, a filled refuse truck (21 m3,) with 50 Mg of food waste, yields ~29 Mg of prepupae (62% moisture content), which can be dried into ~11 Mg of dry larvae (Diener et al. 2009). At the price of 995 €·Mg−1 (1131 $·Mg−1), this would yield € 11,000 ($12,500) (Salomone et al. 2017) each truckload. Insect-based bioconversion of food waste therefore is an appealing opportunity for producing marketable proteins, while simultaneously mitigating the negative impacts of food waste.

Regulations Commercialization of output materials from insect bioconversion requires a high degree of confidence in their safety. Due to the novelty of industrially mass-produced insects for food and feed, risks of associated contaminants entering the food chain warrant investigation and oversight. In anticipation of new products making their way into European markets, the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) has published an opinion on the risk profile of insects as food and feed, concluding that food and feed products should pose no greater threat than products already on the market (EFSA 2015). Further, the agency highlighted the need for continued research in microbial, chemical, and allergenic hazards, as well as impacts on processing, storage, and environmental hazards (EFSA 2015). This has been welcoming news for stakeholders of insect-derived products, demonstrating increased legitimacy and legislative consistency for the growing economic sector. However, significant legal hurdles remain, for example, the European Union prohibits insect meal as feed for pigs and poultry, but not aquiculture (Regulation EC No. 999/2001), it is prohibited to use catering waste as feed stock (Regulation EC No. 1069/2009); and insects must be “slaughtered” off-site (Regulation EC No. 1099/2002). In addition, the United States and European Union consider some insects as

338     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

“mini-livestock”, thus affording protections against inhumane slaughter (Vantomme et al. 2012). Research into the chemical safety concerns has been mostly positive, for example many insects accumulate chemical contaminants (pesticides, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, dioxins, and mycotoxins) below recommended maximum concentrations suggested by the European Commission and World Health Organization (Charlton et al. 2015; Lalander et al. 2016; Purschke et al. 2017). However, examples of toxic heavy metal accumulation have been documented for house fly (i.e. cadmium) (Charlton et al. 2015), blowfly (Calliphora sp. ) (mercury) (Nuorteva and Nuorteva 1982), and black soldier fly (lead) (Purschke et al. 2017). Recommended measures ensuring end product safety include monitoring the food waste feedstock, as well as the insects produced (Purschke et al. 2017). In the case of microbial contamination, highly competitive “pestiferous” species such as black soldier fly secretes antimicrobial compounds into the wastes they feed in (Park et al. 2014; Sheppard et al. 2007). These secretions limit and can even prevent hazardous pathogens like E. coli and Salmonella in the waste (Erickson et al. 2004; Lalander et al. 2015). These antimicrobial properties are highly beneficial for the bioconversion of municipal food waste, due to the wastes’ heterogeneous states of decomposition. Regulations on producing animal feeds were not designed with insect meals in mind. As laws come under review, amendments likely will be added to permit more biologically informed oversight. Overall, insects used for food and feed are considered safe (Belluco et al. 2013). This is consistent with insects’ role as an integral component of many animals diets, and humans long history of consuming insects both intentionally and inadvertently (Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition 1995; DeFoliart 1992).

Conclusion Insect-based bioconversion of food waste offers an exciting vision for a more sustainable future and for novel paths to sustainable food production and food security. Insect-based bioconversion is particularly

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     339

exciting, because it enables food and feed production in densely populated areas (urban settings) and therefore goes against the common notion that urban development and food production are antagonistic. After many years of advocating the potential of developing industrial scale operations to tackle food waste (van Huis 2013; Wang and Shelomi 2017), insect-based bioconversion companies are now being established and their throughput is reaching scale, becoming profitable, and moving into international markets. This next decade will see considerable growth in this sector, bringing jobs, novel commodities, new inputs to the food and feed supply, and ultimately reduction and reuse of food waste streams currently considered problematic. For this vision to materialize, research is needed to find more food waste-to-insect pairings, as well as selective breeding to develop specialized insect strains. Both are needed to increase capacity and to maximize the potential benefits of using insect-based bioconversion of food waste. The risks posed by the development of high-performance insect strains for food waste elimination are small, as many of the commercial insect species used for bioconversion are naturally occurring globally (mealworms, black soldier fly). Research is needed to bridge the gap between enterprises engaged in insect-based bioconversion and the regulatory agencies keeping us safe. More studies on the safety of insect-derived products are likely to lead to biologically informed policy. With the proper checks, insect-based bioconversion of food waste has the potential to serve as a powerful tool to eliminate food waste, create jobs, and provide an environmentally friendly source of protein to help feed our ever-growing global population. Acknowledgements    This chapter was written based on partial funding from the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) programme for Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (WSARE) (subaward: 200592-446), as well as partial funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service through grant 18-00001028-SC. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the USDA.

340     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

References Alves, A. V., Sanjinez-Argandoña, E. J., Linzmeier, A. M., Cardoso, C. A. L., & Macedo, M. L. R. (2016). Food value of mealworm grown on Acrocomia aculeata pulp flour. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0151275. Ambuko, J. (2014). Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. In RUFORUM Fourth Biennial Conference, Maputo, Mozambique, 19–25 July 2014 (pp. 387–388). RUFORUM. Anankware, P. J., Fening, K. O., Osekre, E., & Obeng-Ofori, D. (2015). Insects as food and feed: A review. International Journal of Agricultural Research and Review, 3(1), 143–151. Barry, T. (2004). Evaluation of the economic, social, and biological feasibility of bioconverting food wastes with the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens). Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Belluco, S., Losasso, C., Maggioletti, M., Alonzi, C. C., Paoletti, M. G., & Ricci, A. (2013). Edible insects in a food safety and nutritional perspective: A critical review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 12(3), 296–313. Bonso, N. K. (2013). Bioconversion of organic fraction of solid waste using the larvae of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens). Master’s thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. http:// ir.knust.edu.gh/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/5589/MSC-thesis%20 final%202013%2c%20Nana%20Kobea%20Bonso%20.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Brar, S. K., Verma, M., Tyagi, R. D., Valéro, J. R., & Surampalli, R. Y. (2008). Wastewater sludges as novel growth substrates for rearing codling moth larvae. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, 24(12), 2849–2857. Carroll, S. P., Klassen, S. P., & Dingle, H. (1998). Rapidly evolving adaptations to host ecology and nutrition in the soapberry bug. Evolutionary Ecology, 12(8), 955–968. Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (US). (1995). The food defect action levels: Levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods that present no health hazards for humans. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. https://www.fda.gov/ Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ SanitationTransportation/ucm056174.htm. Accessed on 28.2.2019.

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     341

Charlton, A. J., Dickinson, M., Wakefield, M. E., Fitches, E., Kenis, M., Han, R., et al. (2015). Exploring the chemical safety of fly larvae as a source of protein for animal feed. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 1(1), 7–16. Cheng, Y. K. (2016). Black soldier fly bioconversion for food waste recycling: improved residue separation method and increased larval survival rate. Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China. http://repository.ust.hk/ir/ Record/1783.1-86623. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Cheng, J. Y., Chiu, S. L., & Lo, I. M. (2017). Effects of moisture content of food waste on residue separation, larval growth and larval survival in black soldier fly bioconversion. Waste Management, 67, 315–323. Choi, Y.-C., Choi, J.-Y., Kim, J.-G., Kim, M.-S., Kim, W.-T., Park, K.-H., et al. (2009). Potential usage of food waste as a natural fertilizer after digestion by Hermetia illucens (Diptera: Stratiomyidae). International Journal of Industrial Entomology, 19(1), 171–174. DeFoliart, G. R. (1992). Insects as human food: Gene DeFoliart discusses some nutritional and economic aspects. Crop Protection, 11(5), 395–399. De Jong, G., & Bijma, P. (2002). Selection and phenotypic plasticity in evolutionary biology and animal breeding. Livestock Production Science, 78(3), 195–214. Diener, S., Zurbrügg, C., & Tockner, K. (2009). Conversion of organic material by black soldier fly larvae: Establishing optimal feeding rates. Waste Management and Research, 27(6), 603–610. Diener, S., Zurbrügg, C., & Tockner, K. (2015). Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in the black soldier fly, Hermetia illucens and effects on its life cycle. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 1(4), 261–270. Dossey, A. T., Morales-Ramos, J. A., & Rojas, M. G. (2016). Insects as sustainable food ingredients: Production, processing and food applications. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., & Peretiatko, R. (2007). Green decisions: Demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 371–376. Erickson, M. C., Islam, M., Sheppard, C., Liao, J., & Doyle, M. P. (2004). Reduction of Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis in chicken manure by larvae of the black soldier fly. Journal of Food Protection, 67(4), 685–690. European Food Safety Authority Scientific Committee (EFSA). (2015). Risk profile related to production and consumption of insects as food and feed. European Food Safety Authority Journal, 13(10), 4257.

342     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

FAO. (2017). The future of food and agriculture. Trends and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/ai6583e.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Garlapow, M. E., Huang, W., Yarboro, M. T., Peterson, K. R., & Mackay, T. F. (2015). Quantitative genetics of food intake in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0138129. Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., et al. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 1185383. Green, T. R., & Popa, R. (2012). Enhanced ammonia content in compost leachate processed by black soldier fly larvae. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 166(6), 1381–1387. Hogsette, J. A. (1992). New diets for production of house flies and stable flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in the laboratory. Journal of Economic Entomology, 85(6), 2291–2294. Jensen, K., Kristensen, T. N., Heckmann, L.-H., & Sørensen, J. G. (2017). Breeding and maintaining high-quality insects. Insects as food and feed (pp. 175–198). Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen. Lalander, C. H., Fidjeland, J., Diener, S., Eriksson, S., & Vinnerås, B. (2015). High waste-to-biomass conversion and efficient Salmonella spp. reduction using black soldier fly for waste recycling. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(1), 261–271. Lalander, C., Senecal, J., Calvo, M. G., Ahrens, L., Josefsson, S., Wiberg, K., et al. (2016). Fate of pharmaceuticals and pesticides in fly larvae composting. Science of the Total Environment, 565, 279–286. Lardé, G. (1990). Recycling of coffee pulp by Hermetia illucens (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) larvae. Biological Wastes, 33(4), 307–310. Leong, S. Y., Kutty, S. R. M., Malakahmad, A., & Tan, C. K. (2016). Feasibility study of biodiesel production using lipids of Hermetia illucens larva fed with organic waste. Waste Management, 47, 84–90. Li, W., Li, Q., Zheng, L., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Yu, Z., et al. (2015). Potential biodiesel and biogas production from corncob by anaerobic fermentation and black soldier fly. Bioresource Technology, 194, 276–282. Li, Z., Yang, D., Huang, M., Hu, X., Shen, J., Zhao, Z., et al. (2012). Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius) larvae: A new biodiesel resource. Applied Energy, 94, 349–354. Li, L., Zhao, Z., & Liu, H. (2013). Feasibility of feeding yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.) in bioregenerative life support systems as a source of animal protein for humans. Acta Astronautica, 92(1), 103–109.

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     343

Lim, S. L., Lee, L. H., & Wu, T. Y. (2016). Sustainability of using composting and vermicomposting technologies for organic solid waste biotransformation: Recent overview, greenhouse gases emissions and economic analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 262–278. Makkar, H. P., Tran, G., Heuzé, V., & Ankers, P. (2014). State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 197, 1–33. Manurung, R., Supriatna, A., Esyanthi, R. R., & Putra, R. E. (2016). Bioconversion of Rice straw waste by black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens L.): Optimal feed rate for biomass production. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 4(4), 1036–1041. Manzano-Agugliaro, F., Sanchez-Muros, M. J., Barroso, F. G., MartínezSánchez, A., Rojo, S., & Pérez-Bañón, C. (2012). Insects for biodiesel production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3744–3753. Miech, P., Berggren, Å., Lindberg, J. E., Chhay, T., Khieu, B., & Jansson, A. (2016). Growth and survival of reared Cambodian field crickets (Teleogryllus testaceus) fed weeds, agricultural and food industry by-products. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 2(4), 285–292. Mlcek, J., Rop, O., Borkovcova, M., & Bednarova, M. (2014). A comprehensive look at the possibilities of edible insects as food in Europe—A review. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 64(3), 147–157. Mutafela, R. N. (2015). High value organic waste treatment via black soldier fly bioconversion: Onsite pilot study. Master’s thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/ diva2:868277/FULLTEXT02.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Nansen, C., Baissac, O., Nansen, M., Powis, K., & Baker, G. (2016). Behavioral avoidance-will physiological insecticide resistance level of insect strains affect their oviposition and movement responses? PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0149994. Niu, Y., Zheng, D., Yao, B., Cai, Z., Zhao, Z., Wu, S., et al. (2017). A novel bioconversion for value-added products from food waste using Musca domestica. Waste Management, 61, 455–460. Nuorteva, P., & Nuorteva, S.-L. (1982). The fate of mercury in sarcosaprophagous flies and in insects eating them. Ambio, 11, 34–37. Nyakeri, E. M., Ogola, H. J. O., Ayieko, M. A., & Amimo, F. A. (2017). Valorisation of organic waste material: Growth performance of wild black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens) reared on different organic wastes. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 3(3), 193–202.

344     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

Oonincx, D. G., Van Broekhoven, S., Van Huis, A., & van Loon, J. J. (2015). Feed conversion, survival and development, and composition of four insect species on diets composed of food by-products. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0144601. Ortiz, J. C., Ruiz, A. T., Morales-Ramos, J. A., Thomas, M., Rojas, M. G., Tomberlin, J. K., et al. (2016). Insect mass production technologies. In A. T. Dossey, J. Morales-Ramos, & M. Guadalupe Rojas (Eds.), Insects as sustainable food ingredients (pp. 153–201). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081. Park, S.-I., Chang, B. S., & Yoe, S. M. (2014). Detection of antimicrobial substances from larvae of the black soldier fly, Hermetia illucens (Diptera: Stratiomyidae). Entomological Research, 44(2), 58–64. Purschke, B., Scheibelberger, R., Axmann, S., Adler, A., & Jäger, H. (2017). Impact of substrate contamination with mycotoxins, heavy metals and pesticides on the growth performance and composition of black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens) for use in the feed and food value chain. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, 34(8), 1410–1420. Salomone, R., Saija, G., Mondello, G., Giannetto, A., Fasulo, S., & Savastano, D. (2017). Environmental impact of food waste bioconversion by insects: Application of life cycle assessment to process using Hermetia illucens. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 890–905. Sheppard, D. C., Newton, G. L., & Burtle, G. (2007). Black soldier fly prepupae: A compelling alternative to fish meal and fish oil. NOAA-USDA Alternative Feeds Initiative Report. http://www.aquacircle.org/images/pdfdokumenter/udvikling/andre/amerika/Soldier_fly_compelling_alternative_ NOAA-USDA.pdf. Accessed on 28.2.2019. Smetana, S., Palanisamy, M., Mathys, A., & Heinz, V. (2016). Sustainability of insect use for feed and food: Life cycle assessment perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 741–751. St‐Hilaire, S., Cranfill, K., McGuire, M. A., Mosley, E. E., Tomberlin, J. K., Newton, L., et al. (2007). Fish offal recycling by the black soldier fly produces a foodstuff high in omega-3 fatty acids. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 38(2), 309–313. Suantika, G., Putra, R. E., Hutami, R., & Rosmiati, M. (2017). Application of compost produced by bioconversion of coffee husk by black soldier fly

12  Insect-Based Bioconversion: Value from Food Waste     345

larvae (Hermetia Illucens) as solid fertilizer to lettuce (Lactuca Sativa Var. Crispa). Proceedings of the International Conference on Green Technology, 8(1), 20–26. http://conferences.uin-malang.ac.id/index.php/ICGT/article/ view/376. Accessed on 26.2.2019. Supriyatna, A., Manurung, R., Esyanthi, R. E., & Putra, R. E. (2016). Growth of black soldier larvae fed on cassava peel wastes, An agriculture waste. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 4(6), 161–165. Tinder, A. C., Puckett, R. T., Turner, N. D., Cammack, J. A., & Tomberlin, J. K. (2017). Bioconversion of sorghum and cowpea by black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens (L.)) larvae for alternative protein production. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 3(2), 121–130. Tyson, K. S., & McCormick, R. L. (2006). Biodiesel handling and use guidelines. U.S. Department of Energy. https://web.archive.org/ web/20170119154306/http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/40555.pdf. Accessed on 26.2.2019. van Dyk, J. S., Gama, R., Morrison, D., Swart, S., & Pletschke, B. I. (2013). Food processing waste: Problems, current management and prospects for utilisation of the lignocellulose component through enzyme synergistic degradation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 26, 521–531. van Huis, A. (2013). Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annual Review of Entomology, 58, 563–583. van Huis, A., & Oonincx, D. G. (2017). The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(5), 43. Vantomme, P., Mertens, E., van Huis, A., & Klunder, H. (2012). Assessing the potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security: Summary report. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Forestry Department, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/3/an233e/an233e00.pdf. Accessed on 28.2.2019. Veldkamp, T., Van Duinkerken, G., Van Huis, A., Lakemond, C. M. M., Ottevanger, E., Bosch, G., et al. (2012). Insects as a sustainable feed ingredient in pig and poultry diets: A feasibility study = Insecten als duurzame diervoedergrondstof in varkens-en pluimveevoeders: een haalbaarheidsstudie. Lelystad: Wageningen UR Livestock Research. Waldbauer, G. P. (1968). The consumption and utilization of food by insects. In Advances in insect physiology (Vol. 5) (pp. 229–288). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Wang, H., Rehman, K., Liu, X., Yang, Q., Zheng, L., Li, W., et al. (2017). Insect biorefinery: A green approach for conversion of crop residues into biodiesel and protein. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 10(1), 304.

346     T. M. Fowles and C. Nansen

Wang, Y.-S., & Shelomi, M. (2017). Review of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) as animal feed and human food. Foods, 6(10), 91. Wilkinson, J. M. (2011). Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal, 5(7), 1014–1022. Yang, S., Li, Q., Zeng, Q., Zhang, J., Yu, Z., & Liu, Z. (2012). Conversion of solid organic wastes into oil via Boettcherisca peregrine (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) larvae and optimization of parameters for biodiesel production. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e45940. Zahn, N. H. (2017). The effects of insect frass created by Hermetia illucens on spring onion growth and soil fertility. Bachelor’s thesis, University of Stirling, Stirling, Great Britain. Zheng, L., Hou, Y., Li, W., Yang, S., Li, Q., & Yu, Z. (2012). Biodiesel production from rice straw and restaurant waste employing black soldier fly assisted by microbes. Energy, 47(1), 225–229. Zheng, L., Hou, Y., Li, W., Yang, S., Li, Q., & Yu, Z. (2013). Exploring the potential of grease from yellow mealworm beetle (Tenebrio molitor) as a novel biodiesel feedstock. Applied Energy, 101, 618–621. Zheng, L., Li, Q., Zhang, J., & Yu, Z. (2012). Double the biodiesel yield: Rearing black soldier fly larvae, Hermetia illucens, on solid residual fraction of restaurant waste after grease extraction for biodiesel production. Renewable Energy, 41, 75–79.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

13 Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms into Marketable Products Christine M. Kowalczyk, Brian J. Taillon and Laura Hearn

Introduction Food waste starts at the farm and occurs throughout the supply chain (Papargyropoulou et al. 2014; Parfitt et al. 2010). Estimates indicate that globally more than 3 billion kilograms of crops from farms go unharvested or unsold each year (Chew 2018). In the United States (USA), getting food from the farm to consumers uses more than 10% C. M. Kowalczyk (*)  Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. J. Taillon  Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, College of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] L. Hearn  Glean, LLC, Snow Hill, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_13

347

348     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

of the total energy budget, 50% of land and 80% of all freshwater consumed, but 40% of this food goes uneaten—the equivalent of USD 165 billion each year (Gunders 2012). Unharvested and unsold produce results in the waste of nutritious food that could otherwise be used to feed the food insecure. More than 40 million Americans live in a household suffering from food insecurity, which includes 6.5 million children (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2018). Resources used to produce this food are also wasted, further causing harmful environmental, social and economic consequences. There are many reasons for farms to leave produce on its land, which could be tilled back into the soil. Unharvested crops can be left because of a lack of labour to harvest the crops or the weather prevented farmers from harvesting in a timely manner (Gunders 2012). The mechanical harvesting techniques sometimes prevent all produce to properly harvested, leaving some produce left in the fields (Farmer 2011). Furthermore, food waste created by the farming industry is often the result of strict cosmetic standards (bruised, misshaped, too big, etc.) placed on the farmer and members of the food supply chain (Devin and Richards 2018). These insignificant defects in shape, size, and colour prevent many farmers from selling a large portion of their crops. Recent research has estimated that 65% of unharvested crops on a North Carolina farm are edible but not presentable to consumers (Johnson et al. 2018). In addition, federal and state food regulations make it difficult for farmers to donate these crops to food banks or other organizations (Bloom and Gamble 2018). Facilitated by growing concerns for greater resource conservation and more sustainable farming practices to ensure the food supply for an increasing population, scholars have focussed more attention on the drivers of food waste and emphasised the urgency of finding innovative solutions to reduce waste in the farming industry (Beausang et al. 2017). One solution receiving attention for its potential is gleaning. Gleaning can be defined as gathering leftover produce after a harvest (Lee et al. 2017, p. 41), but it has also evolved to mean offering clean and healthy food products which are sustainable and giving back to those in need (https://liveglean.com/).

13  Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms …     349

The purpose of this chapter is to understand how gleaning reduces food waste in the farming industry. It identifies economic, environmental, legal/regulatory and social impacts of gleaning by utilising interview and online survey data from industry experts. Further, it examines the way gleaning as a business can reduce food waste, using Glean LLC as an illustrative case example. In 2017, Glean LLC was formed in North Carolina, USA, to produce healthy and fresh foods made from fruits and vegetables for consumers. Founded by social entrepreneurs, the company uses gleaning to not only generate revenue through innovative products but also to impact society. Glean works to minimise the harmful effects of food waste and maximise the benefits of gleaning as a business. While research exists to better understand the drivers which lead to food waste and recovery opportunities (Schanes et al. 2018; Thyberg and Tonjes 2016; Neff et al. 2015), little research has examined gleaning as a business solution for the farming industry.

Drivers of Gleaning The concept of gleaning dates to Biblical times. The Old Testament instructed Hebrew farmers to leave a portion of their crops to be unharvested, so poor community members could pick the remaining crops for themselves (Farmer 2011). Historically, the French and English governments have protected the poor by allowing them the right to glean leftover crops from the local farms. This became a common practice on farms until the end of World War II. In 1996, former U.S. President Bill Clinton signed the Good Samaritan Act, which provided legal protection to individuals and organizations that aid the needy and encouraged the donation of food excess or waste (Cohen 2006). The growth of gleaning organizations, including non-profits and religious organizations, has occurred in the USA to recover food from farms, grocery stores, restaurants and markets to reduce the waste in society and assist those in need (Vitiello et al. 2015). Next, we focus on the reasons and antecedents of gleaning, as they relate to economic, legal/regulatory, environmental and social factors.

350     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

Economic Factors Farmers deal with economic issues of supply and demand on their farms. If more supply is grown than meets the market demand, some farmers permit local organizations to glean the leftover produce from the fields, with the farms earning a tax deduction for the donated produce from their fields. Many regional gleaning organizations in the USA have emerged and grown by understanding their unique localised needs and implemented strategies, such as creating secondary markets for imperfect produce, to address food waste locally, but a standardisation of these strategies has not been developed at a national level, and farmers are often left with no other choice but to pay to have their fields cleared. To better understand and address food waste in the USA, it is recommended that the government conduct a comprehensive study of losses in the US food system and set national goals for waste reduction, which should include gleaning as an opportunity for food recovery (Gunders 2012).

Regulatory Factors The local, state and federal laws and regulations influence what farmers and organizations can do with their products. When dealing with farm gleaning, local and state health and food safety laws must be followed, since the food may potential be passed onto consumers. Volunteers and workers on the farms must be trained about the gleaning process and sign liability waivers to protect the farmers from any potential risk of injury. Also, liability insurance must be obtained by farmers, which could be an additional cost. The National Gleaning Project (https://nationalgleaningproject.org) was formed as an initiative of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law School to create a national network to connect gleaning and fresh food recovery organizations across the USA. Its main goal is to provide the centralised resources about necessary research and laws for gleaning and food recovery. In order for gleaning to grow, the National Gleaning Project hopes to bring the necessary resources together to

13  Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms …     351

aid in the collaboration and growth of gleaning at all levels of the US government.

Environmental Factors Environmentally, farm equipment and processes cannot always harvest all the crops. Uneaten food, including harvested produce, can end up rotting in landfills, serving as the single largest component of US municipal solid waste and a significant portion of US methane emissions (Gunders 2012). Farmers may consider it easier to “walk by” unharvested crops and just return it to the soil, since the high labour costs to produce (i.e. water, energy and chemicals) outweigh the nutrients returned to the soil by the crops. A rather recent report found agriculture and food production contributes to nearly 29% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Campbell 2012). Gleaning can reduce food waste, which can result in the reduction of these emissions from the production, processing, transportation and disposal of food. Suggested changes to improve the environmental impact of food production include changes in consumption patterns, waste reduction throughout the food chain and improvement in efficiency of sustainable agriculture production (Sala et al. 2017).

Social Factors “Waste-less-to-feed-more movement” has occurred around the world, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a specialised agency of the United Nations, which works internationally to defeat hunger (Dou et al. 2016). Food waste reduction and food recovery capabilities have been identified as strategies to curb worldwide hunger. The US Department of Agriculture has identified food availability trends in the USA to better understand Americans’ food consumption behaviours, which include consumption below the dietary recommendations for fruits, vegetables and dairy (Bentley 2017). This shift has resulted in a rise in American obesity, which is linked to food supply trends and to energy-dense foods, including increased

352     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

consumption of snacks, high calorie and sugary beverages and fast foods (Drewnowski and Specter 2004). Gleaning can not only reduce food waste, but also put healthy fruits and vegetables in the hands of families who may not be able to afford them and have become dependent on unhealthy alternatives. While economic, legal and environmental issues are impacting farm waste, the social factor within the supply chain, including the retailers and consumers, has resulted in societal perceptions of “pretty” produce in grocery stores caused by stricter retailer standards and consumer demand (Devin and Richards 2018). Approximately one-fifth of produce are considered below commercial standards and become animalfood, compost or waste to the landfill (“A New Market for Old and Ugly Fruit” 2018). Companies, like Imperfect (www.imperfectproduce. com) and Hungry Harvest (www.hungryharvest.net), now provide below perfect produce directly to customers through a mail-order service. Professors Elliot Rabinovich and Tim Richards have identified four business challenges for those willing to market “ugly” products: pricing, distribution, liability and profitability (“A New Market for Old and Ugly Fruit” 2018). These mail-order produce service companies are taking away produce which would have been donated to food banks and pantries (Chandra 2018). Related to this, social enterprises, like Glean LLC and Misfit Juicery, have developed focussed missions to not only reduce food waste, but also meet the needs and demands of consumers with innovative and unique products. These companies are challenged with “double-bottom line”, where they pursue not only profits but also establish a social impact with their products and services (Ross 2018). Baldor Specialty Foods, a food distributor of fresh produce, meats, dairy, organics and other fine products, introduced SparCs, a three-tier initiatives (animal consumption, human consumption and renewable energy) to eliminate food waste throughout its business cycle. Baldor partnered with Misfit Juicery to sell carrot tops, watermelon trimmings and other produce to be used in their juices. Misfit Juicery uses 70–80% of these “recovered” fruits and vegetables—scraps from fresh-cut products that would have been wasted because of imperfections (Sullivan, n. d.).

13  Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms …     353

Data and Methods Research data were generated from sixteen interviews of experts in the area of gleaning and food distribution (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2016). Potential interviewees were identified by online keyword searches, such as “gleaning business” and “gleaning companies”. After initial interviews, a snowball sampling technique was used to recruit additional interviewees. The following criteria were used for selecting the participants: worker at a company/non-profit that gleans or a recipient of gleaned food products. The interviews were conducted during the summer of 2018 either by phone, using a semi-structured guide with open-ended questions or online, using a structured survey with openended questions. Four participants chose a telephone interview, while 12 participants chose the online survey. Participants were asked a series of questions that addressed the following themes: (1) company overview and participants’ responsibilities; (2) challenges of food waste in the farming industry; (3) services/solutions that address the challenges of food waste; and (4) gleaning as a business and its effects on society. The questions were the same for each participant, with the phone interviews allowing for additional clarification. The phone interviews lasted between 25 and 40 minutes and were fully transcribed. The phone interview transcripts were combined with the online responses to form the data set. Qualitative content analysis was utilised to analyse the generated interview and survey data (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2016; Graneheim and Lundman 2004). First, the authors read the interviews to become familiar with the responses. Next, the responses were coded using different colours to categorise them, focussing on the economic and social impacts of the gleaning model. These elements were extracted to better understand gleaning as a business and its impacts. In the second stage, to better capture gleaning as a business, we chose Glean LLC as an illustrative case example. We used ethnographic observation and reviewed company documents, including its website, marketing materials and other related documents and spoke with its co-founders. Laura Hearn, co-founder of Glean, is a co-author of this

354     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

chapter. She has provided her insight and rationale behind the company’s implementation of the gleaning business model.

Findings Gleaning as a Solution to Food Waste at Farms Study respondents shared the view that the farming industry faces a variety of challenges and risks leading to food waste, including unpredictable factors like the weather, uncertain markets and lost contracts. Other widely viewed farmer’s challenges include available labour, adequate storage and processing capacity and facilities, efficient transportation, and accessible markets and supply chains. Respondents noted that farmers struggle with strict cosmetic standards, pests and rising land and water costs. Combined, these challenges make farming a difficult business, and they were commonly considered by the respondents to contribute to the food waste problem. The implications of these challenges are not without consequences to society. For example, one interviewee described the challenges of farming like this: Before planting time [farmers must] look in their crystal ball and see what the weather is going to be from April to November! To plant and harvest just the right amount of produce to keep the prices high enough to make a profit is their goal… how to achieve that goal is the annual challenge. (Respondent 2)

Another respondent supported the challenges with uncertain markets because of rain and low sales and added the lack of a secondary market for crops that could hold until the next market occurs (Respondent 5). Many local farmers have found their wholesale contracts fallen through, leaving farmers with crops with no market. One respondent explained that inefficient farming leads to food shortages, increased food prices and food waste, among other things (Respondent 12). Food waste has negative effects on economies, ecology, soils, water, resource availability, climate, hunger, poverty and

13  Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms …     355

national security. Again, the implications of food waste were considered by the respondents to have damaging consequences to society. Respondents put emphasis on the need to diminish these harmful effects and focus on building services or solutions to address the problem. The industry experts noted a variety of solutions to address the food waste problem. Food hubs that offered collaborative resources, such as storage, value-added food prep spaces, transportation and marketing communications were identified as a way for farmers to work together to reduce farm food waste. A need for locally appropriate solutions was seen as a way to reduce food waste in individual communities, though consensus suggested that many communities do not have an accurate measure or comprehensive assessment of the problem. Changing consumer attitudes towards produce appearance was acknowledged to reduce food waste as a result of aesthetic standards set by grocers and distributors. Most notable was consensus on the need for innovative business practices to directly address the food waste problem. Gleaning was the most common response. However, gleaning does not always occur on farms. For example, one respondent discussed a community program in California, which picks fruits from residential trees. The respondent stated: All residents are very happy to see their fruit trees picked and taken away to a food pantry. Federal (EPA.gov), state and cities have recognized our non-profit work for the greater good. We prevent bio waste from reaching the dumps, which eliminates methane gas. Fruit (fresh) is ALWAYS asked from the food pantries rather than days-away-from-rot store donations. (Respondent 9)

Further, non-profit organizations are challenged with finding enough volunteers to assist with the gleaning of crops to fill their pantries. As Respondent 9 stated, “seasonally, all the farmers also reach a point where they need gleaning support at the same time, so it’s not possible to glean at all the farms where we could due to the lack of volunteers/ staff time”.

356     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

Gleaning as a Business Although gleaning, or the collection of leftover crops after harvest, is a concept well understood by agricultural companies, gleaning as a business is not as fully understood. The academic literature in this area is sparse and even experts in the industry find it difficult to explain (Lee et al. 2017; Neff et al. 2018). Business models are useful because of their descriptive nature of explaining how a company will earn revenue. A business model is “… the design or architecture of the value creation, delivery, and capture mechanisms of a firm” (Teece 2010, p. 172). Defining a business model is an important process for companies to “commercialize new ideas and technologies” (Chesbrough 2010, p. 354). Moreover, the business model allows the operationalisation of a specific business opportunity and details the way a company generates revenue and profit (George and Bock 2011; Spieth et al. 2014; Yunus et al. 2010). A business model helps to better understand operational aspects, strategic functions and profit generation (Spieth et al. 2014). Based on the interview and survey data, several themes emerged to conceptualise a gleaning business model. A gleaning business model can be conceptualised as a sustainable solution to address food waste in the farming industry. This model relies on establishing relationships with members of the food supply chain, but especially with farmers, to provide a supply of crops that would be discarded or wasted. A company liaises with the farm or its agents to collect any unneeded or excess crop. The company then performs a value-added process to transform the crop into a new product offering. The product may then be sold directly to consumers or to an intermediary for a profit. Emphasis is placed on the mindfulness of resources from farms and maximising food waste reduction from the local farms, who at one time supported their communities. Converting this waste into useable product can support the revitalisation of the farming industry. As Respondent 2 explained, “small farms used to be the backbone of the United States and could be again with local and federal help/support”. Awareness of the needs and opportunities to implement a gleaning model was

13  Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms …     357

mentioned by several respondents, including the need for small farm support.

Impacts of Gleaning as a Business We identified several impacts of gleaning in our data: (1) economic; (2) environmental; (3) legal/regulatory; and (4) social. Economic and environmental impacts were viewed as the most important in addressing farm food waste. Respondents identified many different ways farmers and society can benefit economically from a gleaning business model. Respondent 7 explained the importance of secondary markets, such as the ones provided by companies utilising unneeded crops. Even though not necessarily the main purchasers of the farmers’ crop, they were considered an effective way for a farmer to mitigate risk and diversify revenue sources. Additionally, respondents indicated this model increased the potential for value-added businesses with a supply of low-cost crops. Opportunities for new or existing businesses to utilise what would otherwise become food waste and transform it into a new product was mentioned as a way for existing companies to grow and new companies to develop. This was also seen as a way to create jobs, support the local economy and introduce new products to the market. Many respondents described a link between the economic and environmental impacts of gleaning as a business: Gleaned products save money by upcycling already grown food. It saves the water it takes to grow it, the labour it takes to tend to it, and the municipal cost it takes to dispose of it. Gleaned products save the agricultural investment in resources by eliminating the wastefulness. (Respondent 8)

Respondents viewed environmental and economic impacts to be related because of the costs associated with natural resources and maintaining the environment. Respondent 11 captured the consensus stating, “environmentally, gleaned products would reduce the amount of CO2

358     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

emissions from food waste, which is one of the largest components of U.S. landfills. Gleaned products would also reduce water waste associated with irrigating crops that become food waste”. In addition, emissions produced by transporting food waste were identified as being reduced by gleaned products. Legal and regulatory impacts were not as prominent in our data as other impacts. Still, laws that protect companies from financial responsibility in lawsuits were viewed as important for non-profits that utilise gleaned crops as philanthropic efforts. Regulations concerning use-bydates were another factor, related to the overall perishability of crops in general. Consequently, changes in existing laws were viewed as a necessary outcome. Social impacts of gleaning as a business were seen to relate to reducing hunger, increasing the supply of nutritious foods and improving the general well-being of society. Consuming more produce-based foods was viewed to combat obesity and improve general health. Improving health was frequently mentioned as a major benefit because of its positive effects on society. Gleaning was perceived as a way to build community around a product focussed on reducing waste. As Respondent 14 described it, “gleaning models can foster education of surrounding local food systems”. Businesses utilising gleaning are creating sustainable products and awareness of sustainability efforts, which was noted as encouraging others to become more sustainable. Often, respondents described gleaning models to have overlapping effects on society. These interrelated themes emerging from the data suggest these models can foster positive effects for farmers, businesses and communities.

Illustrative Case: Glean LLC Glean was founded in 2017 in Eastern North Carolina, USA The four co-founders of Glean had long careers in the fresh produce industry, in the two largest sweet potato suppliers in the world. As a result, they had witnessed the food waste problem but had understood the vast uses and nutritional benefits of crops like sweet potato. Their produce industry experiences gave them the means to foresee opportunities to

13  Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms …     359

develop enhanced, value-added products, focussed on sustainability through innovative processes. Glean produces flours and powders made from 100% sweet potatoes, pumpkins, cauliflower and beets. The sweet potato flour is considered a nutritious superfood and an excellent flour alternative like the pumpkin flour. The beet powder is a natural flavour and taste enhancer and is also considered one of the world’s greatest superfoods. All products are free from fillers, added sugars and chemicals. The demand for the Glean flour and powder products has evolved into Glean’s protein gummies, “Goodness Gummies”, which utilise a patented technology allowing for naturally derived polyphenol compounds found in fruits and vegetables to be concentrated into just a small amount of protein matrix, increasing access to these nutrients. Glean has also been recognised for its concept and expanding product line by NC IDEA, a foundation that provides grants to companies “with a unique value proposition and a scalable business model” (Gasper 2018). This grant will assist Glean to invest in equipment and infrastructure, to implement marketing strategies and to grow brand awareness about the business. Glean was selected as one of four finalists from a nationwide pool of hundreds of applicants for the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Ag Innovation Challenge for its impact on rural agriculture through innovation and was honoured with a NEXTY Award for Best New Mission Based Product in 2018 for displaying innovation, integrity and inspiration in its products. The mission of Glean is “Gathering Goodness” to revive both produce and people for new purposes and meaningful lives. The company aims to make an economic, environmental and social impact by utilising the gleaning business model. The company’s value proposition (e.g. Chesbrough 2007) rests on three pillars. The first pillar is intended to directly address food waste in the farming industry. By purchasing unharvested or imperfect produce, Glean helps farmers by creating a reliable secondary market for crops that would otherwise become waste. This enables the farmers to mitigate risk while diversifying revenue sources. The second pillar focusses on providing clean food labels and nutritious, allergen-free food offerings. According to a recent Nielsen

360     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

Company (2016) report, one-third (36%) of global survey respondents say they have an allergy or intolerance to one or more foods, including 31% in North America. Another study by Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE, n.d.) estimates that up to 15 million Americans and 1 out of 13 children suffer from food allergies. Furthermore, the global “free-from” food market is projected to grow to USD 28.8 billion by 2023, and the global gluten-free retail market is forecasted to grow to USD 4.7 billion by 2020. Thus, Glean manufactures products, which meet these consumers’ needs. Glean benefits by taking the farmer’s supply of low-cost, unused crops and transforming them into these value-added products. This transformation includes a dehydration and milling process. The third pillar relates to a corporate social responsibility initiative to help reduce hunger for those in need. Glean endeavours to have a local, and potentially global, impact. For every pound of flour and powder sold, Glean donates a pound of flour or powder to people across the globe. By doing this, they aim to reduce hunger, increase the supply of healthy, nutritious food and improve the overall well-being of society. To date, Glean donated more than 18,000 kg of food to help those in need. Combined, these pillars lay the foundation for which the gleaning business model can be operationalised to tackle the wicked problem of food waste. This is consistent with the findings from the interviews with the industry experts. Many respondents mentioned this gleaning model as a way for existing companies to grow and new companies to develop. This model creates jobs, supports the local economy and introduces innovative and healthy products to the market. Furthermore, Glean’s mission is making a positive impact on the environment by reducing the harmful effects of food waste, such as the amount of CO2 emissions from food waste, water waste associated with irrigating crops that become food waste as well as fuel emissions produced by transporting food waste. Company data indicate Glean has procured in less than two years more than 23,000 kg of produce that would have otherwise been left for waste but has been repurposed through its value-added process to produce its various products.

13  Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms …     361

From a legal and regulatory perspective, Glean reduces farmers’ liability by eliminating the need for farmers to seek volunteers to glean unharvested crops from their fields. Glean also extends the life of the product and overcomes short best-by date expirations. Glean still faces challenges related to official certifications for packaging labels, including organic and non-GMO recognition. However, this does not prevent Glean from producing products that offer simple ingredients.

Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to understand how gleaning reduces food waste in the farming industry. The chapter identified economic, environmental, legal/regulatory and social impacts of gleaning and examined the way gleaning as a business can reduce food waste, using Glean LLC as an illustrative case example. The chapter provides best practices for dealing with the mounting food waste challenge in the farming industry. The findings also illuminate the challenges farmers face with food waste. The study indicates the need for future research on the gleaning business model, including following the key companies in the business and understanding how the model can be utilised by farmers, big and small. The findings of this study show that gleaning as a business has overlapping impacts for not only farmers, but also non-profits, for-profit companies and governmental organizations. Economic and environmental impacts were viewed as the most important ones in addressing farm food waste. They were also viewed as having the greatest potential to positively impact society, including job creation and economic development and protecting the environment by optimising natural resources and reducing harmful emissions. Farms can consider evolving through gleaning business opportunities and product innovations, as done so by Glean LLC. Development of community food hubs, as reported from Australia, can expand access to market for small and medium-size farmers with the potential “to create jobs, strengthen local and regional economies, build resilience, increase access to healthy food and support the necessary transition to sustainable agriculture”

362     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

(Rose 2017, p. 225). The gleaning process on farms can be the first process of developing community food hubs. However, fully understanding the potential scale of the gleaning model, the standardisation of food safety and administrative procedures is needed for this industry to grow (Mourad 2016). Food waste is now a strategy for commerce, but it is not well-tracked (Strom 2016). Companies like Glean are on the mission to reduce food waste and increase sustainability in society. Also, consumers are increasingly aware of companies’ sustainability efforts and products that are responsibly sourced and produced. According to a report by Nielsen Company (2015), consumer brands that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability outperform brands that do not demonstrate such a commitment. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that companies should take the lead in driving social and environmental changes (Ross 2018). The research on food waste has been intertwined between the concepts of sustainability and the healthy food consumer (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2015). Our illustrative case, Glean, is driven by social entrepreneurship and an ethical framework to provide healthier food opportunities for all. The pound-for-pound donation is a vital component of its business model, potentially having a health impact on those of lower socioe­conomic status. In general, healthier diets cost more, while convenient and cheaper access to foods containing refined grains, added sugars and added fats have increased. These unhealthy food options have been founded to be directly correlated to increased rates of obesity and diabetes in lower income groups (Drewnowksi and Darmon 2005). Acknowledgements   The authors are grateful to the industry representatives who took the time to share their valuable information and thoughts about gleaning.

References A New Market for Old and Ugly Fruit and Vegetables Takes Shape. (2018). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/ 01/11/a-new-market-for-old-and-ugly-fruit-and-vegetables-takes-shape. Accessed on 27.2.2019.

13  Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms …     363

Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., & Oostindjer, M. (2015). Consumer-related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability, 7(6), 6457–6477. Beausang, C., Hall, C., & Toma, L. (2017). Food waste and losses in primary production: Qualitative insights from horticulture. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 126, 177–185. Bentley, J. (2017). U.S. Trends in food availability and a dietary assessment of loss adjusted food availability, 1970–2014 (EIB-166). U.S. Department of agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://mhaia.org/wp-content/ uploads/002_Misc_Files/ERS_Paper_US_Trends_Food_Availability.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Bloom, D., & Gamble, E. (2018). Gleaning local foods. NC State Extension. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/farm-to-food-bank-resource-guide/gleaning. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Campbell, B. (2012). Is eating local good for the climate? Thinking beyond food miles. Research program on climate change and agriculture and food security. https://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/eating-local-good-climate-thinking-beyondfood-miles#.W1aRntJKg2y. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Chandra, G. (2018). Why the business of ugly produce is so complicated. Food and Wine. https://www.foodandwine.com/news/ugly-produce-la-kitchenfood-banks. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17. Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 354–363. Chew, C. (2018). Food made from ‘ugly’ produce could be a beautiful business opportunity. Food Dive. https://www.fooddive.com/news/grocery–foodmade-from-ugly-produce-could-be-a-beautiful-business-opportunity/514584/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Cohen, J. A. (2006). Ten years of leftovers with many hungry still left over: A decade of donations under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 5(1), 455–496. Coleman-Jensen, A., Rabbitt, M. P., Gregory, C. A., & Singh, A. (2018). Household food security in the United States in 2017 (ERR-256). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://www.ers. usda.gov/webdocs/publications/84973/err-237.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Devin, B., & Richards, C. (2018). Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 199–210.

364     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

Dou, Z., Ferguson, J. D., Galligan, D. T., Kelly, A. M., Finn, S. M., & Giegengack, R. (2016). Assessing U.S. food wastage and opportunities for reduction. Global Food Security, 8, 19–26. Drewnowski, A., & Darmon, N. (2005). The economics of obesity: Dietary energy density and energy cost. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82(1), 265S–273S. Drewnowski, A., & Specter, S. E. (2004). Poverty and obesity: The role of energy density and energy costs. American Journal Clinical Nutrition, 79(1), 6–16. Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative methods in business research: A practical guide to social research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Farmer, B. (2011). Gleaning a harvest for the needy by fighting waste. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133059889/gleaning-a-harvest-for-theneedy-by-fighting-waste. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Food allergy research & Education (FARE). (n.d.). https://www.foodallergy. org/life-food-allergies/food-allergy-101/facts-and-statistics. Accessed 27.2.2019. Gasper, K.T. (2018). Sibling team lauded for innovative use of ugly produce. The Produce News. http://www.theproducenews.com/the-produce-news-today-s-headlines/24502-sibling-team-lauded-for-innovative-use-of-ugly-produce. Accessed on 27.2.2019. George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83–111. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. Gunders, D. (2012). Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from farm to fork to landfill. Natural Resources Defense Council. https:// www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Johnson, L. K., Dunning, R. D., Bloom, J. D., Gunter, C. C., Boyette, M. D., & Creamer, N. G. (2018). Estimating on-farm food loss at the field level: A methodology and applied case study on a North Carolina farm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 137, 243–250. 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. Mourad, M. (2016). Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: Competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 461–477.

13  Gleaning: Turning Food Waste at Farms …     365

Neff, R. A., Dean, E. K., Spiker, M. L., & Snow, T. (2018). Salvageable food losses from Vermont farms. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 8(2), 1–34. Neff, R. A., Spiker, M. L., & Truant, P. L. (2015). Wasted food: U.S. consumers’ reported awareness, attitudes, and behaviors. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127881. Nielsen Company. (2015). The sustainability imperative: New insights on consumer expectations. New York: Nielsen Company. https://www.nielsen.com/ content/dam/nielsenglobal/co/docs/Reports/2015/global-sustainability-report.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Nielsen Company. (2016). What’s in our food and on our mind: Ingredient and dining-out trends around the world. New York: Nielsen Company. https:// www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/eu/docs/pdf/Global%20 Ingredient%20and%20Out-of-Home%20Dining%20Trends%20Report. pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081. Rose, N. (2017). Community food hubs: An economic and social justice model for regional Australia? Rural Society, 26(3), 225–237. Ross, R. (2018). The competitive advantage of social enterprises. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_competitive_ advantage_of_social_enterprises. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S. J., Notarnicola, B., Saouter, E., & Sonesson, U. (2017). In quest of reducing the environmental impacts of food production and consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(2), 387–398. Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters—A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 978–991. Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model innovation–State of the art and future challenges for the field. R&D Management, 44(3), 237–247. Strom, S. (2016). New crop of companies reaping profits from wasted food. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/energy-environment/new-crop-of-companies-reaping-profits-from-wasted-food. html. Accessed on 27.2.2019.

366     C. M. Kowalczyk et al.

Sullivan, T. (n.d.). Four companies turning food waste into delicious food products. The Better Fish Company. https://www.thebetterfish.com/thecurrent/ food-waste-to-food-products/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194. Thyberg, K. L., & Tonjes, D. J. (2016). Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 106, 110–123. Vitiello, D., Grisso, J. A., Whiteside, K. L., & Fischman, R. (2015). From commodity surplus to food justice: Food banks and local agriculture in the United States. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(3), 419–430. Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325.

14 Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens Fabio de Almeida Oroski

Introduction Among the most promising opportunities to reduce food waste from supermarkets, restaurants and food services are the apps which redirect surplus food to feed people in need (Wong 2017). Most recently, many examples of apps have been arising around the globe. Apps constitute themselves as interesting low-cost solutions to connect surplus or unsold food from sellers or donors to buyers or recipient organisations (ReFED 2016; Wong 2017). Food waste reducing apps can be understood as digital platforms since they connect supply and demand sides, considering many obstacles, such as distances, costs, perishability, food security and others. In principle, food waste reducing apps are technological solutions that optimise the transactions, such as food pickup and delivery (real-time information, operational efficiency based on matching supply and demand and scheduling of pickup routes). F. de Almeida Oroski (*)  School of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_14

367

368     F. de Almeida Oroski

However, the technology is not enough to assure the success of a food waste reducing app. Entrepreneurs must consider non-technological aspects to enable their new businesses. According to Chesbrough (2010), one technology by itself has no value until it is commercialised via a business model: “a potential new technology may have no obvious business model, and in such cases technology managers must expand their perspectives to find an appropriate business model in order to be able to capture value from that technology” (p. 355). The business model reveals, therefore, other critical aspects beyond the technology, giving emphasis to businesses factors entrepreneurs must consider when structuring a new initiative. Thus, entrepreneurs and investors interested to develop or invest in food waste reducing apps must comprehend that the structuring process of a suitable business model is a critical step to reach success. Business models for digital platforms have been explored by some authors (e.g. Tauscher and Laudien 2017). They argue that beyond developing a new and/or a sophisticated technology, entrepreneurs must address more attention how to deliver their value proposition to customers and beneficiaries. Most commonly, entrepreneurs face multiple barriers to access resources and competencies to design a sustainable business model (Teece 2010). In this context, it is not rare to see many early initiatives dying still in their infancy. Therefore, how should entrepreneurs design the business model dimensions in order to succeed in food waste reducing apps? Considering this question, the main purpose of this chapter is to explore business models of food waste reducing apps and to discuss their challenges and opportunities. In this chapter, the exploration of nine selected cases of food waste reducing apps reveals four business model types that entrepreneurs can position themselves. Some decisions can create dilemmas that the entrepreneurs must face in order to structure their businesses. These include decisions on whether to be just an app provider or to advance solutions for prevention and reduction of food waste, and whether to adopt a profit or a non-profit model. One important issue increases the complexity around the food waste reducing apps. Since food waste reduction is influenced by a strong social driver, some initiatives are led by organisations which combine social with economic goals. These

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     369

organisations must develop business models to reduce the conflicts derived from the unbalance between social and economic goals. Next, a brief exploration of the literature about digital platforms and business model components under food waste context is presented to point out critical factors that might influence the business model decision.

Conceptual Background Digital Platforms Recently, many examples of apps and digital platforms have been flourishing in different activities and economic sectors (Baldwin and Woodard 2009; Tauscher and Laudien 2017), such as AirBNB, Alibaba, Uber, among many others. Due to their prominent proliferation, more attention has been given by academic researchers (Baldwin and Woodard 2009; Gawer and Cusumano 2014; Hagiu and Wright 2015; Tauscher and Laudien 2017) to how to conceptualise a digital platform and how to map the challenges associated with their structuring processes. Under the food waste reduction context, many apps have emerged as digital platforms to match a dispersed and complex supply of surplus food to non-profit organisations and/or people under food insecurity, thus appearing as one of most pronounced solutions to tackle food waste (ReFED 2016). In the academic literature, there are various definitions of digital platforms. Commonly, they have been described as technological solutions that connect actors from both supply and demand sides. Gawer and Cusumano (2014) propose a more elaborated definition for a platform: “those products, services, or technologies developed by one or more firms, and which serve as foundations upon which a larger number of firms, organised in an ecosystem, can build further complementary innovations and potentially generate network effects” (p. 420). Functioning as connectors, digital platforms are under network effects. Network effects refer to a self-reinforcing mechanism: more users adopt the digital platform since the benefits increase and vice versa,

370     F. de Almeida Oroski

configuring a chicken and egg dilemma (Gawer and Cusumano 2014; Gawer 2009). For instance, an app that connects food donors to nonprofit organisations or final consumers will deliver more value when more food donors join the digital platform, contributing with more donations. Initially, actors may not identify many advantages to join the ecosystem. Hence, in early stages, app entrepreneurs must design and implement strategies to attract more users and partners to build a valuable network. On the other hand, an equilibrium between the number of donors and receivers must be pursued since part of the surplus food could be wasted if the app takes more food donations than its delivery capacity is. Various examples of food waste reducing apps are multi-sided platforms which are defined by Hagiu and Wright (2015) as organisations that create and deliver value by promoting direct interactions between two (or more) distinct types of affiliated customers. When unsold or surplus food comes from different sources, such as supermarkets, restaurants, small food services or even consumers, operational activities become more complex, because the digital platform leader must cope with an extensive and diversified value network. Multiple actors often imply a diversity of interests that creates a governance issue. Governance relates to how the roles and rules are established and how objectives are prioritised and aligned so that conflicts between the actors are avoided or at least reduced (Ebrahim et al. 2014).

Business Model Components Tackling food waste is inherently a social, economic and environmental issue. As a result, many initiatives can emerge through different types of organisations (from for-profit type as traditional businesses to nonprofit type as non-governmental organisations). In this context, there are also the social businesses. Yunus et al. (2010) define a social business by distinguishing it from a non-governmental organisation (NGO) which does not generate profits. Social businesses can become economically self-sustaining since they can generate revenues and profits in order to cover their operating expenses assuring their economic sustainability

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     371

(Yunus et al. 2010). While traditional businesses focus on commercial and economic goals, social businesses maximise their social purposes. In doing so, this type of organisation must comprise multiple goals, which imply some tensions that can trigger confusion among agents such as donors or volunteers (Doherty et al. 2014; Davies and Chambers 2018). How would volunteers be engaged in an organisation whose mission is not clear? Would donors feel comfortable to embrace an initiative that charges for its service? Thereby, the social enterprise needs to conciliate the firm and stakeholders’ interests (Doherty et al. 2014). Many of the challenges the entrepreneurs face when developing a food waste reducing app can be predicted through a business model lens. Although the business model concept often refers to designing a business to create and deliver value under a commercial logic, some authors such as Laasch (2018), Bocken et al. (2014) and Yunus et al. (2010) argue the business model approach can be utilised to understand other types of organisations as well. Indeed, any type of an organisation must reflect for whom and for what it exists and how the business model must be structured (see Laasch 2018). Magretta (2002) suggests business models are “stories that explain how enterprises work” (p. 4). Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart (2010) put forward that a business model is about choices that prompt consequences reflecting the firm’s strategy. Chesbrough (2010) claims that technology itself is not enough, thus reinforcing the relevance of a good business model. According to Teece (2010), “a business model describes the design or architecture of the value creation, delivery and capture mechanisms employed” (p. 191). Due to various definitions, some authors are still divided over what business model components are (Ritter and Lettl 2018; Zott et al. 2011; Wirtz et al. 2016). However, the components are derived from three basic dimensions or building blocks: value proposition, value creation and value capture (Teece 2010). The value proposition dimension refers to what the organisation aims to offer and for whom this offer creates value. Which demand does the organisation intends to satisfy? Generally, a value proposition refers to a group of products and services which attend a demand of a specific customer segment (Chesbrough 2010; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010;

372     F. de Almeida Oroski

Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002). One key question the entrepreneur must respond is: who are the customers and beneficiaries, those who will receive the benefits and value created by the app? Under the food waste reduction context, customers can be food retailers and food services that wish to donate or sell unsold or surplus food; beneficiaries can be either the non-profit organisations (e.g. food banks or charities) responsible for redistributing the food to people or the people in need. Some business models can include more than one value proposition. For example, at the same time as a food waste reducing app allows a customer to buy food that would be discarded by a supermarket at a discount price, the supermarket reduces its food waste, saves money and brings more economic and environmental sustainability for its operation. This case illustrates distinct benefits to distinct customers. The value creation dimension means how an initiative structures its value chain, identifies the resources and competencies required to create value and decides which activities will be done internally and which by external partners. Based on the Resource-based View (RBV) approach (see Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1991; Collis and Montgomery 1995), organisations are collections of physical and intangible assets and capabilities. Tangible assets include plants, equipment, distribution and storage infrastructure and many others. Intangible assets include intellectual properties, technologies, know-how, patents, brands and others (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010). Competencies refer to how organisations use their resources creating competitive advantages (Prahalad and Hamel 1990). As organisations are not endowed with all assets, resources and competencies required, they must develop partnerships to access those not available internally. The partnerships become fundamental to enhance initiatives within a social context, such as in the case of some food waste reducing apps. Both for-profit, non-profit and social businesses must create a value network to develop and access complementarities. Their business models must address how to establish connections to provide a set of resources and competencies required to turn the operations feasible. The value capture dimension means how an initiative establishes the mechanisms (licensing, sales revenues, financial support such as donations, sponsorships, etc.) to capture financial resources to cover the

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     373

Type of organisation

Business model dimensions

Is the business model consistent with our type of organisation and vice-versa?

Value proposition

Which offers do we intend to deliver? Do they reflect our type of organisation? For whom do we intend to create value (beneficiaries and/or customers segments)?

Value creation

What are our key activities to create value? Which actors constitute our value network? What are our main surplus food sources? What are the resources and competences required?

Value capture

What are our main revenue sources?

Fig. 14.1  A group of proposed questions about type of organisation and business model components

investments and operational costs (salaries, materials, infrastructure, development and maintenance costs, etc.) (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010; Teece 2010). Based on the previous discussion, a list of questions is proposed (Fig. 14.1) to encourage the entrepreneur to reflect how the initiative can be structured in terms of an intended business model and its three basic components (value proposition, value creation and value capture).

Method This study uses selected case examples to explore how food waste reducing apps structure their initiatives through the business model lens. The case study approach is frequently applied to investigate a phenomenon in its real context (Yin 2003; Dubois and Gadde 2002) and allows a better understanding of an investigated phenomenon (Eisenhardt 1989). This study adopts a purposeful sampling approach (Patton 2002)

374     F. de Almeida Oroski

where the case examples are selected because they constitute informationrich cases that enable exploring the issues related to the purpose of the study. Our research method is divided into three stages: (1) identification, (2) selection and (3) exploration of case examples, described as follows: 1. Identification. The main source for the identification of food waste reducing apps is the ReFED Innovator Database. Rethink Food Waste through Economics Data (ReFED) is an American multi-stakeholder non-profit organisation that collects data and promotes insights on the innovations to reduce food waste. This recognised database compiles mainly American innovators, but also includes various initiatives from other countries. Keywords such as “app”, “donation coordination” and “secondary marketplace” were used in search to identify the multiple food waste reducing apps in the ReFED database. In addition to ReFED database, other sources were used to identify apps, such as specific reports, newspapers and magazines covering food waste related topics (e.g. The Guardian published an article entitled “Tackling food waste around the world: our top 10 apps” in 2017). 2. Selection. A sample of nine initiatives was selected enabling to gather more information to enhance the business model analysis. The sample includes cases from different countries and regions, such as the United States, Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, India, Malaysia and Brazil. The selected nine initiatives have been often cited in regional newspapers, reports and/or organisations related to food waste, indicating their relevance in respective countries. The number of selected cases is coherent to Eisenhardt (1989) who suggests that four to ten cases function well in a multiple case study research. The objective was to collect a set of case examples that could indicate some degree of diversity on how entrepreneurs have been designing business models for food waste reducing apps. A descriptive table of selected food waste reducing apps is presented in Table 14.1, outlining when and where they were founded, type of organisation (for-profit or non-profit) along with a brief description (actors, transactions, etc.). 3. Exploration. The exploration of case examples is based on utilising secondary data. A proprietary database was assembled from publicly available information, including specialised press, special reports from

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     375 Table 14.1  Brief description of selected food waste reducing apps Initiative

Founded

Type of organisation

Brief description

Copia

2011 United States

For-profit

412 Food Rescue

2015 United States

Non-profit

The firm entitles itself as a “tech-enabled food recovery company”. It connects businesses and events with surplus food to those in need through web and mobile platform. Customers (food donors) can request pickups of their surplus food by remunerated drivers (Food Heroes) which are responsible for delivering the food to local shelters, after-school programmes and other non-profits. The firm charges a fee from food donors and offers inventory tracking, data monitoring and analytics on food waste for these companies The organisation partners with food retailers, wholesalers, restaurants, caterers and other food providers to rescue surplus food to non-profits and charities. The initiative is formed by a large network of partners and volunteers who collect and distribute the food. The initiative utilises multiple modes (app and web platform) for collecting and delivering food. The volunteers use their own cars and bikes to distribute food from donors to beneficiary organisations. As a non-profit, the organisation covers its costs through donations and sponsors (continued)

376     F. de Almeida Oroski Table 14.1  (continued) Initiative

Founded

Type of organisation

Brief description

No Food Wasted

2014 Netherlands

For-profit

No Food Waste

2014 India

Non-profit

OLIO

2015 United Kingdom

Non-profit

The firm developed an app where supermarkets announce and sell food products that are close to their best-before date to consumers. The firm charges supermarkets a monthly fee to have access to the app while consumers can use it free of charge The organisation recovers food surplus from weddings, events, restaurants, caterings companies and food retailers through volunteers which are responsible for picking up the food and distributing it to public hospitals, orphanages, old age homes and charities. The initiative utilises a mobile app and a helpline number to connect the actors and maintains specific locations where people can receive food. The initiative depends on donations to cover its operational costs The organisation connects both people and companies with unsold or food surplus to food banks and charities organisations. Volunteers are responsible for picking up and distributing the food. The app is free of charge. When a user accesses the app, he/she chooses which charities wish to benefit and can make a money donation. The organisation retains 10% of donations to help covering its operating expenses. Beyond donations, the initiative relies on support from sponsors (continued)

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     377 Table 14.1  (continued) Initiative

Founded

Type of organisation

Too Good To Go

2015 United Kingdom

Ubifood

2016 Canada

Social business The firm entitles itself as social enterprise dedicated to tackling food waste in the restaurant, retail and catering industry. The firm developed an app that allows people to buy unsold or surplus food from restaurants, bakeries and cafes at discounted rates. Anyone can buy food through the app and is responsible for picking up the food when and where defined by seller. The firm charges a fee over sales The firm provides an app where For-profit local eateries such as bakeries, cafes and fast food shops can sell their unsold products at a discount. Users select what they want, pay for it and pick up the meal. The app takes a percentage over the sales The initiative has developed an Non-profit app that connects parties with food surplus to food banks via a mobile and web app platform. The food banks then redistribute food to charities and people in need. Donors can be supermarkets, restaurants, food services, hotels and others with food surplus. Registered food banks in platform are responsible for picking up and distributing the food to charities and people The initiative has developed Non-profit an app that connects donors (people or companies with food surplus) and people in need or charities. Both parties can suggest where and when to pick up the donation

RobinFood 2016 Malaysia

Comida Invisivel

2017 Brazil

Brief description

378     F. de Almeida Oroski

governmental and international organisations (e.g. from FUSIONS, FAO, WRAP, ReFED, others), reports, press releases and news gathered from case examples’ own websites as well as online articles from newspapers and journals. From these sources, it was possible to collect data to enable the exploration of the business model components. Some examples of information gathered include the type of the organisation, beneficiaries and customers, food surplus sources, transaction types, key activities, partnerships and key revenue sources.

Findings Value Proposition The exploration of selected cases allowed to perceive some nuances regarding the value proposition dimension. Some initiatives focus on only food recovery (e.g. redistribute or sell surplus or unsold food), while others are also based on food waste prevention actions, such as educational programmes (e.g. campaigns about food waste awareness) and food waste recycling (e.g. upcycling projects which transform food waste into valuable products). The 412 Food Rescue is an interesting example with multiple value propositions. The initiative has designed a nationally recognised food education programme to teach adults, children and caregivers how to cook minimising food waste. Beyond food recovery and food waste prevention actions, 412 Food Rescue also invests in upcycling projects and develops value-added products from food waste. In 2016, the initiative launched a craft beer from surplus bread and a liqueur from rescued apples in collaboration with partners. 412 Food Rescue believes these actions expand the value proposition and create an opportunity to foster economic sustainability and the scale up of the initiative in the future. The American Copia also goes beyond food recovery, offering an extended value proposition for their customers, including food waste management services such as inventory tracking, data monitoring and analytics on food waste. The organisation also takes the responsibility

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     379

for the whole donation process. In this way, Copia believes to facilitate their customers’ application for the tax reduction incentives granted by the US government to food donors. Even initiatives based on surplus food sales, such as No Food Wasted, Ubifood and Too Good To Go, call people’s attention to the food waste concern, proving them that a large amount of edible food could be perfectly consumed instead of being wasted. Therefore, to some extent they also contribute to food waste prevention. In short, defining a value proposition is an important decision for entrepreneurs about how they want to deliver value to customers through their initiatives and, in addition, to reinforce their commitment to economic or social goals. But entrepreneurs must also deal with the hurdles associated with an extended value proposition. They must acknowledge that expanding their value propositions will require more activities and resources, resulting in more value creation efforts and complexity.

Value Creation The value creation dimension states how value is created by the firm: who does what, how activities occur and are managed, and how resources and competencies are accessed and properly remunerated. The scope of resources and competencies depends on the activities required to create and deliver the value proposition. It means the development of a food waste reducing app can involve a variety of resources and competences, such as software development and maintenance, network relationship management (e.g. clients, donors, volunteers, government agents, others), logistics for the collection and distribution of donated food, the provision of food waste management services and the processing of food waste into value-added products. The first important decision the entrepreneurs must face is to choose between to be only an app provider or to go further offering other services to their customers. When initiatives are positioned only as app providers, that is, not getting involved in food collection and delivery operations, the scope of their resources and competences tends to be

380     F. de Almeida Oroski

minimised to the development and maintenance of the digital platform (e.g. Comida Invisivel and RobinFood). Too Good To Go, No Food Wasted and Ubifood are other examples of initiatives whose key activities are related to app development and maintenance. Their business models were designed to create secondary markets for unsold or surplus food. In these cases, the entrepreneurs must manage the marketplace, for example, how food prices are set so that economic goals are not prioritised over social ones. When an initiative is based on food donations and is also oriented to make profits (e.g. Copia), it must extend the value proposition to create new possibilities for revenue streams. In this case, the organisation can embrace other activities such as food waste pickup and delivery, food waste management and customer services to deliver food waste prevention as a value proposition for its customers. Some of the non-profit examples (e.g. 412 Food Rescue, No Food Waste and OLIO) indicate they believe they should participate intensively in other operational activities, such as food pickup and delivery. They consider these logistic activities to be critical to optimise the complex food donation process due to perishability of food and high dispersion of food donors and receivers. In consequence, they must hold tangible resources such as physical installations, vehicles, call centres and support teams to enable their operations. As these initiatives are usually constrained by financial and nonfinancial resources, it is critical for entrepreneurs to establish partnerships in order to build a value network to access the complementarities required. Value networks under social context are commonly composed of volunteers, donors, sponsors and governmental actors as resources and competencies sources. These networks can vary from a simplified to a more complex configuration, depending on the profile and number of actors involved.

Value Capture The value capture dimension is in this study related to how the food waste reducing apps have access to financial resources to support the

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     381

activities required along the different stages of the venture: initial development including learning and adaptation processes, operation, and further, a possible scaling up. Some food waste reducing apps generate sales revenues (e.g. Too Good To Go, Ubifood, No Food Wasted, Copia), while non-profit cases are dependent on sponsorships and/or financial donations to cover their operating expenses. For-profit examples create secondary markets for food retailers and food services that use these apps to sell their surplus or unsold food with discounted prices. The apps charge a fee over sales to generate revenues. However, some variations can be noted in these cases. For example, the Dutch No Food Wasted charges a subscription from supermarkets to access the platform to announce and sell their products. Too Good To Go and Ubifood do not charge their customers by the platform access, but they capture financial value by requiring a small percentage over the sales. It means the food waste reducing app entrepreneur can adapt the revenue generation model, taking into consideration the value proposition and the propensity of the customers to pay for it. Copia has adopted other value capture model. As the operation is based on food donations, the app cannot sell the food donated by its customers such as food services and retailers. Instead, the initiative charges food donors a volume-based fee similar to composting costs to deliver food waste management services. In the group of non-profit food waste reducing apps, 412 Food Rescue, OLIO and No Food Waste are examples, which encompass activities beyond the app development and maintenance such as surplus food pickup and delivery. As a result, operating costs tend to increase substantially. An alternative is to attract volunteers to operate these activities, which can reduce the costs involved. These initiatives also seek to develop some alternative sources of income as seen in 412 Food Rescue and OLIO upcycling experiences. A major concern the entrepreneur needs to address is how to cover the operating costs to allow the economic sustainability and a future scale up. It was a challenge faced by the American Copia, which started as a non-profit, but later changed to a profit-based business model. Copia justifies the change as a strategy to access the resources required

382     F. de Almeida Oroski

to become scalable. OLIO is another example of a non-profit organisation that intends to change. Currently, OLIO depends on donors and sponsors such as social impact investors, but the organisation intends to become profitable in the near future.

Discussion Based on findings, it was possible to observe that food waste reducing apps may differentiate themselves in terms of the three basic business model dimensions. Figure 14.2 proposes four business model types, unfolding the business model dimensions (value proposition, value creation and value capture) of selected cases: 1. Group I (food waste reducing app providers): Transactions are based on surplus food donations without revenue generation. Their value proposition for food donors is based essentially on food recovery. The value creation is supported by the app development and maintenance activities. The idea is to focus on creating a platform that facilitates the food donation process. As the access for the app is often free of charge, the initiative depends exclusively on donations and sponsors to finance the app development and maintenance activities. 2. Group II (secondary market creators): Transactions are based on selling surplus or unsold food with revenue stream generation (e.g. fee over sales and/or a fee to access the platform is charged from customers—food retailers and/or consumers). As seen in Group I, their value proposition for food retailers and food services is essentially food recovery, whereas their value creation is focussed on the app development and maintenance activities, and intermediating actors’ transactions to prevent conflicts between economic and social goals. 3. Group III (food waste reducing solution providers): Transactions are based on surplus food donations without revenue generation as observed in Group I. However, in this group, the initiatives expand their value proposition to go beyond food recovery, encompassing food waste prevention and food recycling (e.g. educational campaigns, training for private companies and projects of upcycling such

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     383

as production of beer, sauces, jellies and other value-added products). They also believe that it is important to participate in all stages of food donation process. As a result, initiatives must encompass more complex activities to hold the expanded value proposition. Their value creation will likely rely on physical assets and resources to sustain these operations. As the access to the app is free of charge, the value capture depends on financial donations and sponsors to cover the operational costs. Beyond financial donations, the initiative can develop some extra revenue streams through the sales of upcycled products to help covering the operating expenses. 4. Group IV (food waste reducing services sellers): Transactions are based on surplus food donations with revenues generated from services. As surplus food is donated and not sold, the entrepreneur must generate revenues by broadening its value proposition to food waste reducing services. These new revenue streams include food waste prevention and donation management services. In consequence, the initiative must invest in physical assets to support the operational activities such as food donation logistics and customer services. The main implication this study provides for practice is the four business model types (see Fig. 14.2) based on an analysis of how the selected nine food waste reducing apps have structured their businesses. The four business model types suggest entrepreneurs must face different challenges to structure their initiative. In short, the entrepreneurs have two big dilemmas: the first dilemma is to position their initiative as just an app provider or to assume other functional roles (e.g. logistic partner, product provider). The second dilemma refers to the decision between a profit-based and a non-profit model. The first dilemma refers to how the entrepreneur positions himself in the value chain. In a simplified perspective, if the entrepreneur stands for only as an app provider, then the app must manage the transactions between the actors involved. If the proposal is to go beyond, the entrepreneur must encounter the issues related to the value creation, probably having to incorporate more operational activities and to gather assets and physical facilities. Thus, they should consider how to increase the value capture by creating new revenue streams to cover the extra

App development and maintenance plus other activities (food donation management, customer services, etc) Only app development and maintenance

VALUE CREATION

384     F. de Almeida Oroski

VALUE PROPOSITION food waste recovery, food waste prevention and food waste recycling

VALUE PROPOSITION food waste prevention and food waste recovery

Group III: Food waste reducing solutions providers

Group IV: Food waste reducing services sellers COPIA

412 FOOD RESCUE, OLIO, NO FOOD WASTE VALUE PROPOSITION food waste recovery

Group I: Food waste reducing apps providers COMIDA INVISIVEL ROBINFOOD

VALUE PROPOSITION food waste recovery

Group II: Secondary market creators UBIFOOD, TOO GOOD TO GO NO FOOD WASTED

Non- Profit

For-profit

VALUE CAPTURE SURPLUS FOOD AND/OR SERVICE SALES

SURPLUS FOOD DONATION

Fig. 14.2  Four business model types of food waste reducing apps

operating expenses. The case examples also showed how some entrepreneurs are developing new revenue streams, such as food waste management services and value-added products through upcycling operations. In this case, entrepreneurs should invest in partnerships and build a value network to access the complementarities required. The second dilemma concerns the type of organisation that the innovator intends to adopt in order to develop his initiative. The innovator can decide between a profit-based model and a non-profit model, knowing he must address how to capture value to cover the investments and operating expenses in each specific situation.

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     385

Conclusions In response to the food waste issue, the number of food waste reducing apps has been rapidly increasing worldwide. Contrary to what some entrepreneurs and policy makers may initially believe, the challenges are not limited to the technology, so their attention should be extended to a business perspective. To address this issue, this chapter explored nine case examples of different food waste reducing apps under the business model lens. A set of questions has been proposed to shed light on their business model components and the challenges related to the structuring process of these opportunities. The case examples showed that there is a certain diversity in the way the business models can be designed, indicating variations in their value proposition, value creation and value capture dimensions. The decision about business model dimensions is strongly related to the type of the organisation. Food waste reducing apps create many opportunities for entrepreneurs. The business model dimensions are strongly intertwined—one decision affects the other and vice versa. For example, when a value proposition is expanded, the value creation and value capture dimensions should be adapted as well. In this manner, the business model should not be designed as a linear process, as it requires time for learning, experimentation and adaptation. This study provided a preliminary insight into the food waste reducing apps through the business model lens. Apps constitute interesting solutions that may be adopted in different contexts, in diverse countries and regions with varying public policies for food waste, engaging both the private sector and civil society actors. Given the limited number of cases explored, the four business models types presented here are, in fact, an initial attempt to map the diversity that food waste reducing app entrepreneurs may have to deal with when developing such solutions. Future studies should incorporate more case examples to confirm this diversity and deepen the exploration of the particularities to enrich the proposed discussion. Future studies should also explore business model decisions under local conditions imposed by the political and institutional landscape. These specific conditions are likely to drive the future possibilities of business models for food waste reduction apps.

386     F. de Almeida Oroski

References Baldwin, C. Y., & Woodard, J. J. (2009). The architecture of platforms: A unified view. In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation (pp. 19–44). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 195–215. Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 354–363. Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555. Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 118–128. Davies, I. A., & Chambers, L. (2018). Integrating hybridity and business model theory in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 378–386. Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 417–436. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. Gawer, A. (2009). Platforms dynamics and strategies: From products to services. In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation (pp. 45–76). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.

14  Exploring Food Waste Reducing Apps—A Business Model Lens     387

Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2015). Multi-sided platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 43, 162–174. Laasch, O. (2018). Beyond the purely commercial business model: Organizational value logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models. Long Range Planning, 51, 158–183. Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92. Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91. ReFED. (2016). A roadmap to reduce US food waste by 20 percent. ReFED. http://www.refed.com/?sort=economic-value-per-ton. Accessed on 7.3.2019. Ritter, T., & Lettl, C. (2018). The wider implications of business-model research. Long Range Planning, 51, 1–8. Tauscher, K., & Laudien, S. M. (2017). Understanding platform business models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. European Management Journal, 36(3), 319–329. Teece, D. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172–194. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Gottel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49, 36–54. Wong, K. (2017). Tackling food waste around the world: Our top 10 apps. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/feb/06/ food-waste-apps-global-technology-leftovers-landfill. Accessed on 7.3.2019. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. London: Sage. Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

15 ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction at City and Regional Levels in the EU Samuel Féret

Introduction While transformative actions to reduce food waste are often taking place at local and sectoral levels, the contribution and role of municipal and regional authorities in preventing/reducing food waste are quite underdeveloped in the literature. Between 2017 and 2020, the European Union-funded ECOWASTE4FOOD project has started to enable local and regional authorities to exchange their experiences in promoting good practices and in planning city/regional strategies, so as to promote innovative solutions that contribute to prevent and to reduce food waste in their territories. These actions are part of broader municipal or regional agendas of waste management, the circular economy, innovation and social inclusion. This chapter aims at providing an overview of innovative cases for food waste prevention and reduction within the framework of the ECOWASTE4FOOD project. S. Féret (*)  CIHEAM-IAMM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies), Montpellier, France e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_15

389

390     S. Féret

Food Security and Food Waste Challenge: Towards a Food System Approach A very broad consensus on the importance of preventing and reducing food loss and waste was reached at a global level through the adoption of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 12.3 set a policy target towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns which is to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and to reduce food losses by 2030 (United Nations 2015). It has been estimated that more than a third of all food that is produced is lost or wasted at various layers of the food chain. Hence, it is not surprising that preventing and reducing food waste is a key issue for achieving food security and resource efficiency (Bio Intelligence Service 2010; Gustavsson et al. 2011; Stenmarck et al. 2016). Food security is achieved when all people, at all times at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO 1996). However, waste manifests in the system in three ways: (i) knowledge and knowhow invested in the food system, (ii) natural resources and energy used in the food system from production to consumption, (iii) food chain wastage in the food supply chains from climatic hazards to consumer behaviour (CIHEAM-FAO 2016). Efficient infrastructures in the agri-food industries as well as increased awareness among consumers, retailers and agri-food industries could contribute to a significant reduction of food losses and waste and subsequently would contribute to improved food security (CIHEAM-FAO 2016). Beyond the food supply chain, reducing food waste suggests a move towards a food system approach wherein environmental, social, political, economic and territory contexts are considered (Ericksen et al. 2010). The global food system is a major driver of climate change, land-use change, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution. Hence, halving food losses and waste by 2030 appears to be an effective option for reducing the climate and environmental impacts of the food system when combined with plant-based diets and improved management and

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     391

technologies (Springmann et al. 2018). Both sides of the coin need to be considered when changing unsustainable food system patterns. On the one hand, the food supply needs to change by encouraging production systems based on the sustainable use and reuse of renewable resources; on the other hand, the demand side needs to change, through people consuming food products and adopting diets that have a low environmental impact (IPES Food 2015). However, food waste is a complex issue that requires not only collaboration between various supply chains and stakeholders (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2017), but also new interactions between those actors and public policy makers.

The Role of the European Union in Addressing Food Waste The EU has a twofold approach when it comes to addressing food waste, through: (i) reducing food insecurity through distribution of surpluses and (ii) implementing waste reduction. From 1986 to 1987, the European Community has enabled member states to distribute surplus stocks of food commodities to the most deprived people through food banks and charitable organisations. Originally designed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), this scheme has contributed to alleviate food insecurity but has now been moved to the EU social fund under the pressure of some member states (Caraher 2015). While 10% of the EU’s population is still affected by food insecurity (Loopstra et al. 2015), donation of food surpluses has become a diverse and institutionalised practice that has barely addressed food insecurity nor solved the roots of poverty (Caraher and Furey 2017). While this food redistribution programme has lost political attention at the EU level because of criticism from some member states arguing it should be managed by national policies and charities, another approach grows through environmental-driven concerns and a circular economy for waste management. In 2016, the European Commission set up a top-down platform to support the achievement of SDG 12.3 through a provision proposed earlier in the circular economy package (European Commission 2014).

392     S. Féret

This platform gathers EU and non-EU institutions, experts from the member states and selected stakeholders. It aims to exchange information in various sub-sectors such as common measurement of food losses and waste, sharing best practices among stakeholders and countries, best before dates, food donation guidelines as well as national strategies. This platform is also an arena to share country-specific initiatives and programmes implemented by member states. External contributions from EU-funded research projects have provided insights into it when it comes to estimating amounts of food waste in the food supply chain (FUSION project) or for exploring new approaches to reduce food surpluses (REFRESH project). As part of a circular economy package adopted by the Council and the European Parliament in May 2018, member states shall adopt specific food waste prevention programmes within their waste prevention programmes in order to achieve the SDG 12.3 by 2030. Monitoring and quantifying food waste, food donation and redistribution that gives priority for human consumption are also encouraged by the EU (EPA and USDA 1999; Official Journal of the European Union 2018). Hence, the European institutions recognise the need to refer to a waste hierarchy in any prevention programme, from the most preferable option (prevention) to the least preferable options (recycling, recovery and disposal). The waste regulation lists examples of economic instruments including fiscal incentives for donation of products, in particular food. This builds on mandatory commitments and tax exemptions already implemented by some member states like France and Italy to encourage donation of food surpluses between the industry, the retail sector and charities (Gazzetta Aufficiale 2016; Journal Officiel 2016). Although the European Commission has issued a circular economy package and set up a platform on food losses and waste with various EU stakeholders, lack of effectiveness of EU strategies and sectoral policies to address food waste has been highlighted by the European Court of Auditors (ECA 2017). Thus, as food waste occurs all along the entire food chain, the Court stressed that a main EU policy such as the CAP has a role to play in this respect. Various initiatives and numerous reports have come up at the EU level since the adoption of the SDGs by the United Nations in 2015.

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     393

Many of them have stressed the key role of member states of the EU to prevent, to take measures and to reduce food waste, but little is directly targeted at cities and regional authorities in addressing this challenge. In such a context, local and regional authorities and territorial agencies have a role to play to initiate and drive strategies that deal with cross-sectoral issues in a synergistic way (Committee of the Regions 2016; European Parliament 2016). Among the EU-funded initiatives, LIFE+ does contribute to support local and regional actions to prevent food waste. Being the EU-funding instrument for the environment and climate action, LIFE+ currently supports more than 60 grass-roots projects on agricultural and food waste while Interreg programmes support approximately a dozen projects of interregional cooperation under the European and Regional Development Policy (Interreg Europe 2017). Municipalities, metropolis and regional authorities already have legal obligations to act on economic development, waste management, institutional food catering, social policy, innovation and education. However, policy coherence and coordination are needed between different policy agendas and instruments, to adopt a food system approach in policy-making. Moving beyond siloes in policy-making might help city and regional authorities to address global challenges more easily within a more integrated framework in which processes interact with each other (IPES Food 2015; Maggio et al. 2015).

The ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: From Interregional Cooperation to Policy Change ECOWASTE4FOOD is an Interreg project (Interreg Europe 2015) led by International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies—Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Montpellier (CIHEAM-IAMM), which brings together seven city and regional authorities from seven countries throughout Europe: Wielkopolska Region (Poland), City of Ferrara (Italy), Region of Western Macedonia (Greece), Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia (Finland), Sud Region-Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (France), Devon County Council (the UK) and Waste Agency of Catalonia (Spain).

394     S. Féret

The ECOWASTE4FOOD hypothesis is that demonstrating the effects of preventing and reducing food waste can stimulate a resource efficient and environmentally friendly economy for territories and pave the way towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Beyond sharing good practices in food waste prevention and reduction that mostly occurs in the private sector, the ECOWASTE4FOOD project emphasises the pivotal role of public policies and strategies in coalition and institution building. This project aims not only to address the crucial issue of food waste, but also to demonstrate that food waste could be one source for a resource efficient and environmentally friendly economy for the territories. The ECOWASTE4FOOD project supports city and regional authorities in designing their respective action plans to reduce food waste. It provides them with knowledge, tools to share good practices and eco-innovative solutions that can be transferred from one region to another.

Implementation of ECOWASTE4FOOD Three work streams have guided the ECOWASTE4FOOD implementation. (i) from April to December 2017, ECOWASTE4FOOD partners have harvested more than 80 cases of food waste reduction in their territories, according to shared guidelines. This collective identification and analysis of opportunities offered by eco-innovations was handled jointly with the setting up of stakeholder groups at partner level where eco-innovations were introduced and discussed through involving multiple actors. Within each city or region, a group of stakeholders was actively involved in the selection of good practices to be promoted at policy level and in the design of an action plan to be implemented in 2019/2020. These stakeholders include various actors at local or regional levels that take part in implementing concrete solutions to reduce food waste. They come from the food industry, the waste sector, retailers, restaurants, schools, catering companies, academics, food banks, charities, NGOs, etc. The stakeholders have been meeting under the supervision of city or regional authorities. About 30 stakeholder meetings have been organised by the project partners in their territories in 2017/2018.

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     395

(ii) from October 2017 to May 2018, each project partner has visited at least three other project partners to discover and explore the ecoinnovations in more depth. Cross-site visits organised in Catalonia, Ferrara, Wielkopolska, South Ostrobothnia, Provence, Devon and Western Macedonia provided inspiring ideas that enabled transnational cross-pollination and that pave the way towards future plans to good practices from one region to another. Seven cross-site visits and two ad hoc visits have been completed between May and September 2018. Utilising the food waste hierarchy has been a shared and agreed practice among project partners, their stakeholders and external experts, so priority has been given to good practices in the three sub-components of prevention, which are: (1) reduction in waste of raw materials, ingredients and products, measured in overall reduction in waste, (2) redistribution to people and (3) reuse for animal feed (EPA and USDA 1999). (iii) from January to December 2018, project partners designed their respective action plans with their regional or municipal stakeholders. The process was facilitated by external experts and CIHEAMIAMM as lead partner. Following instruction and guidelines provided by the Interreg Europe programme, project partners have engaged in a two-way process: dialogue with managing authorities responsible of EU, regional or local funds for funding action plans and dialogue and co-design with stakeholders. Bilateral talks were held with regional or local managing authorities about the EU-funding schemes and financial instruments that could be triggered to support action plans. Under Interreg Europe, the main financial instrument is the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) that includes a regional variation of the programme (Regional Operational Plan). When such funds were not available anymore, project partners sought alternative financial instruments that could replace the EU one. These can be either national or regional strategies dealing more specifically with resource efficiency, waste management or the circular economy. In many cases, this dialogue with managing authorities started earlier in 2017, especially when bottlenecks or drying up of EU funding were anticipated. Regarding stakeholders’ involvement, similar workshops to those organised from the first work stream have been organised with the goal of identifying

396     S. Féret

and selecting the most suitable actions, to engage stakeholders in the delivery of activities and to design each activity with specific objectives and outcomes. Implementation of the action plans has started in January 2019 and will continue until December 2020. In the next section, I introduce the various opportunities offered by case studies for food waste reduction within four domains of investigation: (i) reduction of waste in the food processing industry, introducing ecoefficient manufacturing processes; (ii) use of products currently considered as unusable or unserviceable; (iii) conception and design of products that help in reducing the food waste of end users, catering and individual consumers; and (iv) services that help reduce food waste directly or by a modification of consumption patterns (including e-services and apps).

Seeking Eco-Innovative Cases of Food Waste Reduction in the Food System ECOWASTE4FOOD project partners have investigated eco-innovative cases for food waste reduction, what I hereafter call eco-innovations. Ecoinnovations are innovations that help to improve the resource efficiency of processes and to lower the environmental impact of human activities (Eco-Innovation Observatory 2012). Eco-innovations help to enable the move towards a circular economy through a mix of technological and non-technological changes that can fuel environmental friendly transition pathways in different sectors and territories (OECD 2011). Eco-innovations might help the industry sectors and households to stop wasting natural and economical resources and find more intelligent ways of buying food and consuming it in a way that does not result in food loss and a waste of money. Eco-innovations can also help prevent food waste at different levels of the food system and at the same time increase the number of citizens receiving adequate daily nutrition. Furthermore, eco-innovations are about reducing our environmental impact and making better use of natural, financial and knowledge-based resources. This means developing approaches, products, techniques, services and processes that reduce food waste, use resources efficiently,

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     397

promote recycling, reuse, etc. In addition, the eco-innovations have already generated outcomes and had social, economic, environmental impacts within the partners’ territories. Finally, eco-innovations generate lasting direct benefits that affect not only business sectors in food waste, but generate secondary impacts on society as a whole, thus influencing social behaviours regarding food waste. In Fig. 15.1, we illustrate a food waste innovations matrix in the food system according to eco-innovation and other cases harvested by

Fig. 15.1  Food waste innovations matrix (Source Ecowaste4food)

398     S. Féret

ECOWASTE4FOOD partners. In addition to identifying the actors in the food chain, flows and various types of actions have been identified: i. at policy level: innovation and learning, policy and institutional support and EU funding ii. from the production and processing industry: rescuing leftovers, recycling leftovers, re-processing to animal feed and re-processing surpluses for new food products iii.  from the whole market and retail shops: recovering surpluses, donating and redistributing food surpluses iv. in the catering and food service sector: weighing quantities, monitoring food waste and selling surpluses v. at individual level: citizen support and raising awareness. The wide range of actions at city and regional levels fall into various action registers: raising awareness, food donation, food redistribution, efficiency innovation in the food industry, food waste monitoring, reuse for animal feed, new products, new services, etc. Both sectoral and cross-sectoral actions show that collective commitment and coordinated action do help to multiply demonstrating effects. Next, I focus on describing the practical innovative solutions harvested and promoted during the ECOWASTE4FOOD project (see Table 15.1).

Reduction of Food Losses in the Processing Industry Modern food processing highlights not only the sensory value of food, but also, perhaps even to a larger extent, the healthfulness of food. Increasing public awareness of the health impact of food as well as changing consumer lifestyles drives the food industry to innovate in new products or enrich existing ones with technology (Gorecka and Pospiech 2016). The cost of produce is important for all processing companies and whether value is distributed evenly in the food chain is a long-standing issue for farmers and retailers. In that respect, one way to strengthen the competitiveness and profitability of food processing companies is to make innovation in general and eco-innovation in particular, a leverage to drive change towards a resource efficient and circular economy.

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     399 Table 15.1  Cases for food waste reduction Item

Case

Country

Partner

Reduction of food losses in the food industry

Extending the shelf life of fresh raw materials using drying techniques Reducing waste material in a pig slaughterhouse A.S.O.P. “Dimitra”

Poland

Marshal Office of Wielkopolska Region

Finland

Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia

Greece

Regional Development Fund/ Region of Western Macedonia South Region/ Provence-AlpesCôte d’Azur Waste Agency of Catalonia Devon County Council

Reuse of fresh products considered as unusable or unserviceable Monitoring and quantifying food waste in the catering sector

Incentivising food donation through tax exemptions to producers and retailers

Better meals, less food waste at Avignon hospital Weighting food quantities at school “Your Business is food: don’t throw it away!” Tax incentives and social aid

France

Spain UK Italy

Municipality of Ferrara

Managing food systems in the future requires that productivity is not seen as the basis of competitiveness, but rather, the focus should be on sustainability, productivity being instead a component of sustainability (EPSC 2016). This means for example: (i) developing intelligent uses of natural resources, ingredients and materials, (ii) creating new markets through new product innovations involving a high level of processing and (iii) developing sustainable and efficient processes in the food industry by supporting new product and service innovations.

Case 1: Extending the Shelf Life of Fresh Raw Materials Using Drying Techniques Extending shelf life through drying techniques contributes to reduced food losses in the agri-food sector. Innovative but simple technologies

400     S. Féret

enable the extension of fresh food’s shelf life. Drying of fruit, vegetables, cheese and other food raw materials can be achieved in a very short time and at low temperatures. A Polish company, FPH Paula Sp. z o.o. Sp.k established in 1991 in Kalisz, Wielkopolska, has designed the Mirvac technology which is a fast microwave vacuum dryer. The company, Paula, has developed various drying technologies to minimise food losses at processing stages: infusion, spray drying using nozzles, instant flours and rice production and membrane filtration. Such technological processing contributes to maintaining very high levels of nutrients in the finished products. After rehydration, the products regain natural texture, taste and aroma, characteristic of the raw material. This process produces a product of varied form, crispness and texture, providing very high nutritional values, natural flavour, aromas and textures appropriated from fresh raw materials. This technology in food processing helps to improve the efficiency of raw material used by reducing losses and creating valorised by-products. Drying machines allow the creation of new food products from fresh fruits and vegetables that might not find a market due to various reasons (overproduction, non-compliance with conformity and quality standards, etc.). A Polish SME, MicroFood company based in Ostrzeszów, has invested money in a comprehensive technology line for drying fruit and vegetables based on a drying technology in a multi-drier vacuum dryer (Fig. 15.2).

Case 2: Reducing Waste Material in a Pig Slaughterhouse Atria group is one of the leading meat and food companies in the Nordic countries, Russia and Estonia. The company is more than 110 years old. Atria Finland develops manufactures and markets fresh meat and other foodstuffs and provides services related to them. As part of its corporate social responsibility effort, Atria group implements a food wastage reduction strategy in its Seinäjoki slaughterhouse (2000 employees). As a part of the project, indicators have been created to monitor total wastage, specific wastage, food product wastage, reuse and value-related wastage. Having 800 million euros total value of raw materials purchased annually, Atria Finland decided to reduce material

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     401

Fig. 15.2  Microwave vacuum dryer at MicroFood company (Credit S. Féret)

waste by 1% in order to save 8 million euros per year. The indicators are monitored at the corporative level, and the project aims to create a model for continuous improvement. Atria identified wastage factors as follows: the quality of raw materials, the calibration of production processes and reasons related to people. Reasons related to people include how carefully employees handle raw materials, for example. Reducing wastage begins with everyone seeking to minimise wastage in their work. New technologies in the cutting chain contribute to it as well.

Reuse of Fresh Products Currently Considered as Unusable or Unserviceable A large amount of food that is produced, traded and consumed, including fresh food like fruit and vegetables, has a short life and is perishable. Overproduction, climate hazards, weather conditions as well as

402     S. Féret

incomplete market management schemes contribute to generate food surplus at the production stage. In addition, marketing standards are used to disqualify market access for imperfect/ugly food products due to their unusual aesthetics and size (including fruit and vegetables) and contribute to increased amounts of lost food. A large range of reuse options for imperfect/ugly/out of consumption date food already exist in practice through various schemes, either business-oriented or charity-oriented. Food saving or sharing NGOs and social entrepreneurs have played a pioneering role thanks to philanthropic support as well as crowd-funding, with the intention to improve the environmental/climate impacts of the food system (including lowering cost of food waste management at city/region levels) and/or to improve access to food for the most deprived people. In addition, understanding food saving practices means even by-products can generate business opportunities in the food chain (i.e. using coffee grounds to grow mushrooms, stale bread to make beer, feeding municipal food waste to feed pigs, etc.). Gleaning in the farm fields helps also to recover significant amounts of fruit and vegetables from loss and contributes to mitigating the impact of food insecurity (Lee et al. 2017).

Case 3: “A.S.O.P. Dimitra” in West Macedonia In West Macedonia, the Dimitra rural cooperative of Velventos has 170 young smallholders that produce more than 4000 tonnes of peaches and 2000 tonnes of nectarines per year. In order to save ripe fruit from being wasted, new products like jams and juice have been put on the market with second-class quality fruits. The facilities of the rural cooperative Dimitra are located in Velventos, in West Macedonia. The producers’ estates are located in the foothills of Pieria, beside Lake Polyfytos, an ideal location with the perfect microclimate for the production of the fruit and especially for the production of peaches and nectarines. Due to high quantities of ripe fruit, A.S.O.P. Dimitra formed a partnership with juice factories that are located in Central Macedonia and in Peloponnesus. During the production season

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     403

Fig. 15.3  A.S.O.P. “Dimitra” facilities in Velventos (Credit S. Féret)

(April–September), the ripe fruit is collected in tanks. At the end of season, or when the tanks are filled up, all the fruit is sent to the juice factories. The juice factories purchase the whole fruit (the flesh and the core) from the A.S.O.P. Dimitra. Indicatively, the weight of the cores is 6–7 million kilograms per season. Through this activity, the members of the cooperative have increased their income and made a profit out of every part of their products, without throwing anything away (Fig. 15.3).

Monitoring and Quantifying Food Waste in the Catering Sector Weighing and monitoring food waste is essential in the fight to reduce it, especially in places where food is prepared: in kitchens. In the catering sector food waste can occur at different stages: purchasing, storage,

404     S. Féret

preparation, overproduction, serving dishes, through to left overs on customers’ plates. What’s thrown away is not just food, but also staff time and disposal costs. Training, digital and predictive tools for institutional kitchens (i.e. schools, hospitals) are solutions that can prevent food waste before the preparation of meals.

Case 4: “Your Business Is Food, Don’t Throw It Away” In the UK, WRAP has estimated the hospitality and food service sector has served over 8 billion meals and produced over 2.87 million tonnes of food and associated packaging waste. Of this, 1 million tonnes is food waste which 75% is avoidable (WRAP 2018). Reviewing the amount of food that is thrown away can help to find out where savings can be made, impacting the bottom line directly. The campaign “Your business is food, don’t throw it away” gives guidance on how to throw away less food and start saving money. A starter guide gives a summary of why and how to take action on food thrown away. There is an animation to show how to use the tools. The length of the review depends on the length of time needed to get a clear picture of where food is being thrown away—3 days, 7 days or more. A calculator tool is used to identify at what stage food is being thrown away on site. Some corrective actions have been very efficient to cut food waste: improved portion control, optimising the use of ingredients, improved management of food prepared after the main evening peak service and asking customers if they want side dishes.

Case 5: Better Meals, Less Food Waste at Avignon Hospital The public hospital in Avignon has been able to question the stereotypes related to catering as contributing to food waste. Tasty recipes with hand-made, slow cooking, cold meals and smart portioning have contributed to cutting food waste, saving money and satisfying patients. In three years, the public hospital of Avignon has reduced food portion leftovers from 90,000 to 9000 individual trays. Such a result has been achieved through a mix of technological and social innovations. Firstly,

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     405

Fig. 15.4  Meal tray at Avignon hospital (Credit S. Féret)

food waste was evaluated to be 100 tonnes per year before the project started. Overfilled plates, unsuitable food types and tasteless dishes were some of the reasons why patients did not finish their plate. At the onco-haematology department, food waste has been halved thanks to cold dishes while wasted bread has been reduced to 4% instead of 30% when stored at ambient temperature. At the end of the year, 1 tonne of food waste has been avoided. The hospital bought a software package for ordering patients’ meals and managing the preparation of food portions. A smart low-temperature oven has facilitated slow cooking—for example meat portions baked during the night which provide extra taste without any condiments. Home-made meals, traditional Provencal food recipes and a new format of individual trays have also significantly contributed to reducing food waste, in addition to training. With health education and waste reduction, food catering at the hospital is at the heart of a circular economy approach. Better eating contributes to saving money, making patients satisfied and saving the planet (Fig. 15.4).

406     S. Féret

Case 6: Weighing Food Quantities at School It all started with a slice of bread: there was more leftover bread than there were students in a school lunchroom. This story marked the inception of Weigh and Think (Pesa i pensa in Catalan): an educational project to raise awareness about the production of waste and food waste in over 20 Catalonian schools involving over 2000 pupils. The methodology of the project enables children to be co-responsible for decisions such as whether to have a whole second helping or eat more bread or fruit. The teaching staff that set Weigh and Think into motion believe that the children’s first-hand experience, when they can make their own decisions, is an efficient and sustainable learning tool that will help them be critical food consumers. Weigh and Think was created to enable children and youths to adopt a good habit that they will maintain throughout their whole lives and which they will also pass on to their families. The pilot test was conducted in 2014. From the second month onwards, food wastage in school dining rooms was reduced by 35% and waste generation dropped by 50% monthly. The Weigh and Think method consists of five steps: (1) to separate the waste into four bins (trash bin, inedible organic waste, edible organic waste, water); (2) to weigh in a systematic and precise manner every day; (3) to record data about the meals served and the waste generated by means of an app; (4) to analyse the data related to the generated waste; and (5) to propose targets to be achieved with the children. The Waste Agency of Catalonia has estimated that waste could be reduced by 75 tonnes of food every day. Hence, the project could contribute to a 5% reduction of the total amount of food wasted in Catalonia (Fig. 15.5).

Incentivising Food Donation Through Tax Exemptions to Retailers and Producers National, regional or local regulations may act as innovation triggers to reduce food waste. New food waste regulations established at a national level (i.e. in France and Italy) require retailers to donate food, which would otherwise become waste. New charity and business models can

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     407

Fig. 15.5  Waste sorting in a Catalan school canteen (Credit Waste Agency of Catalonia)

illustrate on the ground how a resource efficient and circular economy can operate to reduce food waste. In many cases, a combination of both technological and social innovations may enable social entrepreneurial business models that are food security/social inclusion-oriented. More recently, new retail business models based on reuse have been created in the food surplus economy. This trend is becoming stronger, because some countries already fine the supermarkets that refuse to donate food surplus.

Case 7: Tax Incentives and Social Aid Last Minute Market (LMM) links retailers who have food surpluses with people in need. LMM is a triple win innovation that makes the local food retailing more resource-efficient, the waste treatment less costly and brings food to people in need. Since its inception in 1998, LMM operates in over 40 cities in Italy. LMM addresses two issues:

408     S. Féret

first, the massive food waste at retailer level and, on the other side, the increasing food shortage connected with an economic crisis and modern-day poverty. This second issue is often left in the hands of charity organisations, but with LMM, many city actors (municipality, SMEs, associations, etc.) are involved in this relevant fight. The retailers participating in LMM are granted a discount on municipal waste tax, proportional to the quantity of food donated. This scheme helps by redistributing the food to people in need. The associations who handle and distribute the food are chosen directly by the donors. The municipality of Ferrara, which is now the coordinator of the project, embraced the LMM in Ferrara in 2008. The municipality facilitates the signing of a collaboration protocol among retailers and associations willing to recover the food waste and to distribute it to people in need. They also calculate and apply a discounted waste tax to retailers, based on the self-certification of the quantity of food donated to the chosen beneficiary. Since 2004 in Ferrara, over 90 tonnes of food per year have been collected and redistributed, valued at €183,000. It has generated over €10,000 of savings in the municipal treatment of food waste and over €15,000 discount on waste tax for donating retailers per year.

Discussion The selection of eco-innovations described above emerged in the private sector but are supported by public policies at municipal and regional levels. Good practices identified during the ECOWASTE4FOOD project relate not only to eco-innovations but also to regional strategies and policy instruments project partners have committed to testing or transmitting into a different context. Strategies that aim to prevent and reduce food waste have great potential to improve sustainability of the agri-food supply chain (Aschemann-Witzel et al. 2017). While the Interreg Europe programme is EU policy instruments-oriented, action plans designed by project partners promote a wider approach to policy change. Indeed, almost all project partners have embedded their action plan into the national, regional or local strategies as explained earlier in

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     409

the methodology section. Their activities to prevent and reduce food waste can be clustered as follows: i. reducing poverty through food donation/redistribution innovative partnerships; ii.  reducing the amount of food waste at citizen/consumer level through awareness and education; and iii. improving the resource efficiency of the agri-food industries and food services through research and innovation. Municipal and regional authorities have the opportunity to drive and implement concrete solutions, which clearly demonstrate the potential to halve food waste. Their public policies and territory-based strategies contribute to behaviour and practice changes. In that respect, the Interreg programme and ECOWASTE4FOOD project offer a shared framework to municipal and regional partners to design comprehensive action plans to prevent and reduce food waste. During the first two years of the project, local/regional authorities succeeded in delivering a multi-stakeholder focus on food waste fit for multi-faceted purposes. In setting this operation space, municipal and regional authorities play various roles all along the project implementation and continuously stimulate stakeholders to engage in an interactive innovation process. These roles can be described through their functional features in the ECOWASTE4FOOD project, as suggested in the literature on innovation processes (Hekkert et al. 2007): i.  managing interfaces: local/regional authorities provide a stable multi-actor environment for operating; they enable and stimulate participation of stakeholders that have a special interest to prevent or reduce food waste through the ECOWASTE4FOOD project (from producers or SMEs to consumers). They are invited to identify, select and analyse eco-innovative good practices from a multi-actor perspective (policy makers, academics, companies and NGOs); ii.  knowledge development and diffusion: local/regional authorities provide a space for learning by exchanging experiences in food

410     S. Féret

waste prevention and reduction at local/regional levels. The common interface enables local/regional actors to reinforce their capacities and abilities to participate in such schemes. Learning also operates through interregional exchange of experiences beyond borders and the support from other EU platforms such as the thematic Smart Specialization Strategy Platforms (RIS3). iii. guidance of the process: beyond identifying challenges, needs and activities with stakeholders, local/regional authorities act as strategic operators for designing and implementing action plans, with specific indicators, effective outputs and outcomes. Here, local/ regional authorities drive the process towards a more sustainable and responsible food system (Boström et al. 2015). iv.  mobilising resources fuels the implementation of the process. In local/regional authorities, human capital is the pivotal resource which relies on funding capacities. In the case of ECOWASTE4FOOD, the funding framework for operating is the ERDF but includes also national and regional sources of funding as well as private ones. v. enabling market formation: entrepreneurs are key actors to the eco-innovation ecosystem. The ECOWASTE4FOOD project has identified various eco-innovations to reduce food waste that need to be matured. Some local/regional authorities who are part of ECOWASTE4FOOD project are inclined to support development of start-ups or to provide economic incentives to temporarily protect some niche markets (i.e. tax exemptions).

Conclusion Up to 30% of food, we produce in Europe is not consumed. On the one hand, money is invested to produce food, requiring water, energy, land, labour, technology and knowledge; on the other hand, money is spent by local and regional authorities for collecting, treating and recycling food waste. Public policies can facilitate or influence behavioural change, but actions are needed at different stages of the food system to tackle food waste. Moving towards a zero-waste agenda contributes to improving

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     411

environmental resource efficiency and food security, as well as enhancing a food circular economy that supports regional prosperity. Eco-innovative practices collated by the ECOWASTE4FOOD project contribute to generate lasting direct benefits that affect not only food business sectors, but may generate secondary impacts on society as a whole, thus influencing the social behaviours regarding food waste. The fight against food waste can be effective if it is implemented locally and regionally, provided that both administrative levels are relevant and coherent perimeters for action. At these levels, practice-driven solutions are already taking place and actions are facilitated by local/regional authorities with food system stakeholders. Follow-up and monitoring at regional and local level provides tangible opportunities for peer learning and discussion on shared policy targets and thus helps to show evidence and demonstrate effects of public policies. Halving food waste by 2030 requires a genuine coordination of action plans among public and private stakeholders. Local/ regional authorities play an important role in this regard. Acknowledgements    Susanna Anttila (Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia), Elena Bagaria i Ribo (Agencia de Résidus de Catalonia), Emma Croft and Annette Dentith (Devon County Council), Christelle Deblais (Région Sud/Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur), Alicja Nowak (Marshal Office of the Wielkopolska Region), Michele Pancaldi (City of Ferrara), Nikos Vasileiadis (Regional Development Fund/Region of Western Macedonia). A special thanks to Annette Dentith for proofreading.

References Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I. E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M. B., Gronhoj, A., et al. (2017). Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste—A multiple case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 33–45. Bio Intelligence Service. (2010). Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/bio_ foodwaste_report.pdf. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Boström, M., Jönsson, A. M., Lockie, S., & Mol, A. P. J. (2015). Sustainable and responsible supply chain governance: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 1–7.

412     S. Féret

Caraher, M. (2015). The European Union food distribution programme for the most deprived persons of the community, 1987–2013: From agricultural policy to social inclusion policy? Health Policy, 119(7), 932–940. Caraher, M., & Furey, S. (2017). Is it appropriate to use surplus food to feed people in hunger? Short-term band-aid to more deep rooted problems of poverty. Food Research Collaboration Policy Brief. https://foodresearch.org.uk/publications/is-it-appropriate-to-use-surplus-food-to-feed-people-in-hunger/. Accessed on 22.2.2019. CIHEAM-FAO. (2016). Zero waste in the Mediterranean, natural resources, food and knowledge. Mediterra report. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bq976e.pdf. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Committee of the Regions. (2016). Opinion on food waste. Committee of the Regions. https://webapi.cor.europa.eu/documentsanonymous/cor-201506646-00-01-ac-tra-en.docx. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Eco-Innovation Observatory. (2012). Methodological report. Eco-innovation observatory. http://www.eco-innovation.eu/index.php/reports/methodological-report. Accessed on 22.2.2019. ECOWASTE4FOOD. (2017). Interreg Europe. www.interregeurope.eu/ecowaste4food/. Accessed on 22.2.2019. EPA & USDA. (1999). Waste not, want not: Feeding the hungry and reducing solid waste through food recovery. Environmental Protection Agency & U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/ web/html/source_reduction.html. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy. Accessed on 25.2.2019. EPSC. (2016). Sustainability now! A vision for European sustainability. European Political Strategy Centre. https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/ strategic-notes/sustainability-now_en. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Ericksen, P. J., Stewart, B., Dixon, J., Barling, D., Loring, P., Anderson, M., et al. (2010). The value of a food system approach. In J. S. I. Ingram, P. J. Ericksen, & D. M. Liverman (Eds.), Food security and global environmental change (pp. 25–45). London: Earthscan. European Commission. (2014). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the Circular Economy COM/2015/0614 final. Eur-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015 DC0614. Accessed on 22.2.2019. European Court of Auditors (ECA). (2017). Combating food waste: An opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-efficiency of the food supply chain,

15  ECOWASTE4FOOD Project: Cases for Food Waste Reduction …     413

special report no. 34. European Court of Auditors. https://www.eca.europa. eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did={82075E2C-CCDD-48ED-9F9CC5323B674AC2}. Accessed on 22.2.2019. European Parliament. (2016). Report on initiative on resource efficiency: Reducing food waste, improving food safety (2016/2223(INI)). European Parliament. http://www. europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A82017-0175+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. Accessed on 22.2.2019. FAO. (1996). Rome declaration on world food security and world food summit plan of action. World Food Summit. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Gazzetta Aufficiale. (2016). Disposizioni concernenti la donazione e la distribuzione di prodotti alimentari e farmaceutici a fini di solidarieta’ sociale e per la limitazione degli sprechi. (16G00179). Gazzetta Aufficiale. http:// www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2016/08/30/16G00179/sg. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Gorecka, D., & Pospiech, E. (2016). Zagospodarowanie ubocznych produktów przemyslu spozywczego [Management of by-products of the food industry]. http://pttzow.up.poznan.pl/files/monografie/zagospodarowanie_ ubocznych_produktow.pdf. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. http:// www.fao.org/3/a-i2697e.pdf. Accessed on 22.2.2019. Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analyzing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 413–432. Interreg Europe 2014–2020. (2015). Cooperation programme document, final. Interreg Europe. https://www.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/ documents/Interreg_Europe_-_CP_final.pdf. Accessed on 25.2.2019. Interreg Europe. (2017). The role of cities and regions in promoting resource efficiency across the EU (Policy Brief No. 6). Interreg Europe. https://www. interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/plp_uploads/policy_briefs/TO6_ policybrief_ResourceEfficiency.pdf. Accessed on 25.2.2019. IPES Food. (2015). The new science of sustainable food systems: Overcoming barriers to food systems reform. International panel of experts on sustainable food systems. IPES Food. http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/ NewScienceofSusFood.pdf. Accessed on 25.2.2019.

414     S. Féret

Journal Officiel de la République Française. (2016). Loi n° 2016-138 du 11 février 2016 relative à la lutte contre le gaspillage alimentaire. Journal Officiel de la République Française. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/ loi/2016/2/11/AGRX1531165L/jo/texte. Accessed on 25.2.2019. 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. Loopstra, R., Reeves, A., & Stuckler, D. (2015). Rising food insecurity in Europe. The Lancet, 385(9982), 2041. Maggio, A., Van Criekinge, T., & Malingreau, J. P. (2015). Global food security 2030: Assessing trends with a view to guiding future EU policies. European Commission, JRC Science and Policy Reports. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC94867/lbna27252enn.pdf. Accessed on 25.2.2019. OECD. (2011). Better policies to support eco-innovation. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/betterpoliciestosupporteco-innovation.htm#How_to_ obtain_this_publication. Accessed on 25.2.2019. Official Journal of the European Union. (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.150.01.0109.01. ENG. Accessed on 25.2.2019. Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky B.L., Lassaletta L., et al. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562, 519–525. Stenmarck, Å., Jensen C., Quested, T., & Moates, G. (2016). Estimations of European food waste levels. FUSIONS EU project. https://www.eu-fusions. org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20 food%20waste%20levels.pdf. Accessed on 25.2.2019. UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/ transformingourworld. Accessed on 25.2.2019. WRAP. (2018). Food waste in the hospitality and food service sector. The Waste and Resources Action Programme. http://www.wrap.org.uk/food-drink/ business-food-waste/hospitality-food-service. Accessed on 25.2.2019.

16 From Measurement to Management: Food Waste in the Finnish Food Chain Hanna Hartikainen, Inkeri Riipi, Juha-Matti Katajajuuri and Kirsi Silvennoinen

Introduction The United Nations (UN) has set a target to reduce consumer and retail food waste by half and minimise overall food waste in the food chain by 2030 (UN 2016). The EU Commission is therefore about to establish a common enactment for its member states to monitor food waste in every step of the food chain (EU Commission 2018a, b). This chapter aims to present a case for developing the Finnish food waste measurement and management system. As researchers of the Natural Resources H. Hartikainen (*) · I. Riipi · J.-M. Katajajuuri · K. Silvennoinen  Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] I. Riipi e-mail: [email protected] J.-M Katajajuuri e-mail: [email protected] K. Silvennoinen e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_16

415

416     H. Hartikainen et al.

Institute of Finland (Luke 2018d), we will discuss how the quantification of food waste may be improved to reduce it in the food chain. Luke is an active developer of Finland’s measurement and management system for food waste (Luke 2018c). It is impossible to develop food waste prevention strategies without knowledge concerning where, why and how much food is wasted in the food chain. The lack of food waste data has been generally recognised. For this reason, there have been several studies on methods to measure and manage food waste in recent decades (Møller et al. 2014). Many countries have conducted case studies on food waste, its causes and best practices for reducing it (van Herpen et al. 2016; Xue et al. 2017), and these studies provide valuable knowledge concerning the food waste data collection methods needed to monitor and manage waste levels. However, in Finland and throughout the EU, there is a lack of comparative and statistical food waste data (Xue et al. 2017). For example, many countries lack data on primary production losses (Hartikainen et al. 2018). Data representativeness is also often poor in food waste studies. Most are not representative (or the sample’s representativeness is not properly discussed), and hence, it is impossible to estimate the direction food waste levels take over time (Xue et al. 2017). While published food waste studies have led to a better understanding of its magnitude, most are based on limited samples from certain areas/places and years (Xue et al. 2017). For example, in a 2011 Finnish study, 72 distinct sites in the food catering sector measured food waste (Heikkilä et al. 2016; Silvennoinen et al. 2015). The number of sites participating by weighing food waste was high compared to other catering sector food waste studies (Møller et al. 2014; Stenmarck et al. 2016) and thus gave a good insight into the magnitude of the sector’s food waste. Yet the Finnish study was insufficient to provide comparative data for measuring how much food is wasted annually in the catering sector if the study were repeated. Besides the lack of data, another major challenge is that there is no commonly accepted definition of food waste. For instance, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), food waste refers to “discarding or alternative (non-food) use of food that is safe and nutritious for human consumption” (FAO 2018b). Meanwhile,

16  From Measurement to Management …     417

the Definitional Framework for Food Waste in the FUSIONS project defines food waste as “any food, and inedible parts of food, removed from the food supply chain to be recovered or disposed” (Östergren et al. 2014). The main difference between these definitions is that under the FUSIONS definition, some non-food uses, such as feed, are not defined as waste, whereas FAO categorises all non-food uses as food waste/loss. Since there is no agreement on the terms and definitions for food waste and because there are several data gaps, it is difficult to set efficient policy measures to reduce it. The European Commission has therefore established a platform to provide further insight into measuring food waste (European Commission 2016) and consequently support the halving of food waste. To address the aims of this chapter aim, we will describe the next steps in Finland’s proactive construction of a food waste measurement system and prevention roadmap. In 2018, Finnish researchers, ministries, the food industry and retail sector, as well as other key food chain stakeholders agreed on active collaboration throughout the food chain to reduce Finnish food waste (Luke 2018c). In Finland, international developments related to food waste reduction are closely followed (European Commission 2018a, b), and there is an attempt to effectively reduce Finnish food waste. However, efficient food waste reduction requires collaboration throughout the food chain. To manage and systematically reduce food waste, key actors from all steps in the food chain are collaborating together in order to agree upon the food waste definitions, methods for detailed and systematic food waste data collection and food waste data collection periods. Food chain actors will participate with Luke researchers in piloting carefully designed food waste quantification methods between 2018 and 2020. The ambitious aim is to build a system that enables repeatable food waste quantification in all steps of the food chain and compiles a comparative and representative food waste dataset. Previous studies demonstrate that suitable food waste evaluation methods have varied at different steps of the food chain (Hartikainen et al. 2018; Møller et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2012; Stenmarck et al. 2016). For instance, in Finland, previous studies indicate that questionnaires are suitable for collecting primary production and manufacturing waste data,

418     H. Hartikainen et al.

whereas centralised data collection is a best practice for retail chains (Hartikainen et al. 2018; Silvennoinen et al. 2012). Food waste measurement methods and a quality standard for selecting the most suitable methods are presented in detail in this chapter. The Finnish project presented in this chapter aims to feed results back to the food chain actors. The actors involved will discuss definitions and draft a national roadmap with national goals and measures for reducing Finnish food waste. The main emphasis of these efforts is on finding the most cost-effective and comprehensive measures at all steps of the food chain. The roadmap will evolve with the support of repeated food waste measurements and encourage key food chain stakeholders’ active involvement. This chapter presents the overall structure of the national collaboration scheme in detail.

Quality Standard for Food Waste Data Collection Building a system to monitor food waste levels calls for a quality standard to make the overall process and data collection transparent, more uniform and repeatable. As there is no agreement on food waste definitions and terminology, the quality standard also needs to address common terminology and definitions. The European Commission (2018a, b) is discussing minimum requirements and definitions for food waste data collection in the food chain. These decisions need close monitoring, and possible adjustments may be required to make the Finnish approach fulfil the Commission’s future alignments. Figure 16.1 demonstrates how the overall quality standard for food waste data collection in Finland will be divided into collaborative actions and food chain step-specific actions. Collaborative actions include: deciding on common definitions and system boundaries; following and adjusting to international agreements; and coordinating data collection from the different steps of the food chain. Collaboration between the actors in the food chain and key stakeholders is crucial to ensure uniform data collection. Step-specific actions include: the most suitable data collections methods; possible specifications for the collected data (e.g. the level of detail

16  From Measurement to Management …     419

Collaboration between food chain and key stakeholders Deciding on common definitions and system boundaries. Following and adjusting to international discussions and agreements (Commission, UN). Coordinating data collection.

Primary production

Manufacture

Retail

Catering sector

Household

Data collection method(s)

Data collection method(s)

Data collection method(s)

Data collection method(s)

Data collection method(s)

Data specifications

Data specifications

Data specifications

Data specifications

Data specifications

Required sample size, representativeness

Required sample size, representativeness

Required sample size, representativeness

Required sample size, representativeness

Required sample size, representativeness

Fig. 16.1  Quality standard for food waste data collection in Finland

in the questions, supplementary questions); and the desired sample size and its representativeness. All these actions are discussed in detail in the following sections.

Collaboration in Food Waste Data Collection Previous Finnish food waste studies (Hartikainen et  al. 2018; Katajajuuri et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2014) and studies throughout Europe (Xue et al. 2017) have targeted different steps of the food chain, but they lack overall coordination throughout the food chain. For instance, Beretta et al. (2013) studied food waste in Switzerland’s food chain. Their holistic approach improved the overall understanding of food waste in the Swiss food chain. Beretta et al. (2013) carried out a simultaneous examination of the entire food chain, because the cause of food waste could occur at a different step of the food chain from where it arises. For example, consumer behaviour and expectations often lead to food waste at different stages of the food chain. To avoid gaps in data collection and to gain a better understanding of the causal effects of food waste, it needs to be quantified along the food chain and not in “silos” as previously.

420     H. Hartikainen et al.

Definitions and System Boundaries There are no common food waste definitions or system boundaries (JRC 2017), and the definitions are still under discussion (European Commission 2016, 2018a, b). Luke and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland are closely following the international discussion led by the European Commission, however, the level of data needed to benefit the Finnish food sector will be decided in Finland. For instance, it is still unclear whether the Commission will demand member countries to separate edible and inedible waste (parts such as peels and bones), yet there is wide agreement in Finland that the focus will be on monitoring and prevention of edible waste. Previous Finnish food waste data collection efforts have attempted to distinguish edible food waste from the rest of the food waste (Hartikainen et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2012). The Finnish aim is to collect data on edible and inedible food waste and to report both edible and inedible food waste to the Commission. In the food waste hierarchy, the primary aim is that food should be eaten and, if impossible, fed to animals or used as raw material for non-food products (Papargyropoulou et al. 2014). Therefore, besides identifying the waste type (edible/inedible), it may also be important to monitor the destination of waste to evaluate how efficiently different food streams are used if food is not eaten. The destination may also define what is and is not included in waste estimates. For instance, the former EU project FUSIONS suggested a definition in which only food which finished up as waste (including landfill, sewerage, compost and biowaste) or as a low-value product (including its use as energy waste) should be classified as food waste (Stenmarck et al. 2016). The question of food being used for animal feed and how this is considered in the data collection and reporting process is an especially important aspect to consider. A study by the Joint Research Centre (JRC; the European Commission’s science and knowledge service) (JRC 2017) suggests results vary greatly depending on whether or not studies include animal feed in waste estimations. System boundaries between actors in the food chain and stakeholders also require discussion. The Commission has yet to specify the system

16  From Measurement to Management …     421

boundaries. The FAO of the United Nations (2018a) states that only food initially produced for human consumption should be considered. This should be evident, but the FUSIONS project, for example, included waste streams such as cooking oil and coffee beans in their food waste quantification (Östergren et al. 2014). Additionally, in the FUSIONS project, the food system starts when a crop is ready for harvesting and animals/fish are sent for slaughter/to a fish processing plant and a cow is milked (Östergren et al. 2014). While this seems logical, the study ignores losses which may occur during animal rearing. Hartikainen et al. (2014) suggest meat losses during animal rearing due to animal death/rejection before slaughter can amount to 10% of beef and 3% of pork production. Moreover, it is not always evident whether all harvest losses are countable. For instance, if part of a crop is rotten or otherwise damaged in the field, it must be decided if it is to be counted as food waste or as a yearly crop loss. There is some debate concerning which food waste would be avoidable if handled differently and which waste is unavoidable due to spoilage in the early stages of the food chain. In this respect, data collection should also consider dissimilarities between different steps of the food chain. For instance, the FAO (2018a) distinguishes the terminology it uses based on the steps of the food chain: if a product is spoiled before it becomes a final product or before it reaches the point of retail, it should be labelled as food loss (accidental waste), not as food waste. This is because spoilage is hard to avoid in the early steps of the food chain, whereas at the consumer level, spoilage could be a result of improper storage or some other cause. In this case, it should therefore be classified as food waste. However, there are also many cases in retail, the hospitality sector and households where food waste is hard to avoid, and thus would require significant effort to reduce food waste to zero. The use of the terms “avoidable” and “unavoidable” should therefore only be considered as a general guideline. This terminology should not limit the scope of the efforts to reduce food waste. In the Finnish approach presented in this paper, we make no such distinctions and use “food waste” for all steps of the food chain. We recognise that dissimilarities between different steps should always be considered.

422     H. Hartikainen et al.

Coordinating Data Collection Data collection coordination requires that each step of the food chain uses similar definitions and system boundaries if possible. Additionally, decisions are needed on the data types and the level of detail which should be collected. While data is composed from each step of the food chain, coordination of the waste data throughout the food chain helps to identify possible trends in waste quantities throughout the food chain for different years. Detailed and comparable data is also important to better understand the causal relations of food waste and to set more specific measures to reduce food waste (Parfitt et al. 2010).

Data Collection at Different Steps of the Food Chain Food waste data collection from the entire food chain must consider the special characteristics of the different steps of the food chain. Previous Finnish food waste studies have provided valuable information on the specific characteristics and most suitable data collection methods for each step (Hartikainen et al. 2018; Heikkilä et al. 2016; Katajajuuri et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2015; Wastestimator 2017). These characteristics include the type and number of actors, and existing waste data collection and reporting methods. In primary production and especially in households, there are many individual actors producing food waste, and therefore, more effort is needed to obtain a representative data sample from them. Retailers and food manufacturers collect waste data, but often this data is classified. The Finnish retail sector has published overall figures for waste in relation to food sales (PTY 2017). Moreover, only some large food manufacturers publish their waste quantities. Manufacturers processing animal by-products are required to report their waste quantities because of environmental permits.

16  From Measurement to Management …     423

Primary Production In 2017, there were around 48,600 farms in Finland (Luke 2018e). The vast majority produced food, and the rest produced animal feed and other products such as energy. Finnish food statistics send annual questionnaires to crop farmers concerning sold crops, but the statistics produced exclude harvest and post-harvest losses (Luke 2018e). However, there have been some Finnish case studies on food losses in primary production (Hartikainen et al. 2014, 2018; Luke 2018b). These case studies are mainly based on questionnaires and interviews. The case products include carrots, potatoes, wheat, rye, peas, strawberries, onions, white cabbage and lettuce. Nearly 2000 farms have replied to these questionnaires (Hartikainen et al. 2014, 2018; Luke 2018b). So far, there is no continuous data collection monitoring food waste in primary production. Finnish farmers do not actually measure their food waste, but in Finnish studies, they claim to have a good understanding of their losses during and after harvests (Hartikainen et al. 2014). It is therefore reasonable to ask farmers about the waste produced using questionnaires and interviews. There have also been some field and stock composition measurements, and since the results of these tests have been similar to the questionnaires (Franke et al. 2016; Hartikainen et al. 2014), we consider questionnaires and interviews the best alternative compared to using highly resource-intensive field and stock measurements. In Finland, questionnaires and interviews concerning food have been successfully used for data collection from farmers (Hartikainen et al. 2014, 2018). Actual measurements would certainly give more exact information on losses, but the disadvantage is that on-farm crop loss measurements are time-consuming and laborious, and it would require numerous measurement points on several farms to obtain an overall understanding of primary production crop losses (Franke et al. 2016). Because there is a great deal of variation in the losses which occur for different crops, the demand for data collection becomes even higher. Finnish food statistics gather annual meat and milk production data, collected mainly from slaughterhouses and the milk register

424     H. Hartikainen et al.

(Luke 2018e). These statistics exclude rejected animals and milk losses. Commercial marine fisheries are an exception, and they compile statistics on the rejected catch (Luke 2018a). The Finnish Food Authority also collects data on numbers of dead/rejected cows and pigs. Additionally, waste treatment factories, such as Honkajoki, compile statistics on the animals and animal by-products they receive. Hence, there is some statistical data on losses. However, the existing statistics are insufficient for estimating all animal and fish production losses. There is therefore also a need to collect waste data concerning animal, fish and milk production. We consider the best available methods for this purpose to be questionnaires and interviews (Franke et al. 2016; Hartikainen et al. 2018). Previous studies on primary production food losses have resulted in a somewhat low sample representativity, ranging from 8 to 27%, with an average of around 10% (Hartikainen et al. 2014, 2018). Because the desired sample size needs to be higher, we argue that questionnaires should be included in existing data collection processes. For instance, questions on crop production losses could be added to Luke’s Statistical Services’ annual crop production surveys. Table 16.1 lists needs that should be considered in future questionnaires (Hartikainen et al. 2014, 2018; Joensuu et al., forthcoming; Luke 2018b). One of the key findings of previous studies has been that questionnaires should be short and that the questions should be as easy as possible to answer. This improves the response rate and reduces the farmers’ reporting load. It is also advisable to avoid terms such as “food waste” because these can be understood in different ways.

Food Manufacturing Food manufacturing can be divided into meat processing, dairy production, drink production, baking, milling and starch production, vegetable processing and “other” (e.g. convenience food and sugar production). Finnish food manufacturing amounts to roughly 6 million tonnes annually. Dairy production is the largest by volume, followed by meat processing (Silvennoinen et al. 2012). The Finnish Food and

16  From Measurement to Management …     425 Table 16.1  List of what needs to be considered in future questionnaires (Luke 2018b; Joensuu et al., forthcoming) Time

Case products

What kind of question

Amount and type of questions

Response rate, motivation

Avoid blame

In new data collection methods, enough time should be allocated for planning the questionnaire, deciding on the desired sample, and analysing results Case products should include products with the highest production volumes and different product types to cover different growing conditions (open field, greenhouse, etc.). It is unnecessary to include all product types if some case products represent others: e.g. blackcurrants can represent all bush-grown berries To obtain a good response rate and good statistics, questions on the data collection form should be easily understandable. They should be unambiguous, and the instructions should be clear There should not be too many questions because of the response burden. However, there should be enough questions for good statistics. Waste quantity, destination and cause should be ascertained to analyse the data There should be an incentive for farmers to answer the questionnaire. The response rate can be improved by using incentives or diligently engaging in telephone calls, for example Agricultural food waste reduction is difficult, and farmers rarely intend to cause waste. This is important to consider in both data collection and reporting

Drink Industries’ Federation (ETL), which represents most of the Finnish food industry, has around 600 food and drink industry members, of which roughly 75% are small and medium-sized companies (ETL 2018). Food manufacturers, especially large manufacturers, understand their material flows and waste quantities well (Hartikainen et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2012). However, only part of the Finnish food manufacturing industry is currently obligated to declare the amount

426     H. Hartikainen et al.

and content of waste. This waste data is collected in the compliance monitoring data system, VAHTI (Berg 2016). The reporting o­ bligation mainly concerns those manufacturers that process food containing meat products, since animal by-products are considered hazardous waste which requires proper disposal. Some other large producers also report their waste to VAHTI. However, bakeries and small-scale processors, for example, are missing from the VAHTI register. Moreover, waste quantities are usually reported as rough estimates in VAHTI, and it is therefore impossible to use the database to sort and categorise food waste data. Furthermore, only some food manufacturers declare their waste data annually in their corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. This waste data is not based on commonly accepted methodologies, and it is therefore not entirely comparable. Existing statistical data is inadequate for estimating the amount of food being wasted, and in previous studies, food waste has therefore been evaluated with questionnaires sent to food manufacturers and from the CSR reports (Hartikainen et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2012). In previous studies, the representativeness of the questionnaire samples has varied. In the study by Silvennoinen et al. (2012), 13 manufacturers responded, including large producers from dairy and meat, and convenience food production. Both sectors were well represented. However, fruit and vegetable processing was poorly represented. The study by Hartikainen et al. (2014) focused on fruit and vegetable processing and milling and included some large producers. Based on Finnish experience, it is recommended that to promote systematic food waste data collection and to monitor future food waste, questionnaires and interviews should be used. These methods have been successfully used in Finland to obtain responses from large producers, so the expected response rate should be sufficient—especially if the largest manufacturers respond (Hartikainen et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2012).

Retail There are two major retail store chains (totalling over 80% of the market) and one large chain (over 9%) in Finland (PTY 2018). While the large retail chains in Finland regularly monitor their food waste, they

16  From Measurement to Management …     427

are not obliged to declare the amount of food waste they produce. Nevertheless, in 2016, the Finnish retail chains voluntarily declared their total waste percentage in relation to overall sales (PTY 2017). Additionally, a Nordic research project evaluated retail and wholesale food waste in 2011 (Stenmarck et al. 2011). Representatives from retail stores, wholesale groups and the waste management sector in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland were interviewed in the study. These interviews resulted in an overall figure for retail sector food waste. All the published retail sector data thus far has been aggregated into one figure. Any further division of food waste in the data has been considered by the sectors involved as classified information. The future aim is to collect more detailed food waste data from retail stores to allow the monitoring of the waste streams concerning different product groups in the food chain. Success in sharing this classified information will depend on the retail sector’s willingness to quantify and share this information.

Catering Sector The catering sector includes schools, day care centres, hospitals and centres for the elderly, workplace restaurants, cafes and service stations, restaurants and hotels and fast food restaurants. In 2016, there were over 10,000 catering businesses in Finland (Mara 2018). Most were restaurants, hotels, cafeterias and service stations. However, schools serve the most meals annually—accounting for around a quarter of all the meals served. The catering sector food waste can be divided into kitchen and buffet waste and plate leftovers (Silvennoinen et al. 2015). Some Finnish caterers monitor their waste, especially kitchen waste, but they rarely measure food waste in its entirety or publish waste data. Moreover, waste statistics lack data on catering waste. Although municipal waste (waste from caterers is classified as municipal waste) is monitored annually in Finland (Tilastokeskus 2015), there is no data concerning how much municipal waste comes from caterers and how much of it is food waste. There have been some studies in which caterers have kept food waste

428     H. Hartikainen et al.

diaries and/or in which researchers have measured waste quantities in bins (e.g. Circwaste 2016; Silvennoinen et al. 2012; Wastestimator 2017). Over 130 catering sector organisations have participated in Finnish catering food waste studies. Most of the participants have been the catering departments of schools and day care centres. Generally, the sample is quite small and is not representative of the catering sector. Previous waste measurement periods have been quite short, mainly ranging from a day to a week, which also weakens the waste estimates. In the Circwaste project (2016), food waste data was collected for over 16 weeks (two periods of eight weeks), which gave a better overall understanding of waste in the participating caterers. In the future, approaches to obtaining a comprehensive picture of food waste in the Finnish catering sector and to monitor food waste progress are needed. A study by Silvennoinen et al. (2012) demonstrated that waste quantities vary between different types of caterers, and data therefore needs to be collected from different caterers and areas. Ideally, the participating caterers should be chosen randomly. In Finland, it has been decided that future food diary measurements should have at least 20 caterers for each catering type, and waste measuring periods should last more than a week. This would enable the variation between different caterer types and within each type of caterer to be determined. However, if any conclusions on the direction of food waste quantities are to be drawn, the number of caterers participating in the study needs to be much higher. Such a sample is currently impossible, since it is time and resource consuming to persuade even a small number of caterers of each type to participate. To improve estimates on food waste, Luke aims to send a questionnaire to more Finnish caterers (with a target response rate of 500 caterers) and aims to include questions such as “Do you measure your food waste?” and “Have you reduced your food waste? If so, by how much?” The term “food waste” can be used in the catering sector, since there are a common understanding and acceptance of its use (in contrast to primary production). The catering sector is large and dispersed, and while many caterers already monitor their waste, most only partially understand their waste quantities. The main challenge is to motivate the management and

16  From Measurement to Management …     429

kitchen personnel to measure kitchen and buffet food waste (Heikkilä et al. 2016) and encourage them to improve the measurement of plate leftovers. Previously, plate leftovers were measured by sorting through the waste in waste bins (Silvennoinen et al. 2012), and in the Circwaste project (2016), plate leftover measurement was tested with online scales installed under canteen bio-waste bins. Online reporting and measurement systems for kitchen and buffet waste as well as plate leftovers would make reporting and data handling easier and more efficient. These systems have already been tested in Finland. An example is the Circwaste project (2016): the results support the use of these online reporting and measurement systems. Besides online measurements, a questionnaire could increase the understanding of progress in food waste reduction amongst caterers.

Households There are over 2.6 million households in Finland and the Finnish population is over 5.3 million. FinDiet studies household food consumption every five years. The study is based on a sample of Finnish households that report their food consumption in a diary study (THL 2018). These diary studies do not include possible food waste but only the quantity of consumed food. Moreover, there are no statistics on household food waste. While the quantity of municipal household waste is monitored annually (Tilastokeskus 2015), these statistics also lack data on how much food is wasted. Studies on the quantity and composition of Finnish household food waste (Katajajuuri et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2012, 2013, 2014) are the only sources of household food waste data. The study methods used to gather this data have included: questionnaires (Silvennoinen et al. 2012, 2013), food waste diaries (Silvennoinen et al. 2012; Wastestimator 2017) and waste composition analyses (Silvennoinen et al. 2013; Wastestimator 2017). A comparison of these studies reveals that the results of the different methods vary. Interestingly, the totals are similar: around at 25 kilos of edible food waste per household per year (Silvennoinen et al. 2012; Wastestimator 2017), but the consistency of

430     H. Hartikainen et al.

food waste is different when using waste composition analysis or a food waste diary (Katajajuuri et al. 2014; Silvennoinen et al. 2012, 2013, 2014; Wastestimator 2017). This is probably due to tendency of households to change their behaviour in a study setting. Additionally, while a waste bag analysis does not lead to the same problem, it cannot be used to track certain waste streams because liquids and waste disposed of down the drain or in the sewerage system is not included in waste bag analysis. Food waste questionnaires are unsuitable for estimating the absolute quantity of household food waste because households do not clearly understand their waste streams. However, questionnaires can introduce useful supplementary information, since some questions indicate food waste indirectly. In a study by Silvennoinen et al. (2012, 2014), households answered a questionnaire and measured their waste quantities. It was found that the questions “How often does your household produce food waste?” and “Is it possible to reduce your household’s food waste?” both indicated more food waste if the first answer was “frequently” and the second “yes”. Hence, if questionnaires are repeated, they can also produce valuable insights into food waste monitoring. However, questionnaires alone are insufficient for monitoring food waste. Ideally, at least some questionnaire respondents should also participate in a diary study. Food waste diaries are another important way to obtain a more comprehensive picture of waste composition (including liquids and waste disposed of in the sewerage system). A benefit of food waste diary studies is that they are not tied to a geographical area: households throughout Finland can participate in the study, allowing for a more representative sample. The challenges with the diary studies are in motivating different types of households to participate in them and ensuring that the households correctly measure their waste. In previous diary studies (Silvennoinen et al. 2012; Wastestimator 2017), households have received kitchen scales to conduct measurements. However, since this investment is costly and the measurements should be repeated periodically to monitor household food waste, an alternative method is needed. The FinDiet study is based on visual aids and ready-made lists of food portions (e.g. a piece of bread, etc.) to help households estimate

16  From Measurement to Management …     431

the amount they eat (THL 2018). Similarly, visual aids and lists of food portions could be used to help households estimate their food waste. Moreover, to improve data reporting and handling, households could enter the data needed during diary studies directly online rather than by writing entries in a paper-based diary. To monitor food waste and build a roadmap that comprehends household waste, the challenge is to obtain a representative sample of household food waste. Since none of the existing methods is perfect, food waste quantification could be based in all three methods to gain a more coherent picture of household food waste. Waste composition analysis could be repeated at certain intervals to measure food waste without the bias of households changing their behaviour. A questionnaire is also the simplest method of the three, and it could be a relatively easy way to obtain a large and representative sample. Questionnaires could therefore be used to compare different user groups, for example, based on the part of the country they live in. Based on previous Finnish food waste studies (Silvennoinen et al. 2012, 2014; Wastestimator 2017), a rough estimate of the required sample for each method would be 1000 households responding to the questionnaire, over 200 households participating in the diary study and over 5000 households represented in waste composition analysis. Additionally, it is important that the samples represent all socio-demographic groups in the country.

Implications for Developing a Food Waste Measuring and Management System Engaging and Motivating Food Chain Actors to Provide Food Waste Data The Commission will require food waste data collection in the future (European Commission 2018a, b), which will probably increase the interest of the food chain actors in the topic. However, as long as the data collection is not obligatory for all food chain actors, the industry will not really be pressured to share data. In Finland, it will probably

432     H. Hartikainen et al.

be challenging to obtain representative samples from all the steps in the food chain. Efforts are therefore needed to find ways to motivate and engage actors. Luke’s Statistical Services unit is a well-known for developing and distributing farmer questionnaires, and it is therefore suggested that it should distribute the questionnaires on food waste. Questions on crop losses could also be added to the annual crop production surveys run by Luke’s Statistical Services. Telephone interviews are also needed to improve the response rate of future questionnaires. Producers may also consider information on losses to beneficial (providing benchmark data). Furthermore, short and clear questionnaires and prize draws have proved successful in obtaining more responses from farmers (Franke et al. 2016; Hartikainen et al. 2014, 2018). A similar motivation strategy could be used for small and medium-sized food manufacturers as for primary producers. Larger manufacturers, retail sector chains and caterers need further motivation concerning the benefits national data collection could bring to them. For instance, as studies demonstrate (e.g. Beretta et al. 2013), detailed data collection along the food chain can increase the amount of information available on waste quantities and improve the food chain’s overall performance. In general, food chain actors will be motivated as long as the data collection also benefits them. Motivating household participation in obtaining a representative sample is also challenging. Past studies indicate that the sample of households is easily skewed when certain households respond to the questionnaire (Silvennoinen et al. 2014). Verbal motivation is therefore insufficient to obtain a representative sample. To improve household participation, households could be offered prize draws and monetary compensation as incentives to respond to a questionnaire and participate in diary studies.

From Measurement to Management Food waste quantification provides important insights into food waste magnitudes throughout the food chain, which helps to orient action and identify the most effective ways of reducing food waste. Food waste

16  From Measurement to Management …     433

monitoring throughout the food chain also helps to monitor overall food waste and ensures food that waste reduction actions lead to a reduction in the food chain’s overall production of food waste. Food waste data collection should include questions on the reasons for food waste and on the uses of food waste to better connect causes with possible solutions. Besides food waste monitoring, effective targets to reduce food waste and meet the reduction targets set by the Commission and UN need to be set. A national roadmap will therefore be established in Finland, in which the food chain stakeholders will agree upon the targets and measures needed to reduce food waste (Luke 2018c). The key to fruitful discussions concerning the building of the national roadmap is a collaborative approach to food waste data in which synergies are sought to reduce food waste efficiently in the entire food chain. This entails stakeholder meetings, workshops and other ways to promote active discussions between all actors. Detailed data can bring new insight into the causes of food waste. Additionally, since the causes of food waste may be located elsewhere from where the waste is produced, collaboration is essential to focus on its original causes and not merely treat its symptoms. In accordance with the waste hierarchy (Papargyropoulou et al. 2014), it is a priority to ensure that food is directed to human consumption.

Conclusion and Next Steps Efficient food waste reduction requires food waste quantification that provides an insight into overall volumes and helps to reduce food waste throughout the food chain. The collection of food waste data should also include additional data on the causes of food waste, as well as food waste destinations and possible ways of reducing food waste. The data collection should also distinguish between edible and inedible food waste. Additionally, collaboration throughout the food chain and a system to collect food waste data at different steps of the food chain are needed. Based on Luke’s experience of food waste quantification in the food chain, Table 16.2 lists suggested methods for data collection and the

434     H. Hartikainen et al. Table 16.2  Data collection methods and the desired sample sizes for each step of the food chain Step of the food chain Primary production—crops

Method

Questionnaires: sent to producers simultaneously with the crop production survey Interviews: supplementary Primary production— Questionnaires milk producers Interviews: supplementary Primary production—ani- Statistics: dead/rejected mal husbandry, fishing, animals, rejected fish cultivation marine fishing catch Questionnaires: other animals/fish groups Interviews: supplementary Manufacturing Questionnaire Interviews: supplementary Retail Data collected by retail groups Caterers

Households

Desired sample size Producers representing 30% of the cultivation area/case product

Producers representing 10% of cultivation area/case product Producers representing 30% of cultivation area/case product

Producers representing 30% of production volume//sector The three largest retail chains, representing over 90% of sector sales D: 20 caterers/caterer Food waste diary (D) type = over 140 caterers Questionnaire (Q): Q: 500 caterers supplementary Online-questionnaire (Q): Q: 1000 households W: 5000 households supplementary Waste composition analy- D: 200 households sis (W) Food waste diary (online) (D)

desired sample sizes for each step of the Finnish food chain. Food waste data collection is voluntary, and the desired sample sizes are ambitious but realistic. However, it is most likely that only the retail sample sizes will prove to be statistically significant. Supplementary methods are therefore suggested (Table 16.2). In the future, there should be more emphasis on incentives and other means (e.g. regulation) to improve

16  From Measurement to Management …     435

the sample sizes. Moreover, while the results will be further studied and possible uncertainties addressed, all final values will have an uncertainty interval. This uncertainty needs to be clearly stated to avoid any misinterpretations. Using the Finnish food waste quantification system, the aim is to further test the data collection between 2018 and 2020 and calculate a baseline year for the start of food waste monitoring from which point forward the monitoring will be repeated at certain intervals. Besides the data collection, it is equally important to improve collaboration in the food chain and make the data collection transparent and uniform. The aim is also to hold workshops and meetings to discuss efficient means of reducing food waste and to establish a national roadmap in which stakeholders determine targets and ways of reducing food waste in the food chain.

References 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. Berg, J. (2016). ETL:n jäte- ja sivuvirtaselvitys 2016. Elintarviketeollisuusliitto (ETL). http://www.etl.fi/media/aineistot/raportit-ja-katsaukset/etl-jate_ja_ sivuvirtaselvitys_2016.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Circwaste. (2016). CIRCWASTE—Towards a circular economy in Finland. Finnish Environment Institute. http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Research__ Development/Research_and_development_projects/Projects/CIRCWASTE__ Towards_Circular_Economy_in_Finland. Accessed on 27.2.2019. ETL. (2018). ETL edustaa laajasti elintarviketeollisuutta. Elintarviketeollisuusliitto. http://www.etl.fi/jasenet.html. Accessed on 27.2.2019. European Commission. (2016). EU Platform on food losses and food waste terms of reference (ToR). European Commission Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_ eu-actions_flw-platform_tor.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. European Commission. (2018a). EU actions against food waste. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions_en. Accessed on 27.2.2019.

436     H. Hartikainen et al.

European Commission. (2018b). Food waste monitoring—Update. EU Platform on food losses and food waste. https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/ food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu-platform_20181206_flw_pres-03.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. FAO. (2018a). Food loss and food waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. FAO. (2018b). Technical platform on the measurement and reduction of food loss and waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/food-waste/definition/en/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Franke, U., Hartikainen, H., Mogensen, L., & Svanes, E. (2016). Food losses and waste in primary production: Data collection in the Nordic countries. Nordic Council of Ministers, Nordic Council of Ministers Secretariat. http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A945862&dswid=-9860. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Hartikainen, H., Kuisma, M., Pinolehto, M., Räikkönen, R., & Kahiluoto, H. (2014). Food waste in primary production (orig. Ruokahävikki alkutuotannossa ja elintarvikejalostuksessa) Foodspill 2 project report, MTT Report 170. http://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/485067. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Hartikainen, H., Mogensen, L., Svanes, E., & Franke, U. (2018). Food waste quantification in primary production—The Nordic countries as a case study. Waste Management, 71, 502–511. Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Silvennoinen, K., & Hartikainen, H. (2016). Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector. Waste Management, 56, 446–453. Joensuu, K., Hartikainen, H., Karppinen, S., Jaakkonen, A.-K., & Kuoppaaho, M. (forthcoming). Developing statistical food waste data collection on the primary production of fruit and vegetables. To be submitted. JRC. (2017). Food waste accounting: Methodologies, challenges and opportunities. Joint Research Centre Technical Reports, European Commission. http:// publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC109202/jrc_technical_report__food_waste_rev_2_online_final.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Katajajuuri, J.-M., Silvennoinen, K., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2014). Food waste in the Finnish food chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 322–329. Luke. (2018a). Commercial marine fishery 2017. Natural Resources Institute Finland. http://stat.luke.fi/en/commercial-marine-fishery. Accessed on 27.2.2019.

16  From Measurement to Management …     437

Luke. (2018b). Data collection on food waste statistics in plant production farms in Finland. Natural Resources Institute Finland. https://www.luke.fi/en/ projects/ruokajate-eurostat/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Luke. (2018c). EU alkaa kerätä tietoa ruokajätteestä – Suomessa seurannan kehittäminen jo vauhdissa. Natural Resources Institute Finland. https:// www.luke.fi/uutiset/eu-alkaa-kerata-tietoa-ruokajatteesta-suomessa-seurannan-kehittaminen-jo-vauhdissa/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Luke. (2018d). Homepage of Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). Natural Resources Institute Finland. https://www.luke.fi/en/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Luke. (2018e). Structure of agricultural and horticultural enterprises. http://stat. luke.fi/en/structure-of-agricultural-and-horticultural-enterprises. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Mara. (2018). Ravintolayritykset Suomessa. Matkailu- ja ravintolapalvelut. https://mara.fi/ravintoloiden-maaran-kehittyminen. 27.2.2019. Møller, H., Hanssen, O. J., Gustavsson, J., Östergren, K., Stenmarck, Å., & Dekhtyar, P. (2014). Report on review of (food) waste reporting methodology and practice. FUSIONS report. http://www.eu-fusions.org/index.php/ download?download=7:report-on-review-of-food-waste-reporting-methodology-and-practice. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Östergren, K., Gustavsson, J., Bos-Brouwers, H., Timmermans, T., Hansen, O. J., Møller, H., et al. (2014). Definitional framework for food waste, full report. FUSIONS project. https://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/ Publications/FUSIONS%20Definitional%20Framework%20for%20 Food%20Waste%202014.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081. PTY. (2017). Ruokahävikin vähentäminen kaupoissa. Päivittäistavarakauppa ry (Finnish Grocery Trade Association). https://www.pty.fi/ruokahaevikki/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. PTY. (2018). Päivittäistavarakaupan tilastot. Markkinaosuudet 2017. Päivittäistavarakauppa ry (Finnish Grocery Trade Association). https://www. pty.fi/julkaisut/tilastot/. Accessed on 27.2.2019.

438     H. Hartikainen et al.

Silvennoinen, K., Heikkilä, L., Katajajuuri, J.-M., & Reinikainen, A. (2015). Food waste volume and origin: Case studies in the Finish food service sector. Waste Management, 46, 140–145. Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Hartikainen, H., Heikkilä, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2014). Food waste volume and composition in Finnish households. British Food Journal, 116(6), 1058–1068. Silvennoinen, K., Koivupuro, H.-K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Jalkanen, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2012). Ruokahävikki suomalaisessa ruokaketjussa. Foodspill 2010–2012 –hankkeen loppuraportti. MTT Raportti 41. http://www.mtt. fi/mttraportti/pdf/mttraportti41.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Silvennoinen, K., Pinolehto, M., Korhonen, O., Riipi, I., & Katajajuuri, J.-M. (2013). Kauppakassista kaatopaikalle, ruokahävikkikotitalouksissa: Kuru-hankkeen loppuraportti. MTT Raportti 104. http://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/481106. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Stenmarck, Å., Hanssen O. J., Silvennoinen K., Katajajuuri J.-M., & Werge, M. (2011). Initiatives on prevention of food waste in the retail and wholesale trades. Nordic Council of Ministers. http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2011-548. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Stenmarck, Å., Jensen, C., Quested, T., & Moates, G. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. FUSIONS EU project. www.eu-fusions.org/ phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20 waste%20levels.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. THL. (2018). FinRavinto-tutkimus. National Institute for Health and Welfare (Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos). https://thl.fi/fi/tutkimus-ja-kehittaminen/tutkimukset-ja-hankkeet/finravinto-tutkimus. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Tilastokeskus. (2015). Jätetilasto. Tilastokeskus. http://www.stat.fi/til/jate/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. UN. (2016). Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. United Nations. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/. Accessed on 27.2.2019. van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I., Nijenhuis, M., Holthuysen, N., Kremer, S., & Stijnen, D. (2016). Consumption life cycle contributions: Assessment of practical methodologies for in-home waste measurement. EU Horizon 2020 REFRESH. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research. https:// eu-refresh.org/sites/default/files/D1.3%20final%20report%20Nov%20 2016.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019.

16  From Measurement to Management …     439

Wastestimator. (2017). Wastestimator hanke. Natural Resources Institute Finland. https://www.luke.fi/ravintolafoorumi/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/10/ Wastestimator-posteri.pdf. Accessed on 27.2.2019. Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Van Herpen, E., Stenmarck, Å., et al. (2017). Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(12), 6618–6633.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Index

A

abiotic attributes 324 Abrahamse, W. 59, 66 accidental waste (food loss) 324, 421 action-based ethics 261 active consumers 244, 247, 248 active selective breeding 328 Actor-Network Theory (ANT) 142, 144 aesthetics 115, 348, 352 consumer attitudes and emotions 230, 355 reusing 402 age, consumer 199 Agriprotein 323, 331 Alapre 331 Alexander, J. 133 allergies and intolerances 360 Amass, Copenhagen 64

American Farm Bureau Federation 359 anaerobic digestion 118 animal feeds downcycling 118, 156, 402 inclusion in waste estimates 420 insect protein 335–337 animal rearing, meat loss during 421 apps, food waste reducing business models components 370, 385 importance of 367 questions 373 types 382, 384 case study methodology 373 value capture 372, 380 value creation 372, 379 value proposition 371, 378 art and waste 178

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Närvänen et al. (eds.), Food Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4

441

442     Index

Aschemann-Witzel, J. 226, 228 Atria Finland 400 attitudes to waste, individual 32 Avignon hospital 404, 405 awareness of problem 32, 135, 379 awareness-raising initiatives 28, 40, 187, 406. See also #FOGWASTE B

Baca-Motes, K. 68 Bajde, D. 146 Baldor Specialty Foods 352 Barthes, R. 235 behavioural change 232. See also social marketing abilities and opportunities 34 cognitive model 63, 228, 247 conative model 229, 248 context model 63 emotional engagement 40, 230, 248 goal-directed 31 interventions to encourage goal setting 37 motivation 32 perspectives 27 professional kitchens 62 social and cultural surroundings 231 sustainability 292 unconscious drivers and institutional resistance 196 Belasco, W.J. 131 benevolence, virtue of 261, 269, 272, 275, 284 Beretta, C. 419

Bernstad, A. 59 best-before dates 35, 201, 301 Bettany, S. 164 bioconversion, insect-based. See insect-based bioconversion biodiesel 334 Birau, M.M. 41 Birkinshaw, J. 62 black soldier fly 325, 326, 338 Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) 337 black soldier fly larvae 323, 325, 335, 336 blame game 134 blow fly 338 Bocken, N.M.P. 371 Boks, C. 58 Borgerson, J. 145 Bourdieu, P. 282 Brancoli, P. 147 bread and bakery products 143, 147 for animal feed 156 craft beer production 378, 402 distributed agency 151, 161 packaging 151, 162, 163 research methodology 146 restaurants 60 weather effect on demand 155 breakfast buffets, plate size at 58, 65, 204 Brennan, L. 228, 232 bulk packaging 200 business opportunities 360. See also apps, food waste reducing; gleaning insect-based bioconversion 329 retailers 126 business types 370

Index     443 C

cafeterias 66. See also service sector no-waste disposal 204 nudging with trayless canteens 65, 204 portion sizes 58 Cambodian field crickets 327 campaigns 28, 40. See also educational initiatives; information and advice campaigns; social marketing assumptions about consumers 226 findings 237 methodology 232 design of 250 emotional appeal 40, 230 Love Food, Hate Waste campaign 225, 229 types 8 Weigh and Think educational project 406 Your business is food, don’t throw it away campaign (WRAP) 404 Canniford, R. 146 canteens. See cafeterias Casadesus-Masanell, R. 371 catering sector. See service sector change agents 196 charities, food. See food banks Chesbrough, H. 368, 371 chicken farming 105 childlike consumers 243, 247, 248 children, involvement of 406 Cicatiello, C. 152, 159 Circwaste project 428, 429 City of San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs and Public Art Program 180

climate change 2, 274, 298, 351, 357, 390 Clinton, Bill 349 Cochoy, F. 160 codling moth 326 coffee beans 402, 421 cognitive model of behavioural change 63, 228, 247 collaboration food hubs 355, 361 supermarkets, restaurants and food banks 103, 109 sustainable change 133, 135 Comida Invisivel 377 commitment (pledge) 41, 43, 82. See also pre-commitment nudge common housefly and larvae 325, 326, 335, 338 community (participatory) design 173 community resilience 172, 186 comparative feedback 44 competition 44 conative model of behavioural change 229, 248 consumer-citizens co-optation views 119, 132 responsibilisation of 118, 290, 299, 306 and sustainable consumption 292, 304 consumer lifestyles food waste as a resource 275 new urban food culture 297, 297, 303 consumers active 8, 244, 247 assumptions about in campaign materials 226

444     Index

findings and discussion 237 methodology 232 behavioural change 247 childlike 243, 247 decisive moments 201 economical 237, 242 environmental 239, 242 ethical 240, 242 ideal and typical 302 individual attitudes to waste 32 quality standards 152 rhythms of everyday life and product demand 156 uninformed 243, 247 contextual ambidexterity 62, 64 context model of behavioural change 63 Conversion of Ingested food (ECI) 336 cooking oil 421 cooking skills 30, 35, 301 co-optation 119 as a step-by-step process 130 sustainable change 132 Copia 375, 378, 381 corporate social responsibility (CSR) Glean 360 reasons 258 supermarkets 90, 92, 106, 109 Tesco 117 waste data reporting 109, 426 Coskuner-Balli, G. 132 cosmetic standards 115, 348, 352 consumer attitudes and emotions 230, 355 reusing 402 Cost-Effective Service Excellence (CESE) 58, 60

critical discourse analysis food waste in media 295 home economics 300 new urban food culture 303 research methodology 294 scientific-political 297 Culinary Misfits 116, 129 Cusumano, M.A. 369 D

data collection aid to waste reduction 399, 400, 403, 432 current lack of 416 EU requirement 415, 420, 431 Finland 422 food manufacturing 424 households 429 motivating food chain actors 431 primary production 423 recommendations 433, 434 retail sector 97, 426 service (catering) sector 427 date labels 35, 201, 301, 358 Delai, I. 93, 106 design thinking integrated with systems thinking 186, 209 process 205, 205 Desmond, M. 119 Devin, B. 258 Di Chiro, G. 177 digital platforms 369, 385. See also apps, food waste reducing Dimitra rural cooperative 402, 403 discount offers 30, 98, 153, 229 distributed agency 145

Index     445

example 150 focal object (bread) perspective 151 natural-temporal actors’ perspective 153 techno-material actors 158 Dolan, P. 63 donations, food 279, 385. See also apps, food waste reducing; benevolence, virtue of food banks 5, 355, 391 food waste reducing apps 381, 382 motivation for 284 regulatory difficulties 104, 118, 348 tax incentives 399, 406 D’O (restaurant) 61 drying techniques 399, 399 dumpster diving affluent divers 120 awareness raising efforts 122 Google search requests 124, 124 duty ethics 260 E

ease and convenience 44 Eataly 132, 133 Eaubonne, Francoise d’ 176 ecofeminism 176 eco-innovations 396, 397 economical consumers 237, 242, 247 ECOWASTE4FOOD eco-innovations 396 implementation 394 partners and scope 393

project lessons 408 EDEKA 116, 127, 129 educational initiatives 43, 194, 283, 300, 378. See also skills and knowledge, increasing role for designers 187 Weigh and Think campaign 406 Eichler, M. 177 Eisenhardt, K.M. 374 emotional appeal campaigns 40, 230 empathetic listening 206 Engler, Mira 179 Enterra feed 333 Entofood 332 environmental consumers 239, 242, 247 environmental impacts 2, 274, 298, 351, 357, 390, 396 ethical consumers 240, 242, 248, 265, 306 ethics. See virtue ethics EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste 391, 417 European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) 337 European Union Circular economy package 391 food redistribution programme 391 Food Waste Innovation Network (FoodWIN) 6 food waste problem 289 framework for MTT studies 298 FUSIONS project 417, 420, 421 Interreg programmes 393, 395, 408. See also ECOWASTE4FOOD Joint Research Centre (JRC) 420

446     Index

LIFE+ 393 monitoring requirement 415, 420, 431 Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste 391, 417 role in addressing food waste 391 Evans, D. 93, 146, 156, 195, 196, 202, 290, 298, 310 F

F4F 333 Fairclough, N. 294 fairness, virtue of 261, 274 farming challenges 354 chickens 105 crop and animal waste 421 data collection 422, 423, 432, 434 economic issues 350, 357 local communities 356 unharvested crops 348 Faure, C. 41 feedback (to consumers) 43 Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) 336 feminist approaches to design 174 fertilizers 330 FINDIET study 429, 430 Finland agrarian society (1885–1917) 266, 270 civic education 307 context for food waste measurement 417 data collection food manufacturing 424 household 429 primary production 423

recommendations 433, 434 retail sector waste 426 service sector 427 farming 423 food manufacturing 424 food waste problem 289 mature consumer society (2008– 2017) 267, 273 national roadmap of targets and measures 433 Quality standard and actions 418, 419 retail sector 147 waste campaigns 234 Finnish Food and Drink Industries’ Federation (ETL) 424 Finnish Grocery Trade Association 147 Finnish Institute for Agriculture and Forestry (MTT) 290, 295 #FOGWASTE graphics 184 outcomes 183 participatory (community) design benefits 187 project background 180 project implementation 181 results (quantified) 187 social media 185 system approach for 186 FOG waste (Fats, Oils, and Greases) 180 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2, 324, 351, 416, 421 food availability and consumption trends 351, 362 food banks 5, 104, 118, 348, 355, 391

Index     447

food chain (linear) 10, 199, 419, 421 food hubs 355, 361 food (in)security 2, 348, 390, 391 food loss 324, 421 food manufacturing 398, 399 waste data collection 424, 432, 434 food pantries. See food banks 412 Food Rescue 375, 378, 381 Foodsharing.de 121, 124, 132 food sharing organisations 358, 402. See also apps, food waste reducing; Glean LLC FOODSPILL 1 295, 298 food supply (quality and quantity) 36 food system approach 10, 199, 390, 419 food waste amount of 3, 298, 347, 390 benefits 279, 280 changing themes and virtues 279, 279 consequences 354 consumer level 195 definitions and system boundaries 2, 162, 202, 294, 295, 324, 416, 420 economic value 322 edible and inedible 2, 420 food product categories 147 hierarchy of solutions 2 high fat waste 334 private nature of 202 recalcitrant 328 shift from a local to global issue 279 sources of 29, 195, 279, 298, 403, 419

statistics reporting 202 types of initiative 226 use as feedstock 337 wicked problems framework 2, 6, 197, 214 food waste diaries 429 Food Waste Innovation Network (FoodWIN) 6 food waste innovations matrix 397 food waste network 146 distributed agency example 150 food waste restaurants 129, 276, 304 France, retailer donations in 406 Freegan Pony 276 freegans. See dumpster diving freezing as means to avoid waste 156, 163 From Waste to Delicacy blog campaign 231 frugality, virtue of 283 fruit aesthetics consumer attitudes and emotions 230, 355 retail standards 348, 352, 402 waste 115 surplus production 402 Fruta Feia 134 FUSIONS project 417, 420, 421 G

Gawer, A. 369 gender issues feminine positioning of home food 202 home economics and domestic science education 175

448     Index

household domestic duties 175 Germany, anti-food waste movement awareness raising by dumpster divers 122 data collection and analysis 119 food sharing 124 monetisation 126 Gibson, C.B. 62 Giesler, M. 118 gleaning 348, 402 business model 356, 360 drivers 349 impacts 357 regulatory issues 350 research methodology 353 residential fruit trees 355 volunteer need 355 Glean LLC 349, 352, 358 global food system 312 global issues 2, 274, 277, 279, 289. See also environmental impacts cultural trends 305 food security 2, 299, 390 food supply 323 general awareness 195 problem awareness 32, 280 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1, 390 goal-directed behavioural change 31 abilities and opportunities 34 interventions to encourage goal setting 37 motivation 32 Goldstein, N.J. 67 Gond, J.P. 107 governmentality studies perspective 293

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 298, 351, 357 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 203 The Guardian, Tackling food waste around the world: our top 10 apps 374 guilt appeals 40 H

Hagiu, A. 370 Hanson, Jo 178, 180 Hargreaves, T. 93 Hartikainen, H. 421, 426 hävikkiruoka 304 health and safety. See safety risks, food health, improving 358, 398 Hearn, Laura 353 Hebrok, M. 58, 201 Heidenstrøm, N. 201 Helsingin Sanomat (HS) 294 hermeneutics 121 Hermetia 332 Hester, R.T. 173 hipster lifestyles 276, 282 Hollins, O. 63 Holt, D.B. 134 home economics discourse 297, 297, 300 home production 203 hospitality and food service sector 404 hospitals 404 housefly and larvae 325, 326, 335, 338 households 300. See also home economics discourse

Index     449

behaviours leading to food waste 29 equipment and appliances 36, 44 food movement 29 food waste collections 42, 202 source of food waste 194, 299 waste data collection 429, 432, 434 waste reduction practices 38, 46, 93 Hungry Harvest 352 Huutoniemi, K. 206 hypermarkets. See supermarkets and hypermarkets

antimicrobial properties 338 functional attributes 324 mass production 329 protein source 335 risks 337 selective breeding 327 Insectum 332 instrumental virtues 261 integrity, virtue of 261, 274 intentions, individual 28, 31, 43, 65 interventions for behavioural change to encourage goal setting 37 household food waste 38 need to investigate effectiveness 46 Italy, retailer donations in 406

I

idea generation (design thinking) 207 Imperfect 352 impulse purchasing 30 incineration 118 influence and perceived responsibility (individual) 33 information and advice campaigns 40, 228, 277, 282 information technology 100 Inglorious fruits and vegetables campaign 230 Innovafeed 333 insect-based bioconversion regulatory issues 337 revenue streams 330 typical business process 330 use of 322 waste-to-insect pairings 324, 326 insect biodiesel 334 insect-frass compost 334 insects

K

Kahneman, D. 63 Kallbekken, S. 65, 204 Kania, J. 201 kerbside recycling 42, 202 kitchen appliances 36 kitchen wastes, insect-based bioconversion of 325 L

Laasch, O. 371 labels, packaging 361 dates 35, 36, 201, 301, 358. See also shelf life language of waste 202 Last Minute Market (LMM) 407 leadership ambidexterity 61 leftovers 30 in Finnish agrarian society 270 in the new urban lifestyle 308

450     Index

use in modern, sustainable cooking 302, 305 local/regional authorities 408 Los Angeles City Energy Recovery Project (LANCER) 172 Love Food, Hate Waste campaign 225, 229 Luke (Natural Resources Institute of Finland) 416, 420 Lyle, J.T. 171, 186 M

MacIntyre, A. 261 Magretta, J. 371 Martha organisation 301 Mattila, M. 143, 156, 162 McHarg, I. 171 mealworm and larvae 325, 327, 335 media (critical discourse analysis) consumer-citizens, mobilisation of 306 food waste 295, 297 home economics 300 new urban food culture 303 scientific-political 297 influence on social norms 310 research 290 Mena, C. 106 methane emissions 351 Meyer, E.K. 176 micro-CSR practices 90, 92, 106 MicroFood 400, 401 micro-wave vacuum drying 400, 401 Miller, P. 293 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland 420

Mirvac technology 400 Misfit Juicery 352 mobile apps. See apps, food waste reducing monetisation of food waste 385. See also apps, food waste reducing gleaning 352, 356 insect-based bioconversion 329 retailers 126 monitoring 97. See also data collection as aid to improvement 399, 400, 403, 432 current lack of data 416 supermarkets shelves 97 MTT (Finnish Institute for Agriculture and Forestry) 290, 295 N

Närvänen, E. 249 National Gleaning Project (US) 350 Natural Resources Institute of Finland (Luke) 415, 420 natural-temporal actors 153, 162 NC IDEA 359 neighbourhood norms 202 new urban food culture discourse 297, 297, 303 Nextalim 331 Nextprotein 332 NEXTY Awards 359 No Food Waste 376, 380, 381

Index     451

non-human actors 149, 158. See also distributed agency non-instrumental virtues 261 nose-to-tail cooking 64 novel foods 335, 337 nudging (nudges) and behavioural change 65, 80, 229 definition 65 field studies research 69 future research 81 system modifications 203 O

Oldani, Davide 61 OLIO 376, 381, 382 One Acre Fund 203 organic movement 119, 131 Organisational ambidexterity 61 Orlando, Matt 64 over-purchasing 194, 200 P

packaging sizes 36, 44, 98, 276 participatory (community) design 173, 186, 187 passive selective breeding 328 PAULA Ingredients 400 Pearson, D. 214 planning, meal 29, 34, 36 plate size 65, 204 Podkalicka, A. 291 Porpino, G. 195, 227 Porter, M.E. 60

portion sizes (retailers) 36, 44, 98, 276 practice theory approaches 93, 292, 310 pre-commitment nudge 43, 66, 68. See also commitment (pledge) field study 75 reinforcement of 82 preparation and cooking skills 30, 35 primary production challenges 354 chickens 105 crop and animal waste 421 data collection 422, 423, 432, 434 economic issues 350, 357 local communities 356 unharvested crops 348 Principato, L. 226 processing industry 398, 399 waste data collection 424, 432, 434 professional kitchens 66. See also service sector chef ’s vision and behaviour 67 current focus 58 effectiveness of nudges 81 pressures 60 small and simple measures 68 waste bins, siting of 83 white brigade team 67 prompts 43 Proti-farm 332 public policies (at local/regional level) 408

452     Index R

Rabinovich, E. 352 recalcitrant food wastes 328 recycling and reusing 118, 156, 283, 399 ReFED (Rethink Food Waste through Economics Data) Innovator database 5, 374 regulatory issues 42, 350, 358, 406 insect-bioconversion 337 relational ethnography 119 reminders 43 resilience 172, 197 Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge 174 Resource-based View (RBV) 372 responsibility 33, 118, 133. See also consumer-citizens, responsibilisation of restaurants 66. See also service sector customer satisfaction and efficiency 60 dual culture strategy 60 excess food sale 280 food costs 64 insect-based bioconversion 325 supermarket collaborations 104 use of discarded food items 129, 276, 304 Restlos glücklich 129 retailers, food 109. See also supermarkets and hypermarkets accessibility of 36 causes of food waste 144 critical intermediary position 4 data collection 426, 434 food waste as a strategic issue 93, 262, 276

food waste reduction practices 93 monetisation of food waste 126 Rethink Food Waste through Economics and Data (ReFED) 194 reusing. See recycling and reusing REWE 129 Ricart, J.E. 371 Richards, C. 258 Richards, T. 352 Roberts, P. 197 RobinFood 377 Rogers, E.M. 213 Rose, N. 293 ruokahävikki 295, 304 S

Sælen, H. 65, 204 safety risks, food 34, 194, 279 Finnish agrarian society 270 Saussure, Ferdinand de 235 school canteens 406, 407 scientific-political discourse 296, 297 Sebastiani, R. 133 semiotic analysis 235 service sector 64. See also cafeterias; professional kitchens; restaurants business models 263 corrective actions 404 ethical standards 284 monitoring and quantifying food waste 399, 403 social norms in employee context 66 waste data collection 427, 434 sewer systems. See #FOGWASTE

Index     453

shelf display 153, 162 shelf life 36 extending 399 shopping lists 29 shops. See retailers, food Shove, E. 292 Silvennoinen, K. 426, 428, 430 Simmel, G. 282 Singapore Airlines 61, 62 skills and knowledge household economy 301 increasing 43, 283 preparation and cooking skills 30, 35, 301 professional kitchens 58 slaughterhouse waste 399, 400, 421 Slow Food movement 132, 133 Slow Money 203 smart bins 44 social businesses 370, 407 social marketing 40, 226, 227. See also behavioural change affective approach 230, 283. See also virtue ethics cognitive approach 228, 229 criticisms 231 socio-cultural approach 230 theoretical perspectives 232 social norms 33, 307 influencing 41, 310 social norms nudge 66, 229 field study 70 future research need 82 social problems, addressing 274, 407 societal marketing. See social marketing socio-ecological resilience 172 South Korea 4

special offers 30, 98, 153, 229 Spirn, A.W. 172, 186 Statistical data. See data collection Steg, L. 59, 66 Stenmarck, Å. 147 storage practices 30, 34, 36 Sunstein, C.R. 63, 68, 204 supermarkets and hypermarkets causes of food waste 92 collaboration with external partners 103, 108, 109 corporate social responsibility (CSR) 92, 106, 109 employee work task priorities 156, 159 jargon 101 knowledge sharing 100, 107, 108 managers engagement and views on food waste 96, 99, 105 importance of role 89 knowledge and skills 101 trust 102, 107 ordering systems 156 position in food chain 92 research case study methodology and limitations 94, 107 shelf monitoring 97 technology use 100, 158, 163 waste trolley size 160, 163 SusHouse Project 208 sustainable change 41, 398. See also social norms, influencing causes of failure 207 collaboration 133, 135 co-optation 132 creating 198 individual behaviours 311

454     Index

socio-ecological approach 188 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1, 390 sustainable households, creating 208 Swallow Richards, Ellen 174, 187 Sweden, waste campaigns in 234 systems thinking and change 199 importance in the design process 177, 208 integrated with design thinking 209, 186 T

Takahashi, S. 93, 106 targets 1, 390, 415, 433 Taste the Waste (2011) 123 tax incentives 399, 406 techno-material actors (bread waste) 158, 163 Teece, D. 371 teleological ethical theory 260 Teller, C. 161, 163 Tesco 117 Thaler, R.H. 63, 204 Thompson, C.J. 132 thriftiness, virtue of 269 Tidy Street Project 174 time pressures (individual) 36 tiny house movement 131 tipping points 213 Tönnies, Ferdinand 281 Too Good To Go 377, 380, 381 transdisciplinary living labs (TDLL) 210 Wealth from Waste 210 Trentmann, F. 290

U

Ubifood 377, 380, 381 Ukeles, Mierle Laderman 178–180, 179 unharvested crops 348 uninformed consumers 243, 247, 247 United Kingdom 175, 225 United Nations (UN) 1, 390, 415 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 324, 351, 416, 421 food waste target 1, 390, 415 United States (US) farm policies and subsidies 197, 214 food availability and consumption trends 351 food insecurity 348 gender balance and household domestic tasks 175 gleaning organizations 349 Good Samaritan Act 349 investment in startups 5 obesity 351 wastage 347 University of Technology Sydney and Western Sydney University 210 upcycling projects 378 urban metabolism 171 use-by dates 35, 201, 301, 358 V

VAHTI (Finland) 426 values. See virtue ethics vegetables

Index     455

aesthetics consumer attitudes and emotions 230, 355 retail standards 348, 352, 402 waste 115 insect-based bioconversion of waste 325 Velasquez, M.G. 261 Veresiu, E. 118 virtue ethics 230. See also social marketing, affective approach applied to food waste management 264, 281 classical ethical theories 260 data sources 268 lessons and recommendations 283 research methodology 266 virtuous consumer 264

waste-less-to-feed-more movement 351 waste management services 378 Wealth from Waste Living Lab 210 We Feed the World (2005) 123 WeFood 129 Weigh and Think educational project 406 Whitehair, K.J. 59 wicked problems framework 2, 6, 197, 214 Wolman, A. 171, 186 World Resources Institute 194, 202 Wright, J. 370 WWII food shortages 197 US propaganda 176 Y

W

Wakker Dier 105 Walker, B. 173 Warren, K.J. 176 Waste Agency of Catalonia 406 Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) 225 Love Food, Hate Waste campaign 225, 229 Your business is food, don’t throw it away campaign 404

yellow mealworm and larvae 325, 327, 335 Ynsect 333 Young, W. 82 Your business is food, don’t throw it away campaign (WRAP) 404 Yunus, M. 370, 371 Z

zero-waste restaurants 64