Food losses and waste quantification in supply chains: a systematic literature review

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to systematically review and critically examine food losses and waste quantification in supply chain, especially in studies that tackle all the supply chain activities in a real context.Design/methodology/approachThis work employed a systematic literature review methodology on the extant literature focusing on peer-reviewed journal articles published from 2000 to 2019.FindingsA systematic analysis of 117 articles reveals that downstream supply chains are studied to a greater extent than upstream supply chains, with an emphasis on consumer waste. The findings also highlight more than half of the articles focus on only one supply chain activity. In terms of the methodologies, surveys and modelling methods are the most used to measure food losses and wastes, adopt monetary, carbon emission and calorific metrics. This study highlights that while food losses and waste research remains a relevant field of study, it has yet to been fully explored.Research limitations/implicationsThe main limit is the adoption of a systematic review method for food losses and waste quantification in supply chain.Practical implicationsThe results suggest that supply chain managers should invest in acquiring more knowledge about food losses in the global network. Upstream supply chains should be more studied and integrated with the downstream supply chains. Using combined direct and indirect methods has the potential to deal with the contradictions of quantification, the lack of data and reduce losses over time and space.Originality/valueBased on this review as the first one focusing exclusively on quantification of food losses and waste in supply chain context, the authors develop an aspiring research agenda that proposes opportunities for future research.HeadingsWe analyse 117 studies addressing food losses and waste quantification.Downstream food supply chains are more studied than upstream food supply chains.Case studies of food supply chains in developed countries are more prolific.The main metric to quantify food losses and waste is weight.

A critical review on food loss and waste quantification approaches: Is there a need to develop alternatives beyond the currently widespread pathways?

“…These claims were in line with those described by FAO reports of 2011 and 2013 (FAO, 2011(FAO, , 2013. However, other reviews have observed that downstream FSCs are more studied than those upstream, case studies in developed countries are more abundant, and weight tends to be the main metric used to quantify FLW (Cahyana et al, 2019;Kafa and Jaegler, 2021). Additionally, although most reviews analyzed FLW generation trends from a worldwide perspective, a small group of these focused on specific regions or certain actors along the FSC.…”

“…Other important points to be highlighted based on the analysis are that, according to Xue et al (2017), only a small bunch of industrialized countries, such as United States and the United Kingdom, are linked to most of the existing publications, and the use of secondary data is reported in over half of these studies, despite the inherent uncertainties. Moreover, Kafa and Jaegler (2021) claimed that downstream FSCs are studied to a greater extent than upstream FSCs, with a clear emphasis on consumer waste. In fact, they state that a majority of articles on FLW focus on only one supply chain activity, and on the fact that the main metric to quantify FLW is weight.…”

Designing a sustainable fish closed-loop supply chain network under uncertainty

“…Around 40% of the trout is not consumed by humans and is discarded as industrial waste (Fiori et al 2012 ). Retailers and consumers also produce a significant amount of waste (Kafa and Jaegler 2021 ). Most wastes end up in landfills, causing environmental issues, while others are converted into by-products such as aquaculture and animal feed.…”

Key Food Supply Chain Challenges: A Review of the Literature and Research Gaps

“…Some of the reviews conducted to date addressed challenges within a specific type of FSC such as perishable food chains (Lemma et al, 2014), fresh fruit supply chains (Negi and Anand, 2015;Soto-Silva et al, 2016), agri-fresh food supply chains (Dania et al, 2018;Handayati et al, 2015;Siddh et al, 2017;and Feng et al, 2020), and cold chains (Chaudhuri et al, 2018;Mercier et al, 2017;Ndraha et al, 2018;Shashi et al, 2018). Other review papers focused on addressing a specific challenge faced by food chains such as FLW (De Oliveira et al, 2021;Kafa and Jaegler, 2021;Lemma et al, 2014;Soto-Silva et al, 2016), transparency (Wognum et al, 2011), quality (Chaudhuri et al, 2018;Mercier et al, 2017;Ndraha et al, 2018;Siddh et al, 2017), collaboration/coordination (Dania et al, 2018;Handayati et al, 2015), and sustainability (Akkerman et al, 2010;Wognum et al, 2011).…”