See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260995835

Causes of Waste across Multi-tier Supply

Networks: Cases in the UK Food Sector

Article in International Journal of Production Economics · June 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.03.012

CITATIONS READS

34 153

3 authors:

Carlos Mena Leon A Terry

Michigan State University Cranfield University
43 PUBLICATIONS 868 CITATIONS 172 PUBLICATIONS 2,776 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lisa M. Ellram
Miami University
132 PUBLICATIONS 11,785 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Extension of UK asparagus season using dynamically controlled atmosphere View project

Step Change in Agri-foods Logistics Ecosystems (SCALE) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lisa M. Ellram on 29 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Causes of waste across multi-tier supply networks: Cases in the UK

food sector
Carlos Mena a,n, Leon A. Terry b, Adrian Williams b, Lisa Ellram c
a
School of Management, Cranfield University, UK
b
School of Applied Science, Cranfield University, UK
c
Miami University, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research has investigated UK food supply networks to identify the dominant causes of food waste.
Received 21 November 2012 The aim was to develop our understanding of environmental management across multi-tier networks,
Accepted 13 March 2014 with specific reference to food waste. The supply networks of 15 food commodities were investigated
Available online 20 March 2014
following a multiple case study design. A total of 101 semi-structured interviews were conducted
Keywords: including retailers (11), wholesalers (2), fruit and vegetable suppliers (41), and cutting plants/abattoirs
Supply (47). Waste arising across each of the 15 networks was quantified and the dominant causes of waste
Networks were identified, leading to a series of propositions to explain the management practices that trigger
Waste waste in food networks. These propositions relate to transparency of demand information, quality
Sustainability
management, process controls, shelf-life management and packaging design, and provide insights into
Food
the actions required to mitigate the environmental impact of food production. Although the research
Green
Multi-tier was restricted to 15 food commodities in the UK, the findings and methods can help to motivate further
Natural resource-based view research in other countries and sectors. The research is unique in terms of the scale of the data collection
effort (number of commodities and interviews) and in its scope (multi-tier networks). Given the social,
economic and environmental implications of food production and consumption the findings are relevant
to a wide range of stakeholders in the sector.
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the use of natural resources, on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

Increasing demand for natural resources, fuelled by growth in
population and wealth, is considered a major threat to sustainable
development (UN, 1987), raising calls for a complete redesign of
supply systems to achieve greater resource efficacy and efficiency
(Braungart and McDonough, 2008; Dobbs et al., 2011; Lovins et al.,
2007). Food supply chains present a particularly significant chal-
lenge because food is a human necessity, which requires vast
amounts of natural resources such as water, land and energy
(Dobbs et al., 2011; Evans, 2009; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Parfitt
et al., 2011).
There is evidence that increasing demand for food has already
led to higher prices and increased price volatility (Dobbs et al.,
2011). This in turn has led to concerns about food security, parti-
cularly in developing countries (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Parfitt et
al., 2011); a situation that could lead to a food crisis (Nellman
et al., 2009). From an environmental standpoint, food impacts on
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: carlos.mena@cranfield.ac.uk (C. Mena).
and landfill waste (Stuart, 2009; Mena et al., 2011). Audsley et al.
(2009) estimated that the UK food sector emits about 152 Mt CO2e.
A further 101 Mt CO2e from land use change is attributable to UK
food. The total, including land use change, is equivalent to about
30% of all of the UK's consumption related emissions.
A pressing environmental problem associated with food supply
networks is waste. Estimates of food wasted vary by region and
product type; however, figures usually indicate that between 20
and 30% of all food produced is wasted in the supply chain (Dobbs
et al., 2011; Green and Johnston, 2004; Gustavsson et al., 2011).
This range excludes food wasted in households, which has been
estimated at 19% of all household food purchases in the UK
(WRAP, 2009).
This paper combines the results of two separate, but inter-
connected studies1, focusing on (a) fruit and vegetables and
(b) meat products. The overall aim of these studies was to gain a
1
These studies were funded by the Waste Reduction Action Programme
(WRAP) a not-for-profit organization funded by Defra (Department for Environ-
ment, Food and Rural Affairs – UK), the Scottish Government, the Welsh Govern-
ment, the Northern Ireland Executive, and the European Union.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.03.012
0925-5273/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158
better understanding of wastage in food supply networks, and the
inefficient use of natural resources embedded in food products
that are wasted. Both studies were conducted by the same
research team and followed the same methodological approach.
Hence, it was decided to present them jointly to provide a broader
picture of the UK food industry. The central questions that are
addressed by the research are
1. How do management practices across food supply networks in
the UK affect food waste?
2. What are the root causes of waste in UK food supply networks?
Context is critical when analysing food waste. In developing
countries, most waste is known to occur at the post-harvesting
and processing stage, while in developed countries most waste
occurs farther downstream in the supply chain (Gustavsson et al.,
2011). This research focuses on UK food supply networks from the
farm gate, or point of entry to the UK, through to purchase by the
consumer, and treats this entire network as a unit of analysis. This
includes storage, grading, processing, distribution and retailing,
but excludes consumption.
A literature review is presented, covering theoretical underpin-
nings, key definitions of terms and a critical evaluation of previous
studies on natural resource management and waste reduction in the
food industry. The methodology section details the research design
and how the data were collected and analysed. The results are then
presented and the findings are discussed in relation to the extant
literature. Finally, conclusions, limitations and opportunities for further
research are presented.
2. Literature review
A review of the literature related to the environmental impact
of food supply chains is presented below, followed by a review of
relevant theory.
2.1. Food supply networks and their environmental impact
The looming prospect of climate change caused by anthropo-
genic GHG emissions and the effects of over-exploitation of natural
resources, have increased awareness of the impact of human
activity on the environment (Foresight, 2011; Evans, 2009). Along
with this trend, the subject of sustainable supply chain manage-
ment (SSCM) has gained increasing attention in the last decade
(Jayaraman et al., 2007; Kleindorfer et al., 2005; Linton et al., 2007;
Matos and Hall, 2007; Vachon and Klassen, 2008; Pagell and Wu,
2009; Seuring and Müller, 2008a, b; Svensson, 2007), with
particular emphasis on the environmental implications of supply
networks, such as waste, over-exploitation of non-renewable
resources, pollution and GHG emissions (Faruk et al., 2001; Lee
and Klassen, 2008; Lippmann, 1999; Pullman et al., 2009; Sarkis,
2012; Sarkis et al., 2011; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). The general
premise of these approaches is that a company is no more
sustainable than its supply chain (Krause et al., 2009) and that
a holistic perspective is required to improve environmental
performance.
All products have an impact on the environment, but the
burdens at each stage of the supply chain vary substantially from
product to product. Munasinghe et al. (2009) compared the impact
of different products on GHG emissions at different stages of the
supply chain and revealed substantial differences. For instance,
they showed that products such as bread and milk have their
largest impact at the raw materials production stage, potato crisps
at the manufacturing stage, and orange juice at the distribution
stage. Other non-food products, such as light bulbs and detergents,
145
have their most significant impact at the consumption stage.
While their study is not comprehensive, it highlights the need to
investigate the impact of products across the entire network.
Several authors have argued for a more comprehensive under-
standing of the impact of products and services across supply
networks, and for the design (or redesign) of production systems
that minimize their environmental impact. The proponents of
Natural Capitalism (Lovins et al., 1999a, 1999b, 2007) call for a
whole-system redesign, inspired by biological production models,
to eliminate waste by creating closed-loop production systems and
ultimately to increase the productivity of natural resources.
Braungart and McDonough (2008) and McDonough et al. (2003)
proposed a similar idea for the design of products and systems
inspired in biological systems under the banner Cradle-to-Cradle
(C2C). One of the central principles of C2C is “waste¼ food”,
implying that products can be designed so that the ‘waste' outputs
they produce can be used as inputs (or ‘food') for other products.
Others, such as Guide and van Wassenhove (2009) and French
and LaForge (2006), argue for designing supply chains for efficient
returns, also known as closed-loop supply chains, which ensure a
profitable value recovery from returned products. French and
LaForge (2006) asserted that current understanding of closed-
loop supply chains remains underdeveloped and that more
research is needed in areas such as network design, product
acquisition, inventory, production planning and control, and sche-
duling issues.
Many publications document strategies for reducing the envir-
onmental impact of products (e.g. Hart, 1995; Lamming and
Hampson, 1996; Linton et al., 2007; Pagell and Wu, 2009) and
there have been several attempts to link improved environmental
management practices and company performance (e.g. Russo and
Fouts, 1997; Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998; Christmann, 2000;
Melnyk et al., 2003; Vachon and Klassen, 2008). However, few
studies focussed specifically on the link between waste manage-
ment and performance. One example is Simpson's (2012) investi-
gation of how institutional pressures affect waste reduction in US-
based metals and chemicals manufacturers. She concluded that
investments in resources that allow firms to reduce waste have
competitive advantage implications. In another study with specific
reference to food waste, Mena et al. (2011) evaluated the supplier–
retailer interface and classified the causes of waste into three
broad categories: market mega-trends (e.g. increasing demand for
products out of season), natural causes (e.g. seasonality or weather
fluctuations), and management root causes (e.g. forecasting, train-
ing or quality management).
To our knowledge, there are no studies that present a compre-
hensive analysis of waste across extended supply networks with a
focus on management practices. This gap is significant, because
both the technical evaluation and the assessment of appropriate
management practices are required to generate solutions of
practical relevance. It is also grounded in pertinent theory, as
presented in the next section.
2.2. Theoretical underpinnings for the research
Sarkis et al. (2011) provide a comprehensive review of organi-
zational theories used in the field of “Green Supply Chain Manage-
ment”, discussing current applications, diffusion and outcomes.
Their review selects nine theories as being the most influential in
the field, including two that are directly related to resources:
Resource Dependency Theory (RDT) (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978),
and the Resource Based View (RBV) (Barney, 1991a; Wernerfelt,
1984). Sarkis et al. (2011) also conclude that we are currently at the
growth stage in the linkage between environmental approaches to
supply chain management and organizational theory, and that
146 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158
there are ample opportunities for future research and investiga-
tion within these theories.
RBV and RDT take a broad perspective on resources, which can
include anything from assets and capabilities, through to relation-
ships and natural resources. However, a variant of RBV, called the
Natural Resource Based View (NRBV) (Hart, 1995) appears the
most relevant organizational theory for a study of waste, because
it focuses specifically on an organizations' interaction with its
natural environment (Hart and Dowell, 2011). We provide a more
detailed description of RBV and NRBV below.
2.3. Resource based view and natural resource based view
RBV posits that competitive advantage can be gained by the
productive use of firms' resources that are valuable and rare, and
this advantage can be sustained for longer periods of time if the
resources can be protected from imitation, substitution and
transferability (Barney, 1991a, 1991b; Wernerfelt, 1984). Gold
et al. (2010) extended the RBV logic and argue that supply chain
collaboration can be a source of sustained competitive advantage
because it grows historically and involves socially complex inter-
actions and causally ambiguous relationships and can be particu-
larly difficult to imitate by competitors. This is consistent with the
views of Barney (2012), who argued that purchasing and supply
chain management practices have attributes that are likely to be a
source of competitive advantage.
Wernerfelt (1984) defined resources as “anything which could be
thought of as a strength and weakness of a given firm” (p. 172). Barney
(1991a, p. 101) subsequently referred to resources as “assets, capabil-
ities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information, and knowl-
edge controlled by an enterprise that enable the firm to conceive of
and implement strategies with the goal to improve its efficiency and
effectiveness.”
RBV has served as a theoretical lens for a number of studies into
environmental sustainability. Russo and Fouts (1997) used RBV to
investigate the link between corporate environmental perfor-
mance and profitability, and concluded that high levels of envir-
onmental performance are associated with enhanced profitability.
Sharma and Vredenburg (1998) evaluate how unique organiza-
tional capabilities, as conceived by RBV, influence proactive
environmental strategies and contribute to the firm's competitive
position. Christmann (2000) applied the concept of complemen-
tary assets, developed by RBV, to analyse the competitive effects
of environmental practices and found that capabilities for process
innovation and implementation moderated the relationship between
environmental best practices and cost advantage.
In most investigations using RBV in a sustainability context,
natural resources are only one among many types of resources.
However, the Natural Resource Based View (NRBV) of the firm
(Hart, 1995) focuses exclusively on natural resources and empha-
sizes the link between a firm's relationship to the natural envir-
onment and its ability to create competitive advantage.
Hart (1995) argued that firms need to develop environmentally
sustainable capabilities to remain competitive, and proposes three
interconnected strategies to do so: pollution prevention, product
stewardship and sustainable development. The objectives of these
strategies and the key resources utilized are briefly described in
Table 1.
Hart (1995) also argued that these three strategies are inter-
connected through path-dependency and embeddedness. They are
path-dependent because they tend to follow a sequence beginning
with pollution prevention through to sustainable development
and embeddedness, because each builds on and goes well beyond
the prior capability.
In his initial work on NRBV, Hart (1995) proposed linkages
among strategic capabilities, environmental factors, resources
needed, which are really capabilities, and the potential source of
competitive advantage of each strategic capability. These are
illustrated in Hart's original table (see Table 1). The viability and
potential application of these strategic capabilities to the food
supply chain is explored below and expanded upon in the analysis
and discussion section.
Hart argues that lower costs, rather than higher costs, can be an
outcome of pollution prevention done well. As Hart and Dowell
(2011) note, most of the research to date has focused on the
application of the initial NRBV strategic capability of pollution
prevention, and how to prevent pollution in a cost-effective way.
There is growing support that many types of pollution prevention
can also benefit the bottom-line (Berchicci and King, 2007; Etzion,
2007). The research on the NRBV-capabilities of product steward-
ship and sustainable development is nascent.
Researchers are beginning to address the fundamental concept
of product stewardship, which includes stakeholder integration. In
particular, a number of researchers have argued that improved
relationships across supply networks can lead to improved envir-
onmental and financial outcomes (Lai et al., 2010). Carter and
Carter (1998) argued that firms depend on suppliers to provide
environmentally friendly materials and found a positive and
significant link between vertical coordination and the level of
environmental purchasing activities. They argued that closer
relationships with suppliers lead to greater supplier involvement
in environmental initiatives, such as recycling, reuse and waste
reduction. Shi et al. (2012) posited that a firm's relationships are
resources that can lead to competitive advantage. They argued that
intra-organizational relationships constitute the firm's unique
causally ambiguous resources, while inter-organizational relation-
ships generate socially complex resources. They concluded that the
combination of these two types of resources can lead to improved
operational, environmental and financial performance (Shi et al.,
2012).
More recently, Hart and Dowell (2011) distinguish between two
types of sustainable development: disruptive changes in clean tech-
nology and meeting the needs of base of the pyramid customers.
These authors contend that very little academic research has been
done in either of these areas.
Hart (1995) also suggested that NRBV should develop from a
conceptual tool to a framework that can provide predictive and
ultimately normative value. This research aims to contribute to the
development of theory by building on NRBV, providing empirical
evidence of the impact that management actions have on waste,
and exploring the aspects of NRBV capabilities related to waste for
a range of perishable food products. This investigation will, in turn,
provide a stepping-stone for defining the most suitable waste
reduction strategies for different products and stages of the net-
work, and ultimately contribute to predictive and normative value.
3. Methodology
The methodology was designed to analyse quantitative data, to
establish the magnitude of the environmental impact of products,
and to analyse qualitative data to identify and understand the
causes and potential solutions. A case study research design
(Ellram, 1996; Yin, 2008) was adopted to gather and assess the
data. Following an inductive logic, the evidence from the case
studies was used to support theoretical development in the field of
environmental supply chain management. As Meredith (1998) and
Barratt et al. (2011) argue, this approach is suitable for theory
building in the field of operations management.
The supply networks of 15 food commodities were mapped and
analysed, treating the entire network within the UK from farm-
gate through to retail store as the unit of analysis. The case studies
 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158 147

relied mainly on in-depth, semi-structured interviews, which were
supported by available company documentation. The study was
supplemented with secondary sources derived from trade bodies
and Government statistics.
The unit of analysis is a complete network for a commodity,
hence data collected for each case involved interviews with several
firms at different stages of the supply network. In total, 101
interviews were conducted by four researchers over 18 months.
The research design followed the structure recommended by
Yin (2008), which commences with the design of the protocol and
selection of cases, followed by within-case analysis and finishes
with cross-case analysis. Only the results of the cross-case analysis
are reported here, given the scale of the research.
3.1. Case selection
The research focused on two product categories: fruits &
vegetables and meat products. The main criterion for selecting
these two categories is total demand, as they represent the two
largest categories in terms of consumer expenditure in food in the
UK, as can be seen in Table 2. In addition, both product categories
are interesting from an environmental perspective because they
tend to have higher levels of waste due to their short shelf-life
(Mena et al., 2011). Meat products also generate high burdens at
the production stage (Williams et al., 2006).
Fig. 1 illustrates a simplified depiction of both supply networks
investigated. The figure also shows the scope of the research, indicat-
ing that both ends for the process, farming and consumption, are
excluded from the investigation. For imported products, the point of
entry into the UK, usually a seaport, marked the starting point of our
investigation. It must be noted that wholesalers sometimes act as
intermediaries between processors and retailers. However, most UK
retailers buy directly from the processors/producers and the volume
managed by wholesalers is comparatively small. Although two inter-
views were conducted with wholesalers, these were not considered
central to the research.
The selection of meat products for the case studies was relatively
straightforward with poultry, pork, beef and lamb dominating the UK
market. Poultry represents about 36% of the total volume of meat
purchased, pork 30%, beef 25% and lamb 9% (Whitehead et al., 2010).
The selection of fruits and vegetable cases for the study was
more complicated because the range of products is much wider
and the issues affecting the products more diverse. The aim of the
selection process was to cover a wide variety of product types that
could represent the entire fruit and vegetable sector. We thus
targeted the following categories:
1. Short storage life, short shelf-life products – raspberries,
strawberries, tomatoes and lettuce (Romaine variety)
2. Long storage life, medium shelf-life products – apples, onions,
potatoes
3. Long/medium storage life, short shelf-life products – citrus,
avocado and broccoli
4. Tropical – (unable to store at low temperature due to risk of
damage and necessarily imported) – bananas
3.2. Data collection
Multiple interviews were conducted with organizations involved
in each of the 15 networks. Table 3 shows the number of interviews
conducted and the percentage of market share represented for the
producers/importers of fruit and vegetables and the abattoirs and
cutting plants for meat. In some cases, where the market for the
commodity was highly consolidated, only 3–4 interviews were
necessary to cover the majority of the industry, whereas in the
highly fragmented lamb market we covered 46% of the market,
despite conducting 13 interviews. Both retail and wholesale stages
were also included in the study. Multiple interviews were required
with retailers, because they have different category managers for
each product group. In addition, two interviews with wholesalers
were conducted to ensure that they were represented in the study.

Table 1
A natural-resource-based view: conceptual framework.
Source: Hart, 1995 (p. 992)

Strategic capability Environmental driving force Key resource Competitive advantage

Pollution prevention Minimize emissions, effluents & waste Continuous improvement Lower costs
Product stewardship Minimize life-cycle cost of products Stakeholder integration Pre-empt competitors and gain legitimacy
Sustainable development Minimize environmental burden of firm growth and development Shared vision Future position

Table 2
UK consumer expenditure on food by sector at current prices (dM at retail selling prices) 2004–2008.
Source: Consumer trends Q4 2008, UK national statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk)

Year product 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change

2004–2008

Fruits and vegetables 13,237 14,135 14,846 16,760 18,049 36%

Meat 13,597 13,622 13,867 14,859 16,459 21%
Bread and cereals 9480 9815 10,124 10,571 12,081 27%
Milk, cheese & eggs 8006 8415 8675 9280 10,455 31%
Sugar & sweet products 7245 7349 7434 8945 10,104 39%
Fish 2290 2488 2726 3260 3471 52%
Non-alcoholic beverages 8163 8497 8783 10,019 10,203 25%
Food products
(not elsewhere classified) 1596 1610 1622 1887 2202 38%
Oils and fats 1216 1256 1333 1563 1969 62%
Total food and non-alcoholic beverages 64,830 67,187 69,410 77,144 84,993 31%

NB. Figures are not corrected for inflation

148 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158

Fig. 1. Scope of the research.

Table 3
Summary of organizations/interviews involved and market share.

Category Case Number of Number of Importers and producers –

organizations interviews UK market share (%)a

Fruit and vegetable, producers and importers Strawberry 3 3 75

Raspberry 3 3 70
Lettuce 3 3 75
Tomato 3 3 70
Apple 6 6 60
Onion 4 4 81
Potato 6 6 60
Avocado 3 3 70
Citrus 3 3 60
Broccoli 3 3 55
Banana 4 4 85
Abattoirs and cutting plants Poultry 6 7 78
Beef 16 18 62
Pork 9 9 78
Lamb 13 13 46
Retailers 6 11 87.5
Wholesalers 2 2 N/A
Total 93 101

a
TNS/Worldpanel (2009).

The researchers attempted to contact every company involved
in producing or trading in each commodity in the UK. Support
from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra) and trade bodies was thus essential. Companies were
initially contacted by e-mail/post, with some telephone follow-
up. Very few of the companies approached refused to participate.
Questionnaires were developed and tailored to different parts
of the supply chain, including producers, importers, abattoirs,
cutting plants and retailers. All questionnaires aimed to cover all
the dimensions of the Natural Resource Based View (Hart, 1995):
pollution prevention, product stewardship and sustainable devel-
opment. The questionnaires included four main sections: demo-
graphic data, product and packaging waste, causes of waste, and
resources (Appendix 1).
Waste has been defined and classified in many different ways
(Hicks et al., 2004). For this research we followed the definition form
the EU Waste Framework Directive, which states that waste is “any
substance or object the holder discards, intends to discard or is required
to discard” (European Commission, 1991). This includes all facets of
physical waste including packaging and product. We also collected
data for meat products following the EU categorization of animal by-
products, which classifies products into three groups:
 Category 1 (very high risk) includes specified risk material like
brain and spinal cord;
 Category 2 (high risk) includes diseased animals, manure and
digestive tract content and material from wastewater
treatment; and
 Category 3 (low risk) is material that is fit, but not intended, for
human consumption.
In commercial terms, what is regarded as waste varies from
business to business, as there are no standards beyond the legal
definition. Hence, it was important to discuss our definition of
waste with the informants before each interview.
During the initial contact with each company, we discussed
who would be the most appropriate interviewee, as responsibil-
ities vary depending on the size and type of company. The person
responsible for operations and supply chain management was
usually interviewed, sometimes along with the environmental
manager. For retailers, the category managers for the respective
product groups or the technical directors were interviewed.
Interviews lasted between 1 and 3 h and in most cases were
conducted by two researchers, one responsible for asking ques-
tions and one for taking notes. To make interviewees feel more at
ease, it was decided not to record the interviews, and assurances
of anonymity were provided. Researchers met at the end of each
interview and prepared a report with their notes. This was then
sent to the interviewee for verification.
 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158 149

The interview process involved the following approaches, products are generally consistent across the range, although some
depending on how individual companies responded: products have specific causes.

 Face-to-face interviews with key individuals in multi-plant and
single plant companies;
 In some cases, following an initial interview, a template was
developed for companies with multi-plants to circulate amongst
their plants, to complete and return;
 Telephone calls, which in a few instances replaced face-to-face
interviews and which served to clarify the company's data and/
or views for multi-plant operations.
3.3. Data analysis
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, but the
focus of this paper is on the inductive use of the qualitative data to
link management practices to environmental outcomes. Quantita-
tive data are thus used to provide context and scale rather than to
support the formulation of propositions.
The analysis was conducted in two stages: within-case and cross-
case. For the within-case analysis, data from each interview were
coded individually and then synthesized into each of the 15 cases. A
case study database was created, as recommended by Yin (2008), and
then the data were sorted and categorized using axial coding.
Cross-case analysis was then conducted for the two product
categories: fruit & vegetable and meat, and preliminary conclu-
sions were drawn for each category. Finally, cross-case analysis
across the two product categories helped to craft propositions.
4.2. Meat waste
The results for waste (as a percentage of total volume) for the
four meat categories are presented in Table 6. The results are
broken down by stage of the process and categorised by the type
of waste: Cat. 1, Cat. 2, Cat. 3, blood and feathers (n.b. not all types
are applicable to all products; packing waste is not included as it
cannot be expressed as a percentage of food waste). For poultry
and lamb, the slaughtering and processing stage are merged into
one, because these activities are conducted in the same facility and
the companies measured waste at a facility level. Results for retail
waste are presented as percentage of total weight for each of the
four meat product categories, however results are not categorised
into waste types because retailers do not separate waste. It is
important to point out that most of the waste generated at the
slaughtering and processing stages (see Table 7) does not go to
landfill, but it is often used in value adding processes, such as
rendering.
Table 8 presents a summary of the causes of meat waste for all
four categories during the slaughtering, processing and packing
stages. Table 9 focuses specifically on the causes at the retail stage,
where data for all four product categories is merged into one as it
was not possible for retailers to separate the causes by product
category.
5. Discussion

4. Findings The research revealed that a number of significant causes of

Main findings are presented in two sub-sections covering fruit
& vegetable waste and meat waste.
4.1. Fruits & vegetable waste
The 11 fruit and vegetable products included in the study were
analysed from grading through to retail. Table 4 presents the findings
for each product in this category indicating the percentage waste at
each stage. For some products (e.g. raspberries, tomatoes, banana and
citrus) storage loss is included as part of packing loss, because that is
the way it is measured by the companies. Taken as a whole, loss and
waste in the supply chain is typically less than 10%, though it exceeds
30% in the cases of potatoes and avocadoes.
Table 5 summarizes the causes of waste affecting each product
at the grading, storage and packing stages, and Table 6 presents
the main causes of waste at the retail stage across all products. It is
apparent from these results that the causes affecting the different
Table 4
Summary loss and waste for fruits and vegetables through the UK supply network
(as % of total weight).
Product Grading Storage Packing Retail
food waste are beyond the control of managers across the supply
network. Factors such as weather changes, the natural variability
of food products and seasonal effects on supply and demand
are exogenous factors. Similarly, regulation, particularly in relation
to meat products, was quoted as a significant cause of waste.
Although these factors are important for the understanding of
food waste, the main focus of this research is on those causes that
are related to the supply network and those that can be influenced
by management practices.
Analysis of the management related causes led to the devel-
opment of a classification of factors affecting waste (Fig. 2). The
first was related to supply and, including forecasting and planning,
promotions management, availability and inventory management.
The second included issues related to the quality of the product
and process – specifically referring to product specifications,
process controls, shelf-life management and packaging & labelling.
From an NRBV, both supply & demand management and quality &
process control span the strategic competencies of pollution
prevention and product stewardship, and could be improved
through the strategic competency of sustainable development.
The sub-sections that follow present a discussion on each of the
causes, building to the development of testable propositions
linked to NRBV.

Strawberry 1% 0.5% 2–3% 2–4% 5.1. Supply & demand management

Raspberry 1% No data 2–3% 2–3%
Lettuce No data 0.5–2% 1% 2% 5.1.1. Planning, forecasting and information flow
Tomato 7% No data 3–5% 2.5–3%
Fruits and vegetables grow mainly in yearly cycles or shorter
Apple 5–25% 3–4% 3–8% 2–3%
Onion 9–20% 3–10% 2–3% 0.5–1% (e.g. lettuce). Hence, maintaining a stable supply throughout the
Potato 3–13% 3–5% 20–25% 1.5–3% year necessitates either storing products and/or rotating sourcing
Broccoli 3% 0% 0% 1.5–3% locations. For example, UK apples are sourced from late summer to
Avocado 30% 5% 3% 2.5–5% spring and southern hemisphere apples in between, or Mediterranean
Citrus 3% No data 0.1–0.5% 2–2.5%
Banana 3% No data 0–3% 2%
tomatoes in the winter and Northern European in the summer.
Meat products, on the other hand, require between 42 days and
150 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158

Table 5
Summary of the main causes of waste for fruits and vegetables (grade, store, pack).

Product Grading Storage þ Supply Packing

Strawberries  Different interpretations on specifications by different suppliers.  Temperature (waste  Damage from punnets
and  Post-harvest deterioration caused by softness, bleeds, moulds and internal breakdown peaks in summer) being stacked incorrectly
raspberries (collapse), accelerated if cool chain not maintained due to high respiration rate and or wrong size
fragility.

Lettuce  Quality (mainly weather related, but also poor harvest management)  Balancing supply
and demand
 Sales variability (mainly
weather related)
 Low forecasting
accuracy

Tomatoes  Weather variability  Low forecasting

 Product quality during harvesting accuracy
 Product deterioration  Temperature control (i.
 Specifications – colour, size, Brix (carbohydrate levels) e. not storing at low
temperatures)

Apples  Quality (fungal disease, post-harvest rots, internal problems, scald, softening)  Pushing storage too far
 Weather conditions (post-harvest) (management)
 Temperature control
 Retailer specifications

Onions  Quality (breakdown, rots, disease)  Storage – weight loss

 Downgrades due to specification  Destructive testing for
 Retail specifications – colour, size, appearance, etc. (grade outs) internal defects

Potatoes  Grading: downgraded product – skins  Temperature control  Damage in

 Sprouting  Balancing supply packaging stage
and demand

Broccoli  Weather variations  Balancing supply

 Harvesting practice leads to damages and demand
 Inaccurate forecasting
 Storage systems

Avocadoes  Quality (stem end rot, internal breakdown)  Temperature control

 Destructive quality control

Citrus  Quality e.g. (post-harvest decay, mould, physiological disorders)  Distance travelled
 Temperature control
(not maintaining low
temperatures)

Bananas  State of ripeness on arrival (e.g. ship ripe because it is packed too late and at wrong  Delays in shipping (lack
temperatures) of capacity and
 Specifications (particularly colour) flexibility)
 Weather (temperature damage)  Pushing fruit through
(faster ripening at
higher temperature)

Table 6
Summary of the main causes of waste for fruits and vegetables (retail).

Retail, all fruits and vegetables
 Temperature management (in transport and store)
 Management in-store (display and back-store)
 Stock management (poor inventory records lead to higher orders)
 Code-life management
 Poor handling in store (by both consumers and staff)
 Slow rate of sale
 Seasonality of demand
 Limited access to information from retail
 Variability in ordering
 Forecasting accuracy
 Cannot repack if one item in the pack becomes diseased or out of specification,
whole pack is thrown away.
 SKU proliferation (aim for choice not proliferation)
 Retailer inflexibility in promotions - cannot turn around quickly.
 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158 151

36 months (depending on the species) before they are ready for A central part of supply/demand management is accurate
consumption. Lamb is seasonal with the UK supply mainly running forecasting of customers' requirements. Interviewees indicated
from spring to late autumn, with New Zealand as the main that forecasting practices varied across producers and retailers.
alternative source. Planning and forecasting is key to balancing Since perishable products have a short shelf-life, inaccurate fore-
supply and demand through these natural cycles. casting will almost inevitably cause waste. Some producers coped
with inaccuracies by freezing products that were surplus to
requirements, but this generally involves a substantial loss in the
value of the product. Also, some commodities cannot be frozen,
Table 7
e.g. lettuce.
Summary results from meat waste (as % of total weight).
Fresh products face uncertainty of both supply and demand, so
Product Slaughtering/abattoir Processing Retail creating a challenge for supply chain managers. A grower com-
mented: “We conduct our own forecasting and use the customers'
Beef [forecasts], but we depend on supply and demand, and these two do
Cat. 1 12.5% 0.0% –
Cat. 2 1.9% 0.1% –
not always match.”
Cat. 3 9.2% 10.5% – Hart (1995) indicates that the first stage of the NRBV focuses
Blood 3.8% N/A – internally, on waste reduction. Our data appears to show that the
Total 27.4% 10.6% 3.9% member of food supply networks is frequently focused on internal
Pig/pork
waste reduction, considering only the amount of waste that
Cat. 1 N/A N/A –
Cat. 2 6.2% 0.2% – they will need to absorb or be responsible for in the supply chain.
Cat. 3 1.4% 6.8% – This focus on local optimization may lead to suboptimal results for the
Blood 1.4% – entire supply chain. This is characterized by poor inter-organizational
Total 9.0% 7.0% 3.8%
Lamb
Cat. 1 6.1% N/A –
Cat. 2 3.9% N/A –
Cat. 3 8.8% N/A – Table 9
Blood 3.8% N/A – Summary of main causes of waste for meat products (retail).
Total 22.6% N/A 3.7%
Poultry Retail  Weather changes (impact on consumption)
Cat. 1 N/A N/A –  Forecasting accuracy
Cat. 2 5.2% N/A –  Promotions
Cat. 3 13.5% N/A –  Stock rotation policy (adherence)
Blood 3.4% N/A –  Temperature control
Feathers 5.8% N/A –  Merchandizing standards
Total 27.9% N/A 3.7%  Quality control (appearance, usually discolouration)

Table 8
Summary of main causes of waste for meat products (slaughter, process and pack).

Product Slaughtering and initial processing Processing/cutting Packing

Beef  Legislation (Cat. 1þ 2)  Processing operations (e.g. maturation,  Wrong labelling

 Contamination/ pathology giveaway)  Changeovers (short product runs)
 Poor recovery from cutting rooms  Weather variations  Use of interim trays
 Poor process controls (e.g. floor waste, over  Forecasting  Damages in storage
trimming)  Inventory management  Damages in transit
 Promotions  Re-bagging
 Quality /sub-standard product  Defective packaging
Damage in transit

Pork  Contaminated animals  Weather variations  Re-bagging

 Carcass evisceration and dressing  Forecasting  Stripping products from bags for butchery
 Butchery/trimming  Promotions  Using wrong size pack
 Floor waste  Lead times  Defective packaging
 Trimmings  Specifications
 Quality rejections

Lamb  Legislation  Weather variations  Incoming materials

 Unhealthy/ contaminated product  Forecasting  Decanting primal cuts
 Poor stock control  Promotions (limited impact)  General production problems
 Management of product shelf-life  Re-bagging
 Poor operational performance  Excess packaging
 Wrong labels
 Defective packaging

Poultry  Death on arrival  Not applicable  Mechanical issues with wrapping

 Unfit/ unhealthy animals machine.
 Damage in processing  Promotions can lead to packaging waste
 Line stoppages can lead to scalding
 Bad housekeeping (e.g. floor waste)
 Returns by customers
152 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158
1.1 Planning, forecasting and
information flow
1. Supply &
Demand 1.2 Promotions management
FOOD WASTE
Management
1.3 Availability and inventory
management
2.1 Product Specifications
2. Quality & 2.2 Process control
Process
Control 2.3 Shelf-life management
2.4 Packaging and labelling
Fig. 2. Classification of causes of food waste.
communications, which was widely reported, and exacerbated the
forecasting problem.
Hence we propose:
Proposition 1a. The focus on local waste reduction enhances inter-
nal performance at the expense of the supply network, contributing to
inaccurate forecasting by food producers and retailers, causing a
greater network loss of value and increase in waste.
Relating back to NRBV, Hart (1995) proposes that pollution is
simply a form of waste that can be prevented by focusing on internal
systems, such as total quality management. Because food systems
depend on accurate data, improving transparency of demand and
supply is likely to improve initial planting and slaughter. While much
of the fate of crops depends on “Mother Nature's” conditions, greater
transparency in the supply chain could allow products to be moved
to where they could be best utilized. It appears that firms in the
study often focused on their own performance at the expense of the
performance of the network.
The benefits of collaborative initiatives such as Efficient
Consumer Response (ECR) (Kurt Salmon Associates, 1993;
Wood, 1993; Kotzab, 1999) and Collaborative Planning, Forecast-
ing and Replenishment (CPFR) (Barratt and Oliveira, 2001;
Barratt, 2003) are well documented. However, in this research
we found only a few instances of this kind of initiatives being
used. Some suppliers of fresh meat reported to have improved
communications by having an ‘implant' based at the retailer's
premises, who participated in collaborative forecasting and
monitor sales. Where this was practised, suppliers said it was
very beneficial. Similarly, we found that two retailers invested
substantial resources into improving forecast accuracy and made
efforts to share information in a timely manner. Another retailer
opted for vertical integration, acquiring both an abattoir and a
meat processing plant. These examples indicate progress from an
internal focus on pollution prevention towards a product stew-
ardship approach where stakeholders integrate to minimize life-
cycle costs, as proposed by Hart (1995).
Proposition 1b. Improved supply-chain wide transparency of
demand information upstream in the supply network versus a focus
on only internal requirements can reduce supply-chain wide food
waste.
5.1.2. Promotions management
Promotions are commonplace in UK food retailing and have
become a key competitive factor. Some interviewees believed that
FRUIT &
VEGETABLE MEAT
initial processing
Slaughtering and
Processing /
Grading
Packing
Packing
Storage
Cutting
Retail
Retail
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X X
X X
X X X X
the current economic crisis and recent increases in food prices are
forcing consumers to change their shopping routine by buying
products in bulk when they are on promotion, thus adding to the
attraction of ‘multi-buy' promotions.
Interviewees indicated that promotions across all retailers
are planned well in advanced, usually linked to specific events
(e.g. public holidays and Christmas). The success of a promotion
was reported to be highly dependent on good forecasting
together with an element of ‘luck'. An example provided
was that additional meat products are prepared in anticipation
of a “barbecue summer”, but if this does not materialize then the
result is discounted or wasted product. Ettouzani et al. (2012)
also identified the use of strict timelines for promotions by
UK retailers and a reticence to adapt promotions for the benefit
of suppliers.
Long-term planning of promotions has its limitations as it
prevents retailers from responding effectively to sudden gluts of
product supply. These are normal, given that many crops are
produced outdoors, subjected to the natural elements and ripening
times are difficult to impose. In the case of strawberries, it was
reported that if retailers could turn promotions on quickly to
respond to additional supply, waste could be reduced. One inter-
viewee commented: “[Promotions can be] very effective at reducing
waste by removing gluts at times of high availability. Some customers
[supermarkets] are not flexible and can't turn promotions on quickly
enough to respond to surpluses”. Another supplier remarked: “Where
retailers' forecasts fail then some look for ‘top up volumes' at shorter
notice than usual 12–24 h lead times. Promotions can help to drive
demand by between 20–50%, but can also be employed where there is
oversupply”.
Despite careful planning, promotions appear to contribute to
more unpredictable demand patterns. For instance, interviewees
commented that banana promotions can increase sales, but that
no sustained uplift is observed when promotions end. Suppliers
commented that promotions are currently aimed primarily at
securing market share (rather than a sales uplift).
Increased unpredictability does not only affect the pro-
ducts being promoted, but also substitute products whose sales
maybe affected; a process known as cannibalization. Although
some interviewees said that promotion planning took account
of cannibalization, no details were provided about how this
was done.
The consensus seems to be that promotions create additional
uncertainty, particularly for meat products and that this leads to
unnecessary waste. In particular, interviewees commented that closer
monitoring and more flexibility in responding to the performance of
 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158
Table 10
A path to sustainable competitive advantage.
Source: Adapted from Hart (1995).
Stage Internal (competitive advantage)
Pollution prevention Tacit (causally ambiguous)
For example: sharing real demand data and waste date
Product Stewardship Socially complex (process based)For example:
Industry best practice sharing, training
Sustainable development Rare (firm specific)
For example: lifecycle environmental impact, lifecycle cost
promotions could lead to reductions in waste. This leads to the
following proposition, also related to the notion of pollution or waste
reduction:
Proposition 1c. An internal focus on maximizing profit and lack of
transparency in managing promotions leads to increased food waste.
Our results revealed that retailers manage promotions to improve
their own performance without much consideration of their impact
on the rest of the network. Hence, promotions are demand driven. It
was only with strawberries that we found retailers made an effort to
adapt to suppliers' needs. In this case, transparency of information
allowed retailers to launch supply driven promotions, thus reducing
waste and increasing turnover. As with propositions 1a and 1b, it
appears that some companies are moving towards a more holistic
and integrated approach to managing the network, which is con-
sistent with Hart's framework (1995). (Table 10).
5.1.3. Availability and inventory management
For all the retailers interviewed, ‘on-shelf availability', which
measures how often a product is not on display for sale, was a key
performance indicator. Indeed, availability was considered a key
measure for the whole supply chain and drives supplier behaviour.
As one of the interviewees said, ‘The fear of a lost sale is greater
than the fear of waste'.
With tomatoes, for instance, interviewees noted that there is
often a tendency to over stock ‘just in case' so that they do not sell
short. Similar issues were reported in the case of avocadoes and
citrus fruits. Some interviewees also reported that lack of disci-
pline in stock rotation, particularly in retail, could lead to waste.
Suppliers are assessed on their delivery performance, which should
be ‘on time in full' (OTIF), and they will avoid ‘shorting' their customer
whenever possible. Several of the interviewees commented that
pressures to maintain high OTIF figures, particularly in delivering to
retailers, promoted high levels of safety stock, which in many cases led
to waste because of the limited shelf-life of products. Interviewees
consistently reported that it was preferable to waste some product
than to have a stock-out situation. If this behaviour was modified, this
could contribute to waste reduction.
Proposition 1d. Internal focus and lack of demand transparency
exacerbates a fear of stock-outs by suppliers and retailers, and
promotes excessive safety inventory and causes excessive food waste
in the supply network.
This illustrates the problems that can occur when organizations
get “stuck” in the first NRBV competence—pollution reduction
(with an internal focus), and do not progress to the next, more
expansive NRBV competence of integrating stakeholders through
product stewardship. The total waste in the network may actually
increase. Retailers and food manufacturers pioneered initiatives
such as Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) (Dong and Xu, 2002;
Disney and Towill, 2003) and Continuous Replenishment (Cachon
153
External (social legitimacy)
Transparency
 Public scrutiny
Legislation
Stakeholder integration
 Education on shelf-life
Safety, storage
Collaboration
Education
and Fisher, 1997), aimed at improving the efficiency of inventory
management across supply networks. However, we found no
evidence of this kind of initiatives being used in the perishable
food supply chains studied here.
The apparent absence of inventory management initiatives
could be a consequence of inventory risk (i.e. the cost associated
with unsold inventory and waste) associated short shelf-life
products. Several suppliers reported that retailers demanded
product with more that 70% of its shelf-life left, indicating their
unwillingness to carry inventory risk. This myopic view leads to
local optimization at the retailer but creates inefficient stock
rotation and additional waste for suppliers. Ultimately all the
participants in the network would benefit from a more holistic
view as lower waste would lead to lower overall costs. This would
require organizations in food networks, particularly retailers, to
move towards the product stewardship and sustainable develop-
ment stages in Hart's (1995) framework.
5.2. Quality and process control
5.2.1. Product specifications
Consumers expect rigorous standards for the food they pur-
chase (beyond being ‘safe to eat'). For this reason, food retailers
and producers have developed tight specifications. While inter-
viewees generally agreed that specifications were necessary to
meet consumer demands, they also highlighted that excessively
tight and inflexible specifications concerning the appearance of
products often led to waste, particularly in the case of fruits and
vegetables. For meat products, it was found that other specifica-
tions, such as fat content, could also cause waste.
Several fruit and vegetable suppliers reported that some
retailers change the specifications in response to the weather
and seasonal changes. For instance, in the case of bananas, greener
fruit was acceptable during the summer months to prolong shelf-
life in warmer conditions in-store (and at home). However, this
flexibility in specifications appeared to be the exception.
Avocadoes had very high levels of waste due to destructive testing,
which partly explains the high percentage waste at the grading stage
(i.e. 30%). However, this appeared to be a specific issue for this product,
as some aspects of quality cannot be adequately assessed through
non-destructive means.
The aim of product stewardship is to minimize product waste
throughout a product's lifecycle. Whereas pollution or waste
reduction can often be most effectively addressed early in the
product's life cycle through planting, harvesting and processing,
product stewardship can be adapted based on the current market
and product conditions, and by integrating and engaging stake-
holders (Hart, 1995) like consumers. For example, consumers have
been ‘trained' to accept less “attractive” or “perfect” fruit because
it is organic, and thus supposedly “superior”. Although it was
recognized by many food suppliers that tight and inflexible
specifications sometimes cause waste, many also recognized that
154 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158
retailers' specifications are aimed at satisfying consumers and
tried to adhere to them as part of their service standards.
Proposition 2a. Stringent product specifications by retailers pro-
vide standardized products to consumers, but inflexibility in
adapting to the variability of natural products can result in
unnecessary waste.
By focusing internally only on their own performance,
retailers may believe that they are gaining competitive advan-
tage, when they are actually limiting the options for the entire
supply chain. A focus on increased product stewardship pro-
vides the opportunity for supply network partners to work
together with stakeholders to reduce waste and environmental
hazard. More flexible specifications coupled with customer
education could be a very effective approach, as they would
generate more sustainable sources of competitive advantage
through socially complex processes.
5.2.2. Process control
A number of interviewees in both product categories acknowl-
edged that damage to products in processing, storing and trans-
porting were a common cause of waste. A problem found in fruit
and vegetable supply networks was poor adherence to temperature
controls (e.g. avocadoes, citrus, bananas, potatoes, apples, strawber-
ries and raspberries). This could be during storage, transportation
or, more commonly, at the retail store. Several interviewees also
commented that inappropriate handling of products could damage
them and would ultimately lead to waste.
For meat products, it was found that poor process controls
during slaughtering and processing caused floor waste and over
trimming. Similarly, poor temperature control during storage,
transportation and retailing was also quoted as a major cause of
waste. An additional cause of waste frequently cited by suppliers
was that merchandizing standards at retailers were variable, and
that some retailers underperformed in terms of stock rotation,
cold chain management and product display. All of these factors
could damage the product's appearance and potentially its quality,
ultimately leading to waste. A supplier remarked: “Product [in
punnets] should be displayed flat. Some customers take out of crates
and stack punnets on their ends for shelf space reasons – a practice
that increases waste.”
This leads to the following two propositions, which support the
notion that embracing stakeholders to reduce waste in the
network:
 Proposition 2b: An inadequate holistic process control across all
stages of food supply networks causes waste.
 Proposition 2c: Lack of discipline in maintaining cold chains
causes food waste throughout supply networks.
These problems stem from focusing on internal processes
rather than providing leadership in guiding supply chain-wide
processes. For instance, many of the fruits and vegetables inves-
tigated, such as tomatoes, apples and onions are not maintained in
cold storage at the retail stage even though this would extend
their life and reduce waste. This is another area where product
stewardship and a complete lifecycle perspective could prevent
waste. Working with partners to identify the links chain where
wastage occurs and improving them could add help reduce the
cost of waste and improve quality.
5.2.3. Shelf-life management
All the products investigated in this research are perishable and
hence have a limited shelf-life. With fruits and vegetables, we
found several instances of products being wasted because of
deterioration, softening or sprouting, all of which are the result
of the product spending more time than necessary going through
the supply chain.
All meat products are required to have labels indicating their
shelf-life (i.e. sell by or use by dates). Shelf-life can vary significantly
depending on the species, the product type, the packaging used and
the quality of refrigeration, with shortened shelf-life for red meats
being often manifested by discolouration. However, shelf-life has
been lengthening across the board, driven largely by the increased
use of Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) and more recently by
vacuum and skin packs.
Fruits and vegetables sold in packs are also required to have a
date code, which can cause additional waste. This waste usually
goes to landfill rather than being recycled as separating product
and packaging requires additional resources. One supplier
asserted: “If product is out of code/reduce to clear or damaged –
most doesn't get decanted and goes to landfill even if safe to eat”.
There were divergent views on the impact of shelf-life on
waste. For one retailer, lack of shelf-life was the main cause of
waste, for another short shelf-life caused waste because consu-
mers perceived the product was not fresh, while another was also
sceptical that technologies such as MAP led to reductions in waste
across the supply chain. Instead extended shelf-life tended to
optimize on-shelf availability only.
It does not follow that products with a longer shelf-life are less
wasteful. This study shows that some products with a longer shelf-
life such as potatoes tend to have considerably higher waste levels
than short shelf-life products such as strawberries. However,
longer shelf-life increases the window for sale and gives house-
holds more time to consume the products. The importance of
engaging stakeholders, such as consumers, in understanding the
role they can play in product stewardship can provide a more
holistic perspective of waste reduction.
Proposition 2d. Longer shelf-life increases the window to sell and
consume products, but does not necessarily reduce waste, if it is not
matched by appropriate consumer education.
Use-by date labelling is legally required in the UK for most
pre-packed food products. This legislation has product steward-
ship in mind as it as it relates to food safety. However, this can
create waste at the consumer end of the network. Research has
indicated that most of the 260,000 t of avoidable meat and fish
waste generated annually in UK households is associated with
households adhering to date labelling, that is, not using or
freezing fresh meats and fish before the end of the use-by date
(WRAP, 2009), regardless of whether the product is still edible. It
is clear that food safety should take precedence over food waste.
Nevertheless, better education of consumers so that they can
become better judges of the quality and safety of food products,
rather than relying on labelling, would be a more satisfactory
solution.
5.2.4. Packaging and labelling
All packaging is eventually wasted or recycled, but packaging
also protects the product from damage and can extend the shelf-
life of some products. Hence the decision of how much and what
kind of packaging to use is not clear-cut.
Fruits and vegetables require relatively little or no primary
packaging and most of the secondary packaging tends to be
re-usable crates and trays. However, some fruits and vegetables,
such as tomatoes are sold both “free-flow” (i.e. without packaging)
or pre-packed. Interviews revealed that free-flow produce has
higher waste levels than pre-packed because of the damage
caused by consumer handling in store.
 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158
Suppliers of strawberries and raspberries, which are usually
packed in punnets to protect the product, reported packaging
waste due to damage from punnets being stacked incorrectly or
being the wrong size. Furthermore, retailers reported that packa-
ging of some fruits and vegetables could lead to increased waste
because products cannot be repacked in store if one item in the
pack becomes diseased or out of specification. In these cases, the
whole pack is thrown away.
Meat products require both primary and secondary packaging
and this kind of waste needs to be disposed of appropriately due to
possible microbial contamination. In these cases, the main causes
of unnecessary packaging waste appear to be poorly performing
vacuum packs requiring repackaging, machine breakdowns, and
labelling changes. Interviewees commented that there is a sig-
nificant opportunity for lightweight retail packaging by the wider
adoption of vacuum skin packs. However, retailers reported con-
sumer resistance because these packs can change the colour of
meat from that anticipated by the consumer.
A number of suppliers of both product categories commented
that packaging and labelling designs change frequently (usually at
the request of retailers), which can create waste through “write
offs”, while others cited the frequency of packaging design
changes to be around 2 years, which they did not perceive to be
a problem.
Proposition 2e. Packaging can prevent waste by protecting pro-
ducts and extending their shelf-life, but superfluous use will result in
unnecessary waste.
This relates to Hart's third level of NRBV: sustainable develop-
ment. A goal of sustainable development is to take an overall life
cycle perspective on products and processes, and provide break-
through technologies to prevent pollution. Processes that reduce
waste in one area (product waste), but contribute to waste in
another area (packaging waste) are less than optimal. However,
the trade offs-between different types of waste and different types
of environmental burdens are difficult to evaluate. One intervie-
wee claimed they had reduced packaging weight, but this had a
negative impact because it caused more product damage. Evaluat-
ing this kind of trade-offs requires tools such as lifecycle assess-
ment (LCA), which demand high levels of expertise, often not
available to small suppliers. However, some interviewees com-
mented that trade bodies, particularly in the meat industry, are
starting to develop tools to help organizations in the industry deal
with environmental issues. EBLEX has also supported some LCA
work on packaging and meat discolouration (Williams, 2011).
6. Conclusions
This research began with the development of an understanding
of environmental management practices in food supply networks
by highlighting the extent to which fruits, vegetables and meat
products are wasted along the network and identifying how,
where and why products are being wasted. The analysis led to a
categorization of the causes of food waste and the formulation of a
series of propositions.
This research contributes to the understanding and applica-
tion of theory by applying the Natural Resource Base View to
develop propositions and explore effective and ineffective sup-
ply network waste management practices in the UK food sector.
By exploring Hart's three levels of NRBV competency develop-
ment, this research demonstrates that an internal focus is the
place that NRBV engagement begins. While Hart (1995) notes
that pollution prevention strategies move from internal to
external, this study extends NRBV to support that those organi-
zations that remain internally focused may actually create more
155
waste and worse practices through their pollution reduction
efforts. It is only when firms move on to the second and third
levels that stakeholders enjoy added benefits of a holistic supply
chain waste reduction.
The findings from this research also contribute to practice. There
are direct implications for the need for training and education of
key stakeholders such as consumers and other members of the
supply chain, to embrace a more holistic, or life cycle perspective of
food supply chains that include packaging issues. This research also
contributes to management practices by developing and categoriz-
ing the causes of waste into seven factors, divided into two main
categories Supply and Demand Management and Quality and Process
Control.
There was some evidence that trade associations are beginning
to take a lead in supporting the creation of a shared sustainability
vision for their members in providing a platform to minimize the
environmental burdens of the industry. Without this leadership,
it will be difficult for the industry to make significant progress in
terms of sustainability. However, in trying to combat waste and
inefficiencies there appears to be a considerable amount of
inevitable commercial secrecy within the industry, and initiatives
that are perceived to give a company a competitive advantage tend
not to be shared. This presents a weighty challenge for the
industry as a whole.
The findings show that supply chains in the UK food industry
are still struggling at the “pollution prevention” stage and only
selected companies have moved towards product stewardship and
sustainable development stages suggested by Hart (1995). How-
ever, the propositions presented in this research can serve as
stepping-stones for companies in the industry to mature towards
more holistically sustainable solutions. This is the key contribution
to practice.
Although the research benefits from rich data across several
tiers of the UK food network, it also suffers from a number of
limitations. First, we use a narrow selection of products focused on
fresh, short shelf-life products, ignoring large categories such as
canned, dry goods and frozen products. The products were
selected for having comparatively high levels of waste, and for
this reason they provide a biased representation of the entire
industry. A more representative depiction of the UK food industry
would have been achieved by a random selection of products, but
with lower wastage rates being anticipated.
Another limitation of the research is its geographical scope, as
it is based exclusively in the UK and might have missed important
causes of waste that are not prevalent in this country. Given that
many food supply networks are multinational, a sensible avenue
for further research would be to investigate food networks cutting
across international borders. The retail and consumption climates
also differ for cultural and economic reasons. This would help to
validate the existing propositions and to improve the general-
izability of the findings.
Although the research helped to identify some of the key
causes of food waste in the UK, due to the current elementary
level of sophistication of waste tracking in these food supply
networks, it was not possible to evaluate directly the relative
impact of the different causes of waste generated within a given
category of waste. It does, however provide direction by pin-
pointing which categories contribute the most to waste, and thus
would be fruitful for further investigation. Understanding the
magnitude of specific sources of waste is necessary for prioritiz-
ing improvement initiatives to maximize their economic and
environmental benefits. Similarly, it is necessary to gain a better
understanding of what the potential solutions are and what
impact they are likely to have in reducing waste. These are clear
opportunities for further research, which are likely to have
significant practical implications.
156 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158
Appendix 1. Sample questionnaire used with Cutting Plants,
Manufacturers, Retailers and Wholesalers
Date: ________________Time: ________________Interviewer:
______________
Company name and location:
________________________________________________
Interviewee: _____________E-mail:
_________________Telephone: _______________
Title and responsibilities:
1. General supply network information
1.1 What is the role of your organization in the supply network
(e.g. cutting plant, retail packer, food manufacturer, retail
butcher, wholesaler, supermarket) (Note: Questions asked
might vary depending on the role in supply chain)
1.2 Who are your major customers for each product? (Note: be
specific by animal type but it is not necessary to identify
individual customers)
1.3 What is the product's shelf life (days)? (Note: ask for total
shelf life and shelf life from RDC)
For Frozen meat Pre-packed meat (Note separately for beef,
lamb, pork, chicken);
For Processed meat (Note separately if there are differences
between products)
1.3.1 How is shelf life determined?
1.4 What is the typical packaging used (in bound and out
bound)?
1.4.1 What kind of intermediate packaging?
1.4.2 What kind of ‘ready for shelf' packaging?
1.4.3 What kind of consumer packaging?
1.4.4 Any particular issue
1.5 What is the storage life of your product? (Note separately
for beef, lamb etc. products and for each stage of the supply
chain including households)
1.5.1 How is the product stored?
1.6 What is the average stock cover? (in days)
1.6.1 What is the stock rotation policy?
1.7 How is your in–bound product transported (road, air, sea
freight, combination)?
1.8 What proportion of the product sourced from outside
the UK?
1.8.1 From which countries do you import products?
1.8.2 How are these products transported?
1.8.3 How is the cold chain managed?
2. Product and packaging waste
2.1 How do you define waste?
2.2 How is waste managed within the business?
2.2.1 What waste KPIs do you use in the business and how are
they communicated?
2.3 What is the percentage of wasted product? (over a year)
[typical min/max values and range and seasonal changes]: By
function (e.g. RDC) and by product e.g.: Frozen Pre-packed,
Counter, Processed Product
2.4 What is the tonnage of wasted product? (per year): By
function and by product
2.5 What is the pattern of products waste during the year? Are
there any specific cycles?
2.6 What is the tonnage of wasted primary and secondary
packaging waste? (By material)
2.7 What is the percentage of wasted packing over a year?
2.8 Do you un-box or re-wrap meat or use a body to do this?
2.8.1 What happens to this meat?
3. Causes of waste
3.1 What is the impact of forecasting practices on waste?
3.2 What are the positive and negative impacts of promotions
on waste for this product?
3.3 What is the impact of lead-times on waste?
3.4 What is the impact of shelf life policies on waste?
3.5 Which processing operations cause most waste?
3.6 Do specific stacking and shelving polices for this product
cause waste?
3.7 Are there any specific characteristics of this product that
make it more susceptible to creating waste?
3.8 What is the impact of product damage on waste for this
product?
3.9 What is the impact of packaging technology on waste?
3.9.1 What is the effect of changing packaging design on waste?
3.10 What happens to products following a product recall or
emergency product withdrawals (EPWs) on wasted product?
3.11 What is the impact of weather changes on waste for this
product?
3.12 What is the impact of quality control and product
specifications on waste for this product?
3.13 What happens to product that is returned by customers?
3.14 How do you collaborate with customers to reduce waste?
3.15 How do you collaborate with suppliers to reduce waste?
3.16 Who in the industry has a leading role in reducing waste?
3.14 Have we missed any other important cause of waste for
this product?
4. Destination Of Waste
4.1 How much product waste that is classified as Category 3?
4.1.1 What happens to this waste
4.2 How much product waste not classified as Category 3 but fit
for human consumption
4.2.1 What happens to this waste (e.g. FareShare)
4.2.2 What quantities by weight go down each route
4.3 How much of packaging waste? (Note: specify waste for
cardboard, plastic, paper, etc.)
4.4 Amount of packaging waste that goes to landfill?
4.4.1 What of packaging waste that goes to landfill?
4.4.2 What proportion that is recycled?
4.4.3 What happens to other packaging waste?
5. Resources (do not use with retailers)
5.1 How much of the water do you use?
5.2 How much of the electricity do you use?
5.3 How much of the gas do you use?
5.4 What is the source of water you use? Ask for details of
annual quantity used (e.g. m3)
5.5 Do you record water usage (how measured, how often, is
there a KPI)
5.5.1 If yes, give indicative amounts used by plant/store,
by product and by function
 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158
5.6 What is the volume of effluent per annum?
5.6.1 Where does it go after treatment? Note: ask for details of
annual quantity used (e.g. m3)
5.6.2 Are there any seasonal changes?
5.7 How do you minimize water use?
References
Audsley E., Brander M., Chatterton J., Murphy-Bokern D., Webster C., Williams A.,
2009. How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from
the UK food system and the scope to reduce them by 2050. WWF-UK.
Barney, J., 1991a. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17,
99–120.
Barney, J.B., 1991b. The resource based view of strategy: origins, implications, and
prospects. Editor Special Theory Forum J. Manag. 17, 97–211.
Barney, J.B., 2012. Purchasing, Supply chain management and sustained competi-
tive advantage: the relevance of resource-based theory. J. Supply Chain Manag.
48 (2), 3–6.
Barratt, M., 2003. Positioning the role of collaborative planning in grocery supply
chains. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 14 (2), 53–66.
Barratt, M., Choi, T.Y., Li, M., 2011. Qualitative case studies in operations manage-
ment: trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. J. Oper.
Manag. 29 (4), 329–342.
Barratt, M., Oliveira, A., 2001. Exploring the experiences of collaborative planning
initiatives. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 31 (4), 266–289.
Berchicci, L., King, A., 2007. Postcards from the edge: a review of the business and
environment literature. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1, 1513–1547.
Braungart, M., McDonough, W., 2008. Cradle to Cradle: Re-making the way make
things. Jonathan Cape, London
Cachon, G., Fisher, M., 1997. Campbell soup's continuous replenishment program:
evaluation and enhanced inventory decision rules. Prod. Oper. Manag. 6 (3),
266–276.
Carter, C.R., Carter, J.R., 1998. Interorganizational determinants of environmental
purchasing: initial evidence from the consumer products industries. Decis. Sci.
29 (3), 659–684.
Christmann, P., 2000. Effects of "best practices" of environmental management on
cost advantage: the role of complementary assets. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 663–680.
Disney, S.M., Towill, D.R., 2003. Vendor-managed inventory and bullwhip reduction
in a two-level supply chain. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 23 (5/6), 625–652.
Dobbs, R., Oppenheim, J., Thompson, F., Brinkman, M., Zornes, M., 2011. Resources
Revolution: Meeting the World's Energy, Materials, Food, and Water Needs.
McKinsey Global Institute, McKinsey & Company
Dong, Y., Xu, K., 2002. A supply chain model of vendor managed inventory. Transp.
Res. E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 38 (2), 75–95.
Ellram, L.M., 1996. The use of the case study method in logistics research. J. Bus.
Logist. 17 (2), 93–138.
Ettouzani, Y., Yates, N., Mena, C., 2012. Examining retail on shelf availability:
promotional impact and a call for research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.
42 (3), 213–243.
Etzion, D., 2007. Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-
present: a review. J. Manag. 33, 637–664.
European Commission, 1991. Council Directive 91/156/EEC, amending Directive75/
442/ EEC; March18, 1991, Available at: 〈http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0156:EN:HTML〉 (last visit 28 Dec 2011).
Evans, A., 2009. The Feeding of the Nine Billion: Global Food Security for the 21st
Century. Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, UK
Faruk, A.C., Lamming, R.C., Cousins, P.D., Bowen, F.E., 2001. Analyzing, mapping, and
managing environmental impacts along supply chains. J. Ind. Ecol. 5 (2), 13–36.
French, M.L., LaForge, R.L., 2006. Closed-loop supply chains in process industries: an
empirical study of producer re-use issues. J. Oper. Manag. 24 (3), 271–286.
Foresight, 2011. The Future of Food and Farming Final Project Report. The
Government Office for Science, London. (available from 〈http://www.bis.gov.
uk/assets/foresight/docs/ food-and-farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farmin
g-report.pdf〉 s; last visited 29 October 2012).
Gold, S., Seuring., S., Beske, P., 2010. Sustainable supply chain management and
inter-organizational resources: a literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 17, 230–245.
Green, A., Johnston, N., 2004. In: Waldron, K., Faulds, C., Smith, A. (Eds.), Food
surplus; reduction, recovery and recycle, 35. Total Foods, IFR Norwich.
Guide, V.D.R, van Wassenhove, L.N., 2009. The evolution of closed-loop supply
chain research. Oper. Res. 57 (1), 10–18.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A., 2011.
Global Food Losses and Food Waste, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. FAO, Rome
Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4),
986–1014.
Hart, S., W.L., Dowell, G., W.L., 2011. A natural resource-based view of the firm:
fifteen years after. J. Manag. 37 (5), 1464–1479.
Hicks, C., Heidrich, O., McGovern, T., Donnelly, T., 2004. A functional model of
supply chains and waste. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 89 (2), 165–174.
Jayaraman, V., Klassen, R., Linton, J.D., 2007. Supply chain management in a
sustainable environment. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (6), 1071–1074.
157
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2005. Sustainable operations
management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 14 (4), 482–492.
Krause, D., Vachon, S., Klassen, R., 2009. Special topic forum on sustainable supply
chain management: introduction and reflections on the role of purchasing
management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 45 (4), 18–25.
Kotzab, H., 1999. Improving supply chain performance by efficient consumer
response? a critical comparison of existing ECR approaches. J. Bus. Ind. Market.
14 (5/6), 364–377.
Kurt Salmon Associates, 1993. Efficient Consumer Response: Enhancing Consumer
Value in the Grocery Industry. Food Marketing Institute, Washington, DC
Lai, K.H., Cheng, T.C.E., Tang, A.K.Y., 2010. Green retailing: factors for success. Calif.
Manag. Rev. 52 (2), 6–31.
Lamming, R., Hampson, J., 1996. The environment as a supply chain management
issue. Br. J. Manag. 7 (s1), S45–S62.
Lee, S., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Drivers and enablers that foster environmental manage-
ment capabilities in small- and medium-sized suppliers in supply chains. Prod.
Oper. Manag. 17 (6), 573–586.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R., Jayaraman, V., 2007. Sustainable supply chains: an
introduction. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (6), 1075–1082.
Lippmann, S., 1999. Supply chain environmental management: elements for
success. Corp. Environ. Strategy 6 (2), 175–182.
Lovins, L.H., Lovins, A., Hawken, P., 1999a. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next
Industrial Revolution, first ed.. Back Bay Books
Lovins, L.H., Lovins, A., Hawken, P., 1999b. A road map for natural capitalism. Harv.
Bus. Rev. 77 (3), 146–158.
Lovins, A.B., Lovins, L.H., Hawken, P., 2007. A road map for natural capitalism. Harv.
Bus. Rev. 85 (7/8), 172–183.
Matos, S., Hall, J., 2007. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain:
the case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology.
J. Oper. Manag. 25 (6), 1083–1102.
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., Anastas, P.T., Zimmerman, J.B., 2003. Peer reviewed:
applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 (23), 434A–441A.
Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R., 2003. Assessing the impact of environ-
mental management systems on corporate and environmental performance.
J. Oper. Manag. 21 (3), 329–351.
Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., Yurt, O., 2011. The causes of food waste in the supplier–
retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55
(6), 648–658.
Meredith, J., 1998. Building operations management theory through case and field
research. J. Oper. Manag. 16, 441–454.
Munasinghe, M., Dasgupta, P., Southerton, D., Bows, A., McMeekin, A., 2009.
Consumers, Business and Climate Change, A report prepared by the Sustainable
Consumption Institute at The University of Manchester, available from: 〈http://
www.sci.manchester.ac.uk/publications/reports/consumers-business-and-cli
mate-change〉 [last visited August 23, 2012].
Nellman, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A.G., 2009.
The environmental food crisis – the environment's role in averting future food
crises United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2009. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply
chain management using case studies of 10 Exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag.
45 (2), 37–56.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2011. Food waste within food supply chains:
quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 365,
3065–3081.
Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G., 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row, New York
Pullman, M., Maloni, M., Carter, C., 2009. Food for thought: social versus environ-
mental sustainability. J. Supply Chain Manag. 45 (4), 38–54.
Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environ-
mental performance and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 40, 534–559.
Sarkis, J., 2012. A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain manage-
ment. Supply Chain Manag. 17 (2), 202–216.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.-H., 2011. An organizational theoretic review of green
supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 130 (1), 1–15.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008a. Core issues in sustainable supply chain management
– a Delphi study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 17 (8), 455–466.
Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008b. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–
1710.
Sharma, S., Vredenburg, H., 1998. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and
the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strateg.
Manag. J. 19, 729–753.
Shi, V.G., Koh, S.C.L., Baldwin, J., Cucchiella, F., 2012. Natural resource based green
supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 17 (1), 54–67.
Simpson, D., 2012. Institutional pressure and waste reduction: the role of invest-
ments in waste reduction. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139 (1), 330–339.
Stuart, T., 2009. Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. Penguin Books,
London
Svensson, G., 2007. Aspects of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM):
conceptual framework and empirical example. Supply Chain Manag. 12 (4),
262–266.
TNS/Worldpanel, 2009. Market data. 〈http://www.tnsglobal.com/what-we-do/
retail-shopper〉 (last visited 11.03.13).
158 C. Mena et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 152 (2014) 144–158
UN, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our
Common Future. UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements.
〈http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm〉, last visited September 12, 2011.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Environmental management and manufacturing
performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 111
(2), 299–315.
Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 5,
171–180.
Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2006. Determining the environmental
burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural
commodities. Final report to Defra on project IS0205. 〈http://tinyurl.com/
Defra-IS0205〉 (last visited 29-May-2013).
Williams, A.G. 2011. Effects of discolouration losses in the meat chain. Report for
the English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX). 〈http://tinyurl.com/EBLEX-Disco
louration〉. Last accessed 29-May-2013.
View publication stats
Whitehead, P., Palmer, M., Mena, C., Williams, A., Walsh, C., 2010. Fresh meat
resource maps: mapping out resource use in the retail and wholesale supply
chain of fresh meat, Waste Reduction Action Programme, Banbury, UK.
Available from 〈http://www.wrap.org.uk/〉 (last visited 28/08/2012).
WRAP, 2009. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK. Report prepared by WRAP.
Banbury, UK. Available from: 〈http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/House
hold %20food%20and%20drink%20waste%20in%20the%20UK%20-%20report.pdf〉
(last visited 27/04/2012).
Wood, A., 1993. Efficient consumer response. Logist. Inf. Manag. 6 (4), 38–40.
Yin, R.K., 2008. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, fourth ed.. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and perfor-
mance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 22 (3), 265–289.