[go: up one dir, main page]

IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/jhimwp/334338.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lebensmittelverluste bei Obst und Gemüse – die Rolle von Qualitätsanforderungen und Unternehmenspraktiken des Lebensmitteleinzelhandels

Author

Listed:
  • Trebbin, Anika
  • Herzberg, Ronja
  • Schneider, Felicitas
Abstract
Food loss in European fruit and vegetable supply chains: The impact of retailers’ product standards This working paper presents results of a study that was initiated by Lidl Stiftung and which analyses the influence of product requirements and business practices on food loss in the fruit and vegetable upstream supply chain of Lidl. Previous scientific evidence suggests that (mostly) visual product requirements, but also requirements regarding pesticide residues and packaging, cause losses in the supply chain upstream of food retail. As these losses also occur before harvest, field losses are included in this study. The study covered twelve fruit and vegetable crops that are supplied to Lidl stores in Germany by three large supplying agencies located in Germany, Italy and Spain. Methodologically, the study is based on expert interviews and two quantitative online surveys of (1) suppliers and (2) upstream producers. Due to the small sample size of the producer survey, this working paper mainly focuses on the results of the supplier survey. Almost all of the suppliers that took part in the survey perceive Lidl to impose requirements on fruit and vegetables in terms of pesticide residue limits, calibre, packaging and sorting, colouring, peel, degree of ripeness, shape and curvature, leaves and stem. On average, 14.7 % of the total production or the total traded volume does not meet the requirements Lidl puts forward. Of the total production of fruit and vegetables in the study, 3.4 % are not being harvested or traded further due to the fact that the products do not meet the Lidl requirements. For the same reason, 1.7 % of the total production are used as animal feed, 0.9 % are disposed of and 0.04 % are processed into non-food articles. The remaining share of produce that does not meet the Lidl requirements is sold into the wholesale sector, to other food retailers, the food processing industry or is being exported. The study shows that around 6 % of fruit and vegetables in the studied segment of the Lidl supply chain are ultimately lost for human consumption. The figures obtained are lower than the results of similar, but not directly comparable studies, which aimed at quantifying fruit and vegetable losses that occur due to food retailers’ quality standards. After natural causes of food loss (e.g. weather conditions and pest infestations), Lidl product requirements are seen as the second most important superordinate driver of losses, approximately as important as market conditions (e.g. low market price). However, a large proportion of respondents also believes that product requirements have little to no influence on food loss. In particular, participants perceive requirements regarding pesticide residue limits and calibre specifications as the largest drivers of food loss. Which requirements exactly contribute most to food loss seems to depend much on the crop. Unfortunately, the study cannot deliver distinct insights here due to small sub-samples for each crop. In general, the product requirements put forward by Lidl are perceived as quite reliable and clearly communicated by the suppliers, but are lacking flexibility. Compared to product requirements, business practices are a less relevant driver of food loss from the suppliers' perspective, but still more significant than technological causes. In particular, the insufficient timely coordination of promotions in times of production peaks is perceived as a cause of food loss. Compared to the supplier survey, the survey of primary producers had a very low response rate that does not allow for sound analyses. However, evaluation of the few questionnaires completed suggests that the share of fruit and vegetable produced that does not meet the requirements put forward by Lidl is similar. Also, primary producers identify similar product requirements as drivers of food loss and perceive the flexibility rather than the reliability of these requirements as problematic. In the case of primary producers, failure to meet the requirements put forward by Lidl more often results in non-harvesting, use as animal feed or transfer to the food processing industry. Wholesalers and other retailers are used less frequently as an outlet for sub-standard produce than in the case of suppliers. Based on the results of the study, we recommend to Lidl to expand tolerances with regard to product requirements and, in particular, to apply them with increased flexibility. Within the frame of this study, hotspots were identified with regard to requirements and crops, which should now be followed up in practice. In particular, the compatibility of the goals of reducing pesticide residues and food loss should be focused on. Lidl should support the introduction of a food loss monitoring, improve volume planning and promote alternative distribution channels at all stages of the supply chain in order to the reduce food loss. Well-coordinated promotions, neutral packaging design and late packaging should also be worked towards. This study has several limitations, among other things, stemming from • the fact that questionnaire studies generally significantly underestimate the amount of food loss, • partially low response rates for individual crops, • a potential influence on the interview situation brought about by the presence of the Lidl purchase department during all interviews, • limitations in the assessment of the representativeness of the sample with regard to the entire supply chain of Lidl, as relevant information remained incomplete. There is an urgent need for further research, especially in the area of field losses. Measures implemented in practice should be accompanied scientifically in order to assess their effects - advantages and possible trade-offs - and to govern them accordingly. In addition, the effects of the measures implemented could be quantitatively documented and used for internal and external communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Trebbin, Anika & Herzberg, Ronja & Schneider, Felicitas, 2023. "Lebensmittelverluste bei Obst und Gemüse – die Rolle von Qualitätsanforderungen und Unternehmenspraktiken des Lebensmitteleinzelhandels," Thünen Working Paper 334338, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jhimwp:334338
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.334338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334338/files/dn065583.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.334338?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beausang, Ciara & Hall, Clare & Toma, Luiza, 2017. "Food waste and losses in primary production: Qualitative insights from horticulture," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 177-185.
    2. Eriksson, Mattias & Ghosh, Ranjan & Mattsson, Lisa & Ismatov, Alisher, 2017. "Take-back agreements in the perspective of food waste generation at the supplier-retailer interface," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 83-93.
    3. Johnson, Lisa K. & Bloom, J. Dara & Dunning, Rebecca D. & Gunter, Chris C. & Boyette, Michael D. & Creamer, Nancy G., 2019. "Farmer harvest decisions and vegetable loss in primary production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Sabine Ludwig-Ohm & Walter Dirksmeyer & Kathrin Klockgether, 2019. "Approaches to Reduce Food Losses in German Fruit and Vegetable Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, November.
    5. Adam, Alina, 2015. "Drivers of food waste and policy responses to the issue: The role of retailers in food supply chains," IPE Working Papers 59/2015, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trebbin, Anika & Herzberg, Ronja & Schneider, Felicitas, 2023. "Lebensmittelverluste bei Obst und Gemüse - Die Rolle von Qualitätsanforderungen und Unternehmenspraktiken des Lebensmitteleinzelhandels," Thünen Working Papers 202, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    2. Kelsey D. Meagher & Anne Gillman & David C. Campbell & Edward S. Spang, 2020. "Relational and Logistical Dimensions of Agricultural Food Recovery: Evidence from California Growers and Recovery Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Sybilla Merian & Sabrina Stöeckli & Klaus Ludwig Fuchs & Martin Natter, 2022. "Buy Three to Waste One? How Real-World Purchase Data Predict Groups of Food Wasters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Sabine Ludwig-Ohm & Walter Dirksmeyer & Kathrin Klockgether, 2019. "Approaches to Reduce Food Losses in German Fruit and Vegetable Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, November.
    5. Bianca Cezara Archip & Ioan Banatean-Dunea & Dacinia Crina Petrescu & Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, 2023. "Determinants of Food Waste in Cluj-Napoca (Romania): A Community-Based System Dynamics Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-22, January.
    6. Ren Jie Zhang & Brian Lee & Hung-Hao Chang, 2019. "What Is Missing in Food Loss and Waste Analyses? A Close Look at Fruit and Vegetable Wholesale Markets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Godwin Seyram Agbemavor Horlu & Ellen Genevieve Thompson, 2024. "Challenges and mitigating measures in local fruits retail in Southern Ghana," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 4(11), pages 1-21, November.
    8. Martine J. Barons & Lael E. Walsh & Edward E. Salakpi & Linda Nichols, 2024. "A Decision Support System for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Loss Reduction under Uncertain Agricultural Policy Frameworks," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Kusumowardani, Niken & Tjahjono, Benny & Lazell, Jordon & Bek, David & Theodorakopoulos, Nicholas & Andrikopoulos, Panagiotis & Priadi, Cindy Rianti, 2022. "A circular capability framework to address food waste and losses in the agri-food supply chain: The antecedents, principles and outcomes of circular economy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 17-31.
    10. Pauline Bergström & Christopher Malefors & Ingrid Strid & Ole Jørgen Hanssen & Mattias Eriksson, 2020. "Sustainability Assessment of Food Redistribution Initiatives in Sweden," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-27, March.
    11. Shelley Fox & Owen Kenny & Francesco Noci & Maria Dermiki, 2023. "A Pilot Study on Industry Stakeholders’ Views towards Revalorization of Surplus Material from the Fruit and Vegetable Sector as a Way to Reduce Food Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Hailemariam Gebru & Baba Abdissa & Betelhem Addis & Sisay Alebachew & Abaysew Ayele, 2023. "Selection of conventional preservation technologies using analytical hierarchy process," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(1), pages 217-233, March.
    13. Roengchai Tansuchat & Tanachai Pankasemsuk & Chanita Panmanee & Tanapol Rattanasamakarn & Konnika Palason, 2023. "Analyzing Food Loss in the Fresh Longan Supply Chain: Evidence from Field Survey Measurements," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-31, October.
    14. Fernanda Cortegoso Oliveira Frascareli & Marcelo Furlan & Enzo Barberio Mariano & Daniel Jugend, 2024. "A macro-level circular economy index: theoretical proposal and application in European Union countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18297-18331, July.
    15. Awotunde, G. J. & Adekunle O. A. & Kolawole, E. A. & Obaniyi, K. S. & Adeniyi, V. A., 2023. "Addressing Rural Poverty in Nigeria Through Youth Participation in Agriculture," Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology, Rural Sociological Association of Nigeria, vol. 23(1), January.
    16. Rapeepan Pitakaso & Kanchana Sethanan & Kim Hua Tan & Ajay Kumar, 2024. "A decision support system based on an artificial multiple intelligence system for vegetable crop land allocation problem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 342(1), pages 621-656, November.
    17. Sourabh Jain & Jury Gualandris, 2023. "When does upcycling mitigate climate change? The case of wet spent grains and fruit and vegetable residues in Canada," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(2), pages 522-534, April.
    18. Evert Los & Cornelis Gardebroek & Ruud Huirne, 2021. "Explaining output price heterogeneity in Dutch horticulture," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 891-914, October.
    19. Arkalgud Ramaprasad & Shwetmala Kashyap, 2024. "Definition of Food Consumption, Loss, and Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-13, June.
    20. Efrat Elimelech & Eyal Ert & Yael Parag & Guy Hochman, 2024. "Exploring the Impact of Visual Perception and Taste Experience on Consumers’ Acceptance of Suboptimal Fresh Produce," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-14, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jhimwp:334338. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imagvde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.