“Low-Hanging Fruits” against Food Waste and Their Status Quo in the Food Processing Industry

Abstract

Food processing companies have a financial interest in saving resources. However, they have different perceptions of the relevance of the issue of food waste. Hence, companies deal with the topic of waste in different ways. Some companies do implement measures systematically, others do not. The aim of this study is to analyze which recommendations against food loss and waste are effective, easy to implement, and are already part of the status quo in the food processing industry. For this purpose, based on the results of a previous exploratory study, a standardized questionnaire was developed and sent to food processing companies. From the 82 participating companies, 19 of 53 recommendations were classified as basic recommendations and 22 of the 53 recommendations were classified as ‘low-hanging fruits’. The results showed that companies rated the recommendations that were best implemented as very effective and easy to implement. Moreover, the results showed that the food processing industry’s strength in preventing food waste relate to the internal processes. However, at the borders of the value chain, there are still deficits in terms of exchange and communication with other stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Disposing of food waste needlessly consumes resources along the entire food supply chain [1]. Globally, 13.3 percent of food is lost from post-harvest to processing [2] and 17 percent of food available is wasted at the consumer level [3]. This disposing of waste leads to massive economic, environmental, and social consequences [4]. Therefore, tackling food waste is an important objective of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [5]. The SDG 12.3. requires the reduction of fifty percent of food waste in retail and at the consumer level and food losses to be reduced along the supply chain by 2030 [2]. In addition, reducing food loss and waste supports the achievement of other SDGs, such as zero hunger (SDG 2) [5]. To address these SDGs at the national level, Germany is also following these goals and has developed its own national strategy to reduce food waste [6]. To achieve the German national strategy for food waste reduction, all supply chain actors should take their part and assume responsibility, including food processing companies [6].

1.1. Food Processing Company and Responsibility

As well as the national strategy, food loss and waste have a great importance for the food industry due to the economic and efficient application of resources [6,7]. In addition, every stage of the food supply chain is effective in itself [8]. However, the amount of food waste is 12 million tons per year in Germany and food processing is responsible for 18 percent of the total food losses [9]. Furthermore, it is estimated that more than half of this disposed food is avoidable at the processing stage [9]. The causes of food loss and waste in companies are diverse and depend on technological reasons, management decisions, product-related actions, regulations, and social norms [10,11]. Hence, the avoidability of food loss and waste can differ heavily and can rise up to 40 percent in a company [12]. Furthermore, companies have different perceptions of their own responsibility for food waste in the supply chain [13]. Nonetheless, the reduction in food loss can improve the productivity gains of companies [5].

Previous studies have shown that food processing companies assess the relevance of the issue of food waste differently, from ‘irrelevant’ to ‘very important’ [7]. Some companies do not take surplus food into account, other companies systematically implement actions, and still others only selectively address the issue of food waste within the company [7,14]. This is what the national strategy wants to change and to encourage companies to be more active. Meanwhile, some food processing companies have already implemented measures to reduce food losses, although companies have different priorities and use different approaches in their efforts to reduce food waste [13,15]. In accordance with the national strategy, companies should continue to find practical solutions to reduce food waste and increase their efficiency [6]. In addition, based on the national strategy against food waste, representatives of the food industry associations signed an agreement in principle to reduce food waste [16]. The associations agreed to motivate their members to implement concrete measures against food waste. However, the available data and the current state of research in the food processing industry regarding food losses is lackluster [9,17].

Against this backdrop, a study was conducted to develop recommendations for good practice in the food processing industry in order to prevent and handle food loss and waste [13]. This previous study was intended to help food processing companies to systematically address food waste and loss. However, it is unclear which recommendations against food waste are effective, easy to implement, and are already part of the status quo in the food processing industry. The results of the previous study were not ranked for prioritization. Nevertheless, there are no data on the status quo of the implemented recommendations in the food processing industry.

1.2. Aim of the Study

In light of the above, the aim of this study is to fill this gap by identifying the status quo and basic ‘low-hanging fruit’ to help and motivate other companies to engage faster and more effectively against food waste. For this purpose, food processing companies were asked questions regarding 53 recommendations against food waste. The companies were asked to what extent these recommendations were already implemented in their companies, which recommendations were effective against food waste, and which were easy to implement. These recommendations are based on the results of a previous study that identified recommendations for good practice in food processing companies to prevent and handle food waste [13]. The research questions (RQs) of the study are the following:

• RQ (i): What is the status quo in implementing recommendations against food waste and which recommendations are basic in food processing companies?
• RQ (ii): Which recommendations are the ‘low-hanging fruit’ that are highly effective and can be easily implemented in the food processing industry?
• RQ (iii): What do companies consider to be the benefits and barriers to implementing the recommendations?

To address these questions, a standardized quantitative questionnaire was developed and sent to food processing companies. This study aims to contribute to the implementation of the national strategy by helping companies to find their own way to reduce food waste and loss. In this study, the terms food loss and waste are used synonymously for remaining materials from the processes in conformity with FUSIONS [18].

2. Materials and Methods

The methodological framework is based on the results of a previous exploratory study by Rösler et al. [13]. In that previous study, 53 recommendations for preventing and handling food loss and waste in the food processing industry were developed through an extensive literature review and an exploratory survey of food processing companies [13]. In this present study, these recommendations were used to assess their status quo, effectiveness, and feasibility in the food processing industry via a standardized quantitative questionnaire [19] to identify basic recommendations and ‘low-hanging fruits’ against food waste.

Figure 1 shows an overview of the areas in which the recommendations to prevent and handle food loss and waste are organized according to Rösler et al. [13]. These recommendations refer to actions against food waste inside and outside a company. The recommendations are organized systematically in 4 stages and divided into 9 main areas and 22 sub-areas from supplier (upstream supply chain) to customer (downstream supply chain) and across internal departments. In total, 53 recommendations of good practice for preventing and handling food loss and waste from the previous study were used for the present survey.

2.1. Development of the Questionnaire

A standardized online questionnaire was designed for the survey. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. In the first section, the questionnaire included standard parameters about the companies: industrial sub-section, and number of employees. In addition, the first part included questions about self-assessment in the context of food waste, the impact of COVID-19 and the current war in Ukraine on dealing with food waste in the company.

The second section included the 53 recommendations outlined by Rösler et al. [13]. In this section, the recommendations were examined for their scope of the degree of implementation, effectiveness, and feasibility in the companies. The 53 recommendations were presented to participants in the following areas: supplier level, procurement, internal management, internal process, internal treatment, distribution, consumer level, other stakeholder, and waste management providers. Only half of the areas with their recommendations were randomly presented to the participating companies due to the length of the questionnaire. The threshold levels for the status quo in the companies were chosen as follows: fully implemented (100%), mostly implemented (75%), partially implemented (50%), sporadically implemented (25%), not implemented (0%), and not applicable. The threshold levels for effectiveness were the following: very low effect (0 points), low effect (0.25 points), medium (0.5 points), high effect (0.75 points), very high effect (1 point). For feasibility the threshold levels were: very difficult (0 point), difficult (0.25 points), medium (0.5 points), easy (0.75 points), very easy (1 point).

Finally, the last section of the questionnaire focused on a second self-assessment, general benefits, and difficulties in implementing recommendations against food waste. A pretest was conducted on three food processing companies to ensure the validity.

2.2. Data Collection

The online questionnaire requests were sent via e-mail in Summer 2022 and were addressed to persons in contact with quality management and environment management of food processing companies. The sampling strategy was to select a heterogeneous group of companies. Due to the limited accessibility to reach companies successfully and in order to reach as many companies as possible, two methods of sampling were chosen: probabilistic and non-probabilistic [19]. Firstly, 600 food processing companies were randomly selected from the German classified directory of food manufacturers [20] and 45 food manufacturers were selected from the German EMAS registry [21]. Secondly, 25 food processing companies were contacted directly through personal contact of the researchers at trade fairs. In total, 670 food processing companies were selected.

2.3. Data Analysis

At first, questionnaires were anonymized, and unfilled questionnaires were deleted. In the light of the research questions of this study, Microsoft Excel with univariate and bivariable analysis methods were used. First, to analyze the status quo of implementation of recommendations (RQ (i)), a five-level scale (100% = fulfilled to 0% = not implemented) as threshold level was used with the possibility to choose: not applicable for the company. These recommendations were ranked to determine the basic recommendations in the food processing industry.

Second, to examine the research question RQ (ii), bivariate analysis was used to investigate the effectiveness on reducing food waste and the feasibility for companies. Therefore, the threshold level was a five-level scale (1 = very high effectiveness/feasibility to 0 = very low effectiveness/feasibility). Subsequently, the recommendations were ranked to identify the ‘low-hanging fruit’ based on the mean values of effect and feasibility. The results were presented as absolute and relative frequencies and standard comparison of mean values.

Finally, in order to analyze the qualitative responses (RQ (iii)), such as the benefits and difficulties of the recommendations, the answers were summarized into categories by quality content analysis [22]. Therefore, a category was formed from each response. Similar categories were revised and combined into new categories. This process was conducted again when half of the material was screened.

3. Results

This study was conducted with 82 companies. In total, 670 companies were contacted (response rate of 12.24%). In total, 53 recommendations against food waste were evaluated by the companies, including their status quo in the industry and their effectiveness and feasibility.

The following results show the sample description with a self-assessment of the current situation in the food processing industry. Furthermore, the results present the status quo of the implementation of recommendations against food waste and the evaluation of these recommendations in terms of their effectiveness and feasibility. All recommendations are summarized and visualized in sub-areas, as in Figure 1. In addition, the results show the sub-sector-specific deviations from the average presented. Last but not least, the most frequently implemented and highest rated individual recommendations are highlighted in each case. Details on the specific recommendations can be found in Appendix A.

3.1. Description of the Samples

In general, 82 companies answered the questionnaire. According to their own statements, other companies did not participate due to the lack of time or capacity. In most cases, there was no answer at all.

Table 1. Sample description of the participant companies.

Sample Characteristics	Sample Details	Total (n = 82)	%
Sub-sectors	Bakery and Farinaceous Products	21	25.6
	Dairy Products and Eggs	12	14.6
	Convenience Food	9	11.0
	Meat Products and Sausage	7	8.5
	Beverages	7	8.5
	Fruits and Vegetables	6	7.3
	Spices, Tea and Coffee	6	7.3
	Sugar and Confectionery	4	4.9
	Fish and Seafood Product	2	2.4
	Grains and Oilseeds	1	1.2
	Other Products	7	8.5
Employees	Less than 100	27	33.3
(n = 81)	101–500	34	42.0
	501–1000	12	14.8
	More than 1000	8	9.9
Position of the respondents	Quality management	27	32.9
	Company management	17	20.7
	Environment and sustainability	11	13.4
	Production	9	11.0
	Marketing	9	11.0
	Public relations and communication	4	4.9
	Other	5	6.1

shows the participating companies of this study. The companies are sub-divided into sub-sectors, number of employees, and position of the respondents. The range of participating companies extends from small to medium-sized companies with over 1000 employees. Table 1 shows that most of the companies are part of the bakery (25.9%) and dairy product sector (14.8%). Most respondents were companies with fewer than 100 employees (33.3%) and between 101 and 500 employees (34%).

The companies were asked how they would rate themselves in dealing with food waste. As result,

Table 2. Self-assessment of the participating companies regarding food waste in the current situation.

Self-Assessment		Total (n = 82)	%
Self-assessment of dealing with food waste in the own company (before answering the questionnaire)	Excellent	23	28
	Good	40	48.8
	Average	14	17.1
	Bad	5	6.1
	Terrible	0	0
Self-assessment of dealing with food waste in the own company (after answering the questionnaire)	Excellent	14	17.1
	Good	39	47.6
	Average	26	31.7
	Bad	3	3.7
	Terrible	0	0
Impact of the Corona pandemic on food waste in the own company	A good deal better	0	0
	Somewhat better	10	12.2
	No change	65	79.3
	Somewhat worse	6	7.3
	A good deal worse	1	1.2
Will the topic of food waste reduction and prevention play a more important role in the future due to the current war in Ukraine? (n = 81)	Yes, it becomes more important	42	51.9
	It has no influence	29	35.8
	No, other security of supply issues become more important	10	12.3

shows that almost half of the respondents described their situation as good. In total, 28 percent of the participants even described the situation as excellent. An average dealing with food waste was reported by 17.1 percent of the companies. After the survey, the companies were asked for a second assessment, in which they again rated themselves well, although there was a small shift in self-assessment towards average dealing with food waste. In total, 47.6 percent of the participants still considered themselves to be good and 17.1 percent as excellent. Finally, 31.7 percent of the companies reported average food waste dealing after completing the questionnaire.

The companies were also asked whether COVID-19 had an impact on the amount of waste generated in the company. The majority (79.3%) answered that there were no changes regarding the issue of food waste. However, 8 percent of the participants reported a worsening and 10 percent a slight improvement.

According to half of all participating companies (51.9%), reducing and preventing food waste will gain an important role in the future due to the current war in Ukraine. However, 35.8 percent stated that the current war has had no impact on the importance of reducing food waste. Even further, 12.3 percent indicated that other security of supply issues are becoming more important than reducing food waste. An analysis by sub-sector did not reveal any other relevant results.

3.2. Status Quo of Implementation and Basic Recommendations

The companies reported the scope to which they have already implemented recommendations in their company. Each company has evaluated an average of 34 recommendations. This section answers RQ (i), what is the status quo of the implementation of recommendations against food waste in food processing companies.

The survey revealed that food processing companies are implementing their measures against food waste along the entire value chain from supplier to customer and in all business departments. However, it shows that different companies put different emphases on the individual parts of the value chain. On average, all participants had already implemented 84 percent of the presented recommendations in some form within the company. In addition, companies rated an average of 34 percent of the recommendations as fully implemented within the company, 8 percent of the measures were reported as not implemented, and 8 percent of the measures were described as not applicable.

Figure 2 shows the status quo of the implementation of good practice recommendations against food waste in food processing companies along the entire value chain. The value chain starts on the left with the supplier level and ends on the right with distribution, consumers, and other companies. The results are presented as sub-areas and were summarized from the specific recommendations. The specific recommendations and their values can be found in Appendix A. The status quo is marked by the orange bars, as well as the green. However, the green bars describe the category that has exceeded the threshold value of 75%. The dashed line represents the threshold of implementation according to the five-level scale of at least 75% (‘mostly implemented’). Additionally, the figure shows the mean of the main areas (solid black lines) as well as measures which were designated as ‘not applicable’ (red bars).

In 7 out of 22 areas, the green ones, companies have mostly implemented sub-areas against food waste (green bars). The sub-areas that are often implemented are related to the issues of ‘Conditions of purchase’, ‘Raw material requirements’, ‘Business goals’, ‘Process’, ‘Product and packaging’, ‘Waste collection’, and ‘Utilization of remaining materials’. The most considered category is ‘Product and packaging’ (86%), followed by ‘Raw material requirements’ (83%) and ‘Waste collection’ (83%). Five of these seven areas are included in the company’s management, process, and utilization. However, the transition from supplier to own company is also strongly expanded with the areas: ‘Conditions of purchase’ (80%) and ‘Raw material requirements’ (83%).

Furthermore, Figure 2 shows that few sub-areas were implemented at the supplier level with ‘Suppliers competence’ (69%) and ‘Good cooperation with suppliers’ (45%) and at the distribution level with ‘Exchange with the retail’ (61%) and ‘Distribution planning’ (65%). Additionally, the customer-level and beside-the-chain are less considered than internal recommendations. The most underrepresented areas are ‘Continuous inspection’ (32%), ‘Joint activities’ (45%), ‘Good cooperation with suppliers’ (45%), and ‘Consumer information’ (46%). These four areas were mostly categorized as partially implemented to sporadically implemented.

Considering that not all recommendations may be appropriate for every company, participants also had the option to mark recommendations as not applicable rather than reporting their level of implementation. The sub-areas most rated as not applicable were ‘Continuous inspection’ (26%), ‘Consumer information’ (20%), ‘Joint activities’ (17%), ‘Suppliers competence’ (17%), and ‘Good cooperation with suppliers’ (15%) (see the red bars in Figure 2). However, the most applicable sub-areas, which were the lowest labeled as not applicable, were ‘Raw material requirements’ (1%), ‘Product and packaging’ (2%), and ‘Consumer needs’ (2%).

Figure 3 shows the deviations of the individual sub-sectors from the mean value of the status quo in percent. Due to the size of the sample, only the three largest sample groups are considered—bakery, dairy, and convenience food. For a better overview, only deviations with more than 5% have been titled in the figure. The largest sub-sector, bakery and farinaceous products, shows little deviation from the average. This sub-sector has established more ‘Good collaboration’ (+8%), ‘Development of measures’ (+8%), and end-of-value chain activities than average, such as ‘Exchanges with the retail’ (+17%), ‘Joint activities’ (+9%), and inspection (+7%). The dairy sub-sector shows the greatest variations. The biggest difference can be seen at the end of the value chain. Recommendations relating to customers (−16% and −21%) and exchanges and activities with other companies (−41% and −21%) were implemented less than average. Other recommendations were implemented more than average, such as ‘Supplier competence’ (+20%), ‘Business goals’ (+9%), ‘In-house transparency’ (+11%), ‘Waste collection’ (+12%), ‘Utilization’ (+11%), and ‘Exchange with the retail’ (+12%). Convenience food companies established more recommendations in the ‘Internal process’, such as ‘Raw materials’ (+8%), ‘Process’ (+12%), and in the ‘Planning of distribution’ (+10%).

Broken down by recommendation, the basic recommendations against food waste are shown in

Table 3. The basic recommendations in the food processing industry and their implementation in sub-sectors.

ID	Recommendations	Sub-Areas	Average		Bakery and Farinaceous Products		Dairy Products and Eggs		Convenience Food
			SQ *	Rank	SQ *	Rank	SQ *	Rank	SQ *	Rank
29	Ensure product quality	Product and packaging	0.93	(1)	0.92	(1)	0.96	(4)	0.94	(3)
33	Ensure coordinated transport	Waste collection	0.89	(2)	0.88	(3)	0.93	(6)	0.90	(6)
20	Train employees	Employees	0.88	(3)	0.85	(5)	0.82	(22)	0.88	(9)
9	Order a quality level appropriate to a company’s own needs	Raw material requirements	0.88	(4)	0.89	(2)	0.93	(5)	0.75	(20)
7	Order the appropriate quantities	Conditions of purchase	0.85	(5)	0.84	(7)	0.71	(27)	0.80	(17)
35	Chose the best way of utilization	Utilization of remaining materials	0.83	(6)	0.83	(9)	0.89	(15)	0.80	(15)
28	Develop prevention strategies	Process	0.82	(7)	0.73	(22)	0.67	(29)	1.00	(1)
32	Separate remaining materials	Waste collection	0.81	(8)	0.81	(13)	0.93	(7)	0.83	(11)
26	Plan the processing	Process	0.81	(9)	0.77	(17)	1.00	(2)	0.82	(13)
15	Ensure food safety	Business goals	0.80	(10)	0.85	(4)	0.92	(9)	0.94	(4)
10	Order raw material in appropriate product packaging	Raw material requirements	0.788	(12)	0.800	(14)	0.857	(17)	0.800	(16)
31	Collect and store remaining materials	Waste collection	0.788	(11)	0.788	(16)	1.000	(1)	0.958	(2)
14	Adjust goals	Business goals	0.785	(13)	0.731	(24)	0.833	(20)	0.688	(31)
30	Design packaging	Product and packaging	0.784	(14)	0.846	(6)	0.667	(28)	0.750	(24)
19	Report activities	In-house transparency	0.783	(16)	0.769	(18)	0.857	(18)	0.583	(38)
16	Work within the legal requirements	Business goals	0.783	(15)	0.733	(23)	1.000	(3)	0.813	(14)
24	Proper handling of raw materials	Raw materials	0.781	(17)	0.833	(8)	0.833	(19)	0.857	(10)
34	Use the food waste hierarchy	Utilization of remaining materials	0.779	(18)	0.769	(19)	0.929	(8)	0.750	(21)
27	Establish a food loss rate and develop batch sizes	Process	0.775	(19)	0.750	(21)	0.625	(31)	0.938	(5)

* SQ = status quo, 0 (not implemented)—1 (fully implemented).

. The table presents the recommendations with their identifier for Appendix A, sub-areas, average implementation with ranking, and the degree of implementation in the sub-sectors. In general, 19 of the 53 recommendations were implemented more than 75%. In the bakery sub-sector, there were 21 recommendations. In the dairy and convenience sub-sectors, 25 recommendations were implemented with a rate of over 75%. More details can be found in Appendix A.

Overall, the top three basic recommendations that were best implemented in the companies are ‘Ensure product quality’ (average rank: 1), ‘Ensure coordinated transport’ (2), and ‘Train employees’ (3). The situation is almost similar in the bakery sub-sector. The recommendation ‘Order a quality level appropriate to a company’s own needs’ (4) is implemented more in the bakery sub-sector. The implementation of the general basic recommendations looks different in the other sub-sectors. ‘Train employees’ (3) ranks 22nd in the dairy products and 9th in the convenience food sub-sector. Not all of the top three of these two sub-sectors are represented in the general top 10. The most implemented recommendations in the dairy products sub-sector are ‘Collect and store remaining materials’ (12), ‘Plan the processing’ (9), and ‘Work within the legal requirements’ (16). In the convenience food sub-sector, the following recommendations are implemented most frequently: ‘Develop prevention strategies’ (7), ‘Collect and store remaining materials’ (12), and ‘Ensure product quality’ (1).

The least implemented recommendation is ‘conduct continuous inspections’ (53), which also applies to the bakery sub-sector. The recommendation ‘Collaborate with network partners’ (50) is implemented least in the dairy sector and ‘Conduct supplier waste audits and reviews’ (51) in the convenience food sub-sector.

3.3. Assessment of Recommendations and ‘Low-Hanging Fruits’

This section answers RQ (ii), which recommendations are highly effective and easy to implement in food processing companies. For this purpose, the participating companies were asked to rate the recommendations on their effectiveness against food waste and feasibility to implement within the company. The results are shown in Figure 4 as a scatter diagram. On the x-axis, the feasibility to implement in a company ranges from 0 (very difficult) to 1 (very easy). On the y-axis, the effectiveness against food waste ranges from 0 (very low) to 1 (very high). The scatter plot shows, as in the previous chapter, the mean values of the summarized sub-areas of the recommendations. The assessments for the specific recommendations are in Appendix A.

The comparison of the feasibility (x-axis) and effectiveness (y-axis) and of the sub-areas resulted in a visually very linear curve without major outliers. Without conducting a cluster analysis, the results in Figure 4, the comparison of effectiveness and feasibility, suggest three clusters of areas. Figure 4 shows the sub-areas that have both high effectiveness and feasibility in the upper right. The first cluster includes seven sub-areas: ‘Product and packaging’ (0.83; 0.83), ‘utilization of remaining materials’ (0.82; 0.80), ‘raw material requirements’ (0.81; 0.81), ‘conditions of purchase’ (0.81; 0.81), ‘waste collection’ (0.81; 0.80), ‘raw materials’ (0.81; 0.78), and ‘process’ (0.79; 0.79). According to the companies, these are the areas in which proposed recommendations are easy to implement and are highly effective against food waste.

The second cluster includes the areas that are less effective and harder to implement than those in the first cluster. The second cluster includes 10 sub-areas: ‘Business goals’ (0.74; 0.74), ‘In-house transparency’ (0.75; 0.71), ‘Analysis of remaining materials’ (0.73; 0.73), ‘Suppliers competence’ (0.72; 0.73), ‘Employees’ (0.72; 0.71), ‘Development of measures’ (0.69; 0.73), ‘Exchange with the retail’ (0.68; 0.72), ‘Distribution planning’ (0.66; 0.71), ‘Business strategy’ (0.68; 0.68), and ‘Business to business exchange’ (0.68; 0.68).

The last cluster includes the areas in which the recommendations are considered the least effective and the hardest to implement compared to the other clusters. The third cluster includes five sub-areas: ‘Consumer needs’ (0.64; 0.64), ‘Consumer information’ (0.58; 0.63), ‘Good cooperation with suppliers’ (0.60; 0.60), ‘Joint activities’ (0.56; 0.57), and ‘Continuous inspection’ (0.45; 0.48).

To compare the assessment of the recommendations from the individual sub-sectors, the mean values obtained from effectiveness and feasibility were calculated. The deviations of the values from the general average of the status quo are shown in Figure 5. For a better overview, only deviations with more than 0.05 points are shown. Figure 5 shows a bigger difference at the end of the value chain. Recommendations at the end of the value chain were rated as more effective and feasible by convenience food companies than by the average. In contrast, the sub-sector dairy products and eggs assessed the recommendations at the end of the value chain differently. In particular, the exchange (−0.18) and joint activities (−0.11) are seen to be less effective and less feasible. Just as the dairy sector, members of the sub-sector bakery and farinaceous products see less relevance in communication with customers (−0.10). Further deviations are found at the beginning and in the middle of the value chain. The dairy sector associates more importance to supplier competence (+0.13) and waste collection (+0.11). Further contrasts between the dairy sector and convenience food sector can be found in employees and product and packaging. The convenience food sector ascribes more importance to these two areas than the dairy sector.

To identify the ‘low-hanging fruits’, the mean value of effectiveness and feasibility was calculated for each recommendation. Subsequently, the mean values were ranked (see

Table 4. The ‘low hanging fruits’ in terms of their effectiveness and feasibility.

ID	Recommendations	Sub-Areas	Average		Bakery and Farinaceous Products		Dairy Products and Eggs		Convenience Food
			EF *	Rank	EF *	Rank	EF *	Rank	EF *	Rank
29	Ensure product quality	Product and packaging	0.854	(1)	0.850	(3)	0.792	(16)	0.906	(3)
7	Order the appropriate quantities	Conditions of purchase	0.842	(2)	0.852	(2)	0.768	(24)	0.775	(24)
9	Order a quality level appropriate to a company’s own needs	Raw material requirements	0.828	(3)	0.844	(4)	0.821	(14)	0.725	(32)
33	Ensure coordinated transport	Waste collection	0.827	(4)	0.808	(11)	0.929	(3)	0.844	(11)
35	Chose the best way of utilization	Utilization of remaining materials	0.826	(5)	0.861	(1)	0.875	(7)	0.813	(15)
30	Design packaging	Product and packaging	0.811	(6)	0.839	(6)	0.688	(32)	0.958	(1)
24	Proper handling of raw materials	Raw materials	0.804	(7)	0.818	(10)	0.896	(4)	0.813	(14)
28	Develop prevention strategies	Process	0.800	(8)	0.758	(20)	0.688	(33)	0.958	(2)
15	Ensure food safety	Business goals	0.797	(9)	0.833	(7)	0.875	(6)	0.844	(12)
27	Establish a food loss rate and develop batch sizes	Process	0.796	(10)	0.767	(18)	0.800	(15)	0.875	(5)
32	Separate remaining materials	Waste collection	0.794	(11)	0.808	(12)	0.857	(10)	0.775	(21)
10	Order raw material in appropriate product packaging	Raw material requirements	0.792	(13)	0.842	(5)	0.821	(13)	0.750	(27)
34	Use the food waste hierarchy	Utilization of remaining materials	0.792	(12)	0.792	(13)	0.875	(8)	0.813	(16)
31	Collect and store remaining materials	Waste collection	0.785	(15)	0.780	(15)	0.958	(1)	0.850	(10)
26	Plan the processing	Process	0.785	(14)	0.688	(37)	0.896	(5)	0.857	(9)
23	Analyze raw materials	Raw materials	0.784	(16)	0.833	(8)	0.875	(9)	0.703	(37)
8	Analyze raw material samples	Conditions of purchase	0.773	(17)	0.789	(14)	0.786	(20)	0.775	(23)
38	Assess the remaining materials	Analysis of remaining materials	0.772	(18)	0.825	(9)	0.781	(22)	0.725	(33)
3	Ensure proper storage and transport conditions	Suppliers competence	0.771	(19)	0.705	(28)	0.958	(2)	0.796	(17)
25	Ensure proper storage and transport conditions	Process	0.770	(20)	0.664	(45)	0.792	(17)	0.859	(8)
47	Ensure proper transport conditions	Distribution planning	0.753	(21)	0.693	(35)	0.708	(28)	0.906	(4)
37	Analyze the waste sources	Analysis of remaining materials	0.752	(22)	0.767	(19)	0.703	(29)	0.750	(28)

* EF = mean value obtained from effectiveness and feasibility, 0 (very low)—1 (very high).

). Table 4 presents the recommendations with their identifier for Appendix A, sub-areas, the rating with ranking, and the rating in the sub-sectors. In general, 22 of the 53 recommendations were rated higher than 0.75 (‘mostly implemented’). A rating higher than 0.75 was assigned to 20 recommendations in the bakery sub-sector, 25 in the dairy sub-sector, and 31 in the convenience food sub-sector.

Overall, the three top-rated recommendations are ‘Ensure product quality’ (average rank: 1), ‘Order the appropriate quantities’ (2), and ‘Order a quality level appropriate to a company’s own needs’ (3). The assessment of the first two recommendations is agreed by the bakery sub-sector. However, the recommendation ‘Choose the best way of utilization’ (5) is the highest rated by bakeries. The top-rated recommendations are very different in the other sub-sectors. ‘Design packaging’ (6) ranks 32nd in the dairy products, yet first in the convenience food sub-sector. Just as the recommendation ‘Develop prevention strategies’ (8), it has a ranking between rank 2 and 33. The ‘low-hanging fruits’ by the dairy products sub-sector are ‘Collect and store remaining materials’ (15), ‘Ensure proper storage and transport conditions’ (19), and ‘Ensure coordinated transport’ (4). In the convenience food sub-sector, the top-rated recommendations are ‘Design packaging’ (6), ‘Develop prevention strategies’ (8), and ‘Ensure product quality’ (1).

The least effective and feasible recommendation is ‘Conduct continuous inspections’ (53), which also applies to the bakery and dairy sub-sector. The recommendation ‘Evaluate measures’ (37) is rated as least effective and least feasible by the convenience food sub-sector.

3.4. Benefits and Barriers for Implementation of Recommendations

This section answers RQ (iii) as well as shows the benefits and barriers that exist regarding the implementation of recommendations. For this purpose, companies mentioned the benefits and barriers to implementing the recommendations of good practice against food waste that they anticipate (see

Table 5. Benefits of good practice against food waste.

Benefits	Total (n = 110)	%
Conservation of resources	34	30.9
Cost savings	23	20.9
Company-specific measures	11	10.0
Sensitization	9	8.2
Systematic and holistic approach	6	5.5
More added value and higher profitability	6	5.5
Source of inspiration and decision support	5	4.5
Take on ethical responsibility	5	4.5
Process optimization	5	4.5
Collaboration	3	2.7
Image improvement	2	1.8
Fulfillment of the sustainability strategy	1	0.9

and

Table 6. Barriers to good practice against food waste.

Barriers	Total (n = 110)	%
Customer requirements and acceptance	14	12.7
Cost and time intensive	14	12.7
Legal requirements	12	10.9
Personnel costs	10	9.1
Difficult implementation in day-to-day business	9	8.2
Employee acceptance and activation	8	7.3
Other priorities	6	5.5
Complexity of products and processes	6	5.5
Determination of responsibility	4	3.6
No knowledge about downstream and upstream supply chains	4	3.6
Supplier acceptance	3	2.7
Appropriate packaging	3	2.7
Sales fluctuations	3	2.7
Topic has not much attention	3	2.7
Others	11	10.0

). Table 5 shows the 12 benefits that were classified from the companies’ responses. Two benefits accounted for more than 50% of the responses: ‘conservation of resources’ (30.9%) and ‘cost savings’ (20.9%). Conservation of resources was either mentioned in general or differentiated into resource conservation through less waste, less energy, or fewer raw materials. The cost savings were divided into general cost savings and cost savings due to lower disposal costs.

In addition, companies mentioned difficulties in implementing a holistic good practices. Twenty-two barriers were classified from the companies’ responses (see Table 6). Five barriers accounted for more than 50% of the responses: ‘Customer requirements and acceptance’ (12.7%), ‘Cost and time intensive’ (12.7%), ‘Legal requirements’ (10.9%), ‘Personnel costs’ (9.1%), and ‘Difficult implementation in day-to-day business’ (8.2%).

The companies described the customer requirements and acceptance as very strict and not very flexible. The difficult implementation in day-to-day business was justified by the low predictability and controllability. Furthermore, companies pointed out that food safety is more important than food waste prevention and that food waste cannot always be avoided, nor should food waste prevention take precedence over productivity, according to one company. In any case, the waste is kept as low as possible for economic considerations, but other problems are far more significant, another company commented.

4. Discussion

In total, 19 of the 53 recommendations were identified with an average of ‘mostly’ implemented. These recommendations were implemented to the degree that they can be called established recommendations or basic recommendations. Among the top basic recommendations are ‘Ensure product quality’, ‘Ensure coordinated transport’, and ‘Train employees’, a finding which addressed RQ (i). To answer the RQ (ii), companies assessed each recommendation and 22 of the 53 recommendations received a rating above 0.75 (‘mostly implemented’). Due to the high effectiveness and easy implementation attributed to them, these recommendations can be described as ‘low-hanging fruits’. The top three ‘low-hanging fruits’ are ‘Ensure product quality’, ‘Order the appropriate quantities’, and ‘Order a quality level appropriate to a company’s own needs’. ‘Conservation of resources’ (30.9%) and ‘Cost saving’ (20.9%) were mentioned by companies as the greatest benefits of implementing the recommendations. However, ‘Customer requirements and acceptance’, ‘Cost and time intensive’, ‘Legal requirements’, and ‘Personnel costs’ were cited as barriers to implementing the recommendations, a finding which addressed RQ (iii).

It was found that the recommendations that were rated well were also implemented most frequently. Moreover, non-implemented measures were generally rated as less effective than implemented measures. This could mean that companies already select their measures according to their effectiveness and feasibility and do not implement less suitable measures at all, or that they simply rate the measures already implemented better than other measures.

Even though the companies in the previous study [13] emphasize the importance of collaboration and communication with suppliers and customers, the actual implementation of the recommendations at the beginning and end of the chain is partially or sporadically implemented or the recommendations are described as not applicable. In particular, communication with downstream stakeholders and customers is limited. In contrast to the previous study [13], Richter and Bodelmann [7] can now be confirmed in that there is no (or only partially) customer communication regarding food waste prevention efforts, although it would be an important and essential task for the companies [7,23,24]. These recommendations were also rated as less effective and more difficult to implement. The highest effectiveness is still seen within the company itself. This unbalanced relationship between internal measures and measures at the boundaries of the supply chain was already addressed in the previous study [13]. It was found that the scope of responsibility decreases at the boundaries of the supply chain. This study confirms this relationship one more time. Why these limits exist should be clarified. This may be due to the difficulty of implementing measures, their low effectiveness, or the company’s limited possibilities for exerting influence. However, there is a responsibility for companies across the value chain, even beyond their own company [25]. Therefore, it should be critically questioned whether cross-border cooperation efforts are worthwhile. Companies may not be aware of any suitable measures or there may be too few good examples. Therefore, effective measures should be promoted more in the companies to increase the know-how. According to Thorsen et al. [24], communication and collaboration are critical success factors in reducing food waste. However, the companies are aware of their deficiencies, as the self-assessment after completing the questionnaire shows. Compared to the first self-assessment, fewer companies rated their situation as excellent and more rated their situation as rather average. Therefore, the recommendations that received less attention should also be subject to closer analysis.

The largest differences in the implementation of recommendations were between the bakery and farinaceous products, dairy products and eggs, and convenience food sub-sectors. The biggest differences between the sectors were at the end of the value chain. Only the convenience food sector saw more potential than average in the areas of distribution planning, consumer information and needs, joint activities, and continuous inspection of waste management companies. This could be because convenience food companies are rather brand companies that have already established a general communication with customers. Other differences could possibly be due to sector-specific processes and products. For example, the fact that the dairy sector attributes greater potential to supplier competence than other sectors could be due to milk, as a mono raw material, and the large number of suppliers. In conclusion, each sub-sector has its own product-specific challenges, such as the bakery sector, which must deal with ultra-fresh products. In this way, the different sub-sectors could learn from each other and develop sector-specific methods and metrics, as Richter and Bodelmann [7] require.

For practical application, it is recommended to implement the ‘low hanging fruits’ first, according to the proposal to prioritize measures with higher feasibility and a higher impact [26]. Basic recommendations that are already widely used could serve as an initial benchmark. In the next step, companies should operationalize the recommendations for themselves and collect metrics for assessment. For this purpose, it may be worthwhile to exchange information with other companies about recommendations that have been implemented well; it can be assumed that many practical measures and measurable indicators already exist here. However, a prioritization of recommendations does not mean that other recommendations should no longer be included in the discussion. To be successful, management must formulate a strategy and inspire its own employees according to Strotmann et al. [25]. Therefore, all employees should be involved in the processes, and communication between departments should be strengthened [25]. Borens et al. [27] notes that quantifying food loss is not yet an exact science because methods are still under discussion. This shows that an exchange is becoming more and more indispensable. Dealing with food waste is a decisive success factor in the fight against rising energy and resource costs [28,29] and is not a matter for a single company [25]. Furthermore, according to the companies, it is expected that the prevention of food waste will become more important due to the war in Ukraine.

This study is limited by the largest number and complexity of the recommendations queried. The questionnaire had to be answered in part by estimates of the employees. They could only fill out the questionnaire to the best of their knowledge and conscience. Therefore, the number of recommendations was a great challenge for the employees. Some participants mentioned that they could not complete the questionnaire on their own because the questionnaire would cover several departments in the whole company. This shows that food waste is a topic that concerns the whole company and cannot be dealt with by single departments. In addition, the results do not represent the whole food processing industry. Due to the low participation of other sub-sectors, no conclusions could be drawn about them. Nevertheless, the results can be used as initial benchmarks to classify and develop one’s own company.

Future research should focus on the underrepresented recommendations at the boundaries of the value chain to the supplier and to the customer to identify either appropriate measures or positive examples. Other uses of the recommendations could include supplier evaluation or labeling of foods produced with good practices against food loss and waste, according to Jespen et al. [17].

5. Conclusions

In this study, 82 food processing companies were surveyed to identify basic recommendations and ‘low-hanging fruits’ against food waste. The results provide an overview of the status quo of the implementation of recommendations against food waste in the food processing industry and offer other companies an easy entry point into the food waste issue. The participating companies evaluated 53 recommendations against food waste via an online questionnaire. The companies assessed the degree to which the recommendations had been implemented in their company and rated them in terms of their effectiveness and feasibility.

As result, 19 of 53 recommendations were classified as basic recommendations and 22 of the 53 recommendations were classified as ‘low-hanging fruits’. Overall, the top basic recommendations are ‘Ensure product quality’, ‘Ensure coordinated transport’, and ‘Train employees’. The companies rated the already implemented recommendations as more effective and easier to implement. Although, there are some differences between the sub-sectors of the food industry. For a better overview, the recommendations were divided into areas along the process chain. The best implemented areas against food waste in companies are purchasing conditions, raw material requirements, company goals, processes, products and packaging, waste collection, and residual recycling. The most underrepresented areas are continuous inspection, joint activities, good cooperation with suppliers, and consumer information. This shows that the scope of responsibility decreases at the borders of the supply chain. However, these areas were also assessed as not applicable by the companies. In conclusion, this study shows that the strengths of the companies are in their internal processes.