Next Article in Journal
Spatial Spillover Effects of Digital Finance on Corporate ESG Performance
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Atmospheric Circulation in Favouring Forest Fires in the Extreme Southern Portugal
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Two Decades of Advancements in Cold Supply Chain Logistics for Reducing Food Waste: A Review with Focus on the Meat Industry

School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 6986; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166986
Submission received: 12 July 2024 / Revised: 5 August 2024 / Accepted: 12 August 2024 / Published: 15 August 2024

Abstract

:
The current study focuses on the critical role of efficient cold supply chain logistics (CSCL) within the beef meat supply chain (SC), ensuring the timely delivery of premium products. Despite its significance, substantial food loss and waste (FLW) in CSCL pose multifaceted challenges across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. This comprehensive literature review aims to identify state-of-the-art CSCL for reducing food waste, key research themes, and their potential roles in red meat waste reduction, as well as identify future research directions. It explores four pivotal themes—management, sustainability, network design (ND), and new information technologies (IT)—each contributing uniquely to mitigating FLW. A review of papers published in the last two decades reveals management as the predominant theme, followed by sustainability, ND, and IT. The study underscores the interconnectedness of these themes and highlights gaps in current research, particularly the need for multi-objective optimisation models. These models should integrate uncertainties, sustainability dimensions, and technological advancements, while aligning strategic, tactical, and operational decisions to enhance CSCL sustainability and reduce FLW in the beef meat industry. This review informs stakeholders—researchers, policymakers, practitioners, the government, and the public—about emerging trends and opportunities in addressing food waste, thereby fostering more efficient and sustainable CSCL practices.

1. Introduction

Transporting food relies heavily on cold supply chain logistics (CSCL) to ensure timely delivery while preserving quality [1,2]. Unlike durable goods, food is perishable and susceptible to quality deterioration due to environmental factors. In Australia, the food cold chain handled 23 million tons, valued at AUD 42 billion in 2018 [3]. Future projections anticipate a substantial increase in food production and transportation over the next two decades. Globally, the meat industry holds significant value, estimated at USD 250 billion [4,5], with Australia ranking among the top meat producers and exporters [6,7]. Despite ranking third in production volume, the meat industry leads in production value (Figure 1a,b), contributing 46.09% of total food production value and playing a crucial role in the country’s economy [3,6]. Furthermore, beef dominates both in volume and value among Australian meat products. Nevertheless, it also has the third place in terms of loss and waste of food products (Figure 1c).
Figure 1a–c depict the shares of production volumes, production values, and FLW in CSCL for various foodstuffs reliant on CSCL year-round. Figure 1a clearly shows that meat ranks first in terms of production quantity percentage among all food products. Figure 1b indicates that the production cost per unit (value) is highest for meat compared to other products, suggesting that the wastage of one unit of meat results in a significantly greater monetary loss compared to other food items. Lastly, Figure 1c demonstrates that meat, after fruits and vegetables combined, is wasted more than any other food product across CSCL systems. By connecting these aspects and noting that beef constitutes the largest portion (48.83%) of the main types of meat, including beef, sheep, poultry, and pork [3], it becomes clear that beef wastage is a critical issue compared to other foods, emphasising the need for comprehensive review studies to reduce CSCL beef loss and waste.
The beef meat industry in Australia holds significant value, but approximately 30% of food waste occurs within CSCL during transportation [8]. Globally, food loss and waste (FLW) account for one-third of total food production annually, prompting the Australian government to implement the National Food Waste Strategy aiming to halve food waste by 2030 [9,10]. Addressing FLW is crucial due to the rising global population and food trade demand, offering social, financial, and environmental benefits [11,12]. Reducing FLW translates to increased profits for logistics companies and improved customer satisfaction, public health, and equity [13,14,15,16,17]. Moreover, it alleviates environmental burdens by conserving resources such as water, land, and energy, thereby reducing emissions [18,19]. While various studies explore FLW in food supply chains (FSCs), few focus specifically on CSCL for the meat industry and logistics perspective, indicating a need for more comprehensive research [9,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Recent studies have diversified topics concerning FLW, emphasising the necessity of comprehensive literature examination to understand its operational aspects [29,30,31,32].
Despite extensive research, a comprehensive analysis of sustainable cold chain logistics for the beef meat industry is lacking. While some logistics improvements have been suggested, there is a notable oversight in integrating management, network design (ND), information technology (IT), and sustainability. The valuable nature of beef meat, combined with significant associated loss and waste, has intensified pressure on meat CSCL to address inefficiencies. This highlights the need to explore state-of-the-art CSCL for the beef industry to mitigate FLW. Addressing this gap will assist decision-makers in enhancing the sustainability of beef CSCL, reducing FLW, and maintaining industry competitiveness.

Objective and Scope of Study

This study aims to identify state-of-the-art CSCL for reducing food waste, key research themes, and their potential roles in red meat waste reduction, as well as identify future research directions. This study is concerned with the food loss and waste issue across cold chain logistics in the beef industry. The food products in this context are beef and beef products, which are considered “food products” and align with the goal of reducing “food loss and waste” in the beef industry. Specifically, the study investigates the following research question and corresponding objectives:
  • What is the current state of the art on beef CSCL in terms of management, sustainability, network design, and the use of information technologies for red meat waste reduction?
The study’s objective is defined as follows to answer the research question:
  • To provide an overview of the current state of the art and to identify the gaps and contemporary challenges to red meat waste reduction;
  • To identify key research themes and their potential role and associated elements in mitigating red meat waste reduction, especially across the beef CSCL systems;
  • To pinpoint the directions in each theme that warrant further research advancement.
The study analyses two decades of research on beef and red meat CSCL, reviewing 300 academic articles in management, sustainability, ND, and IT. The study presents a thorough overview of contemporary literature on reducing FLW in beef CSCL and identifies promising research areas. It also offers practical insights into current practices for reducing FLW and the challenges faced in making meat CSCL systems more sustainable. The research advocates for an integrated approach involving various stakeholders to improve sustainability across the entire supply chain. These respond to the literature’s call for an integrated approach spanning the entire SC and involving various stakeholders [33].
Section 2 outlines the methodology. Section 3 comprises six parts. The first part, Section 3.1, presents evolution of the literature and provides descriptive results. The second part, Section 3.2, introduces the identified themes and subjects. In Section 3.3, Section 3.4, Section 3.5 and Section 3.6, the study examines and categorises articles based on these four identified themes. Section 4 provides an in-depth discussion of the research themes and explores future research avenues. Section 5 offers concluding remarks and practical implications, and it marks the research limitations.

2. Materials and Methods

The study’s methodology, presented in Figure 2, involves three phases. The first phase, known as the research strategy phase, outlines our approach for identifying relevant research from databases. This was accomplished through the definition of five key elements. The first element involved defining research questions and objectives, which necessitated an initial literature review to craft meaningful research questions (RQs) and objectives (ROs), ensuring the research’s significance by addressing existing gaps. The second element involved defining the research construct, which adopted a structured literature review approach (SLR). Although similar to a systematic literature review, this approach does not strictly follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Nevertheless, the SLR method aims to organise and present existing literature in a structured way and is recommended in high-quality studies. Overall, the adopted methodology aligns with recommendations from scholars [34,35]. The third key element involved identifying keywords and research strings. This was accomplished by reviewing the keywords from relevant studies, consulting with librarians, utilising Boolean operators to construct research strings—combinations of keywords and testing the capability of strings in identifying studies focused on reducing FLW in CSCL for the beef meat industry. The fourth element involved deciding which databases needed to be searched. While Scopus is commonly used as the sole source in similar studies, we chose to cross-check with Web of Science and Google Scholar to ensure the comprehensiveness of our database search. The last key element in this phase involved defining the appropriate timeframe. After an initial search with the defined research stream in Scopus without applying timeframe limits and analysing the results obtained, the research timeframe was narrowed to two decades starting from 2003. The decision was made due to a significant increase in publications post-2003.
The second phase, the conducting phase, focused on material collection through the literature retrieval and selection process. This included five critical steps in the research process aimed at gathering and evaluating relevant information for the study. The first step involved comprehensive database retrieval. This was accomplished through searching relevant databases, using appropriate keywords and search strings (combinations of keywords using Boolean operators), and employing the snowballing strategy. The second step involved literature selection, which means evaluating and selecting the most pertinent studies. This required assessing the relevance and quality of the retrieved literature based on criteria such as the study’s focus, methodology, and findings by assessing titles, keywords, and abstracts. The third step focused on document refinement. This involved selecting and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, including the following: Year: 2003 to 2023; Subject area: engineering, energy, business, management, computer, decision science, economy, mathematics; Document type: article; Language: English; Keywords: all; Source type: journal; Country: all; Access: all. The fourth step, duplication filtering, involved identifying and removing duplicate entries from search results. This was accomplished by cross-checking identified materials from different databases and eliminating repetitive documents. The last step in this phase, fully reading these identified materials, ensured their usefulness and alignment with our research objectives, facilitating the answering of the research questions and objectives.
The final phase, the reporting phase, consisted of three sub-processes: (1) descriptive data analysis of the data obtained from the previous phase, (2) identification of the main research themes, and (3) an in-depth discussion on identified themes. Descriptive data analysis aimed at identifying and summarising the main patterns and trends in the data as presented in Section 3.2 and providing a clear overview of studies through identifying the researchers, the timing of the research, and the aimed and main findings obtained from conducting the Ws analysis (Who, When, What). This information is reflected in Appendix A tables. As presented in Figure 2, the first sub-process of this phase addresses the RO1. The second sub-process, identifying main research themes, involved Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis (VKCA) and content analysis of extracted materials, including categorising elements of the content, identifying patterns, themes, and relationships, and presenting the findings in a structured manner. This study utilised VOS software (v1.6.19) for visual presentations of the themes’ chronological evolution, trends, and density. This information was used to identify the potential role of each theme and its associated elements in beef and red meat waste reduction across the CSCL systems, addressing RO2. The final sub-process in the reporting phase aimed to provide a comprehensive discussion by integrating information from all previous stages to identify the current state of the art on beef CSCL in terms of management, sustainability, network design, and the use of information technologies for beef and red meat waste reduction. Additionally, it aimed to identify gaps, suggest future directions, and develop a conceptual framework that illustrates the main themes, their roles in reducing FLW in CSCL for the beef meat industry, and their interdependencies, addressing the RQ and RO3. These aspects, along with the research limitations reflected in the study conclusion, ensure the comprehensiveness of this study and its contribution to understanding the state of the art. Subsequent subsections elaborate on methodology details in Phases 2 and 3, which are essential for achieving research objectives.

2.1. Literature Retrieval and Selection

To reach the research objectives, a comprehensive literature review of relevant investigations in reducing FLW across CSCL for beef meat was undertaken. A comprehensive search strategy encompassing both general Internet and targeted database search was implemented for the review. Boolean searches of databases were conducted to obtain literature from those electronic databases (Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar). The keywords used for the search were “food loss*”, “food wast* “, “wast* of food”, “cold chain*”, “cold chain logistics”, “supply chain*”, “cold-chain logistics”, “food cold chains”, “cold chain transport*”, “refrigerated transport*”, “supply-chain*”, “logistic*”, “meat*”, “beef meat” in the available titles, abstracts, or keywords. There was no restriction on the geographical places or year of relevant literature selected. Only publications in English were considered in this review as they are widely accessible to the researchers. The search resulted in a total of 300 papers, which were taken into consideration in the present research. The selection of a paper for review was based on whether the paper developed or examined assessments/methods with respect to the four main identified themes, including management, sustainability, ND, and IT to minimise FLW.

2.2. Extracting the Research Themes

Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis (VKCA) is a method used to delineate research themes and visualise outcomes, as showcased by Ali and Golgeci in 2019 [36]. They highlighted its objectivity and algorithmic nature in identifying key phrases, forming thematic clusters, and guiding future research directions. The current study, conducted in 2023, employed VKCA through [37]. Figure 3 depicts the outcomes of conducting our author-generated keywords analysis, presenting the keywords with the highest frequency in the selected articles. The network of keywords formed clusters based on a threshold of at least five occurrences, represented by four colours denoting primary research themes: yellow for management, green for IT, red for ND, and purple for sustainability. The yellow area includes keywords such as SC management, quality control, and performance. The green area includes the Internet of Things, traceability system, transparency, and blockchain. The red area includes vehicle routing, location, costs, and optimisation. Finally, the purple area contains keywords such as environmental impact, sustainability, and greenhouse gases. These themes align with management, IT, ND, and sustainability, validating their relevance and importance while studies aim to deal with complex issues in CSCL systems like FLW reduction. Despite the emergence of four distinct research themes, their common boundaries are evident. In Figure 3, blue dots, scattered across theme boundaries, suggest partial interrelatedness and interaction. For example, the appearance of Efficiency, one of the blue dots, in the common boundaries of themes indicates it is a linkage point of themes and that each of them mutually affects and is being affected via efficiency. Figure 4 illustrates the chronological emergence of themes from 2016 to 2023 (the most recent trends), with the Management theme (dark blue) being the earliest and transitioning to Sustainability, information technology, and optimisation (yellow). Notably, blockchain (light yellow) emerges as a dominant micro-scale interest among new technologies. Figure 5 depicts study density per theme, showing management as the most studied, followed by ND optimisation, sustainability, and information technology, indicating the interest and focus levels of publications. Additionally, the interactions between themes underscore their interconnectedness, emphasising the complexity of research themes and the significance of considering their trade-offs and simultaneous effects.

3. Results

3.1. The Literature Review Identified Themes and Subjects

As described in Section 2.2, extracting the research themes, this study used the VKCA method to delineate and visualise research themes, as presented in Figure 3. In this process, the keywords with the highest frequency in the selected articles were extracted. The network of keywords formed clusters, represented by four colours, denoting the primary research themes. Their frequency and content aligned with management, sustainability, ND, and IT.
The literature review was organised into four sections aligned with the themes identified in the current research to address the diverse subjects identified. Figure 6 depicts these themes and their corresponding subjects. Initially exploring management, the subsequent sections delve into sustainability, ND, and IT applications, providing insights into their effectiveness in reducing FLW and enhancing sustainability performance in the CSCL for food and meat products. Table A1, Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4 in Appendix A show the overview of the literature on the themes of management, sustainability, ND and IT, respectively. In the following subsections, we describe the key findings related to these four themes.

3.2. The Literature’s Evolution and Descriptive Results

This section outlines the evolution of literature and a descriptive analysis of the publication distribution for four research themes over 32 years (1990–2022). However, the focus of this study lies in the last 20 years (2003–2023, Phase 2), reflecting significant advancements during this period. Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 illustrate yearly article counts, annual publication growth, and theme trends, offering insight into the temporal evolution of research themes.
The analysis revealed three distinct periods in annual article distribution. Initially (1990–2004), research interest was low, averaging nearly seven articles yearly. The second phase (2005–2015) witnessed growth, with an annual mean of 33 articles. While management, sustainability, and ND garnered similar attention, interest in information technologies lagged. However, interest spiked post-2015, indicating it as the next emerging theme, likely surpassing others in the coming decades. The third and most prolific period began in 2016, averaging 80 articles yearly, peaking in 2022. These trends underscore the importance of the given themes and the growing demand within the food and meat CSCL industry for innovative solutions to enhance efficiency and tackle FLW.

3.3. Management

This section reviews and details the management theme and its key associated subjects. Section 3.4, Section 3.5 and Section 3.6 follow the same logical sequence, aligned with the overview of themes and key subjects presented in Figure 6. This overview of themes and corresponding subjects is based on the analysis of keywords and the VKCA method discussed in Section 2.2 and Section 3.1.

3.3.1. Logistics Management and Chronological Evolution

Logistics Management (LM) has evolved significantly in the last two decades, initially focusing on cost minimisation and system responsiveness [38,39]. Consumer demand for food quality has driven the need for tailored approaches in Food Logistics Management (FLM), addressing concerns like food safety and perishability [40,41]. This shift broadened LM objectives to include food quality and waste reduction [42,43,44,45]. Increasingly, transparency and traceability are prioritised in FSCL, aligning with rising sustainability awareness and customer demand for eco-conscious practices [46,47]. This evolution toward sustainable FLM (SFLM) aims to address economic, social, and environmental impacts while enhancing product excellence and reducing FLW [48]. In this context, new information technologies are pivotal, as studies show their integration enhances LM efficiency and is influenced by management approaches, guiding future research directions.

3.3.2. Management and Regulations

One of the key aspects of the management theme refers to efforts to reduce FLW, which are centred on legislations, regulations, and industry practices within FCSCL. Heightened consumer awareness of food quality and safety [49] has spurred global legislative actions, such as the European Parliament Regulation (2002), FSMA in the US (2011), and regulatory measures in India (2017) and Canada (2019) [50]. Industry compliance with these standards not only meets consumer demands for quality but also reduces FLW in CSCL and meat SCs [41,51,52]. However, concerns persist regarding enforcement effectiveness and the lack of industry norms, especially in developing countries [41,53,54]. Addressing gaps in traceability implementation, training levels, and safety guidelines is crucial [55,56,57,58]. Future research should focus on incorporating food quality into operational practices and decision-making processes to optimise FSCs and logistics systems. Notably, few studies, such as [59,60,61], have integrated food quality with cost management, stockout prevention, and FLW reduction, highlighting the need for further exploration in this area.

3.3.3. Management and Collaboration

Collaboration among stakeholders not only reduces logistics costs and emissions but also aids in minimising FLW [62]. Studies emphasise the importance of enhanced collaboration for data accuracy and improved coordination to address FLW challenges [30,42,63,64,65]. Wang (2016) [66] notes collaborative resource sharing reduces operational expenses in CSCLs. Strategic collaboration between SC partners optimises delivery times. Fostering cooperation and consensus among stakeholders enhances equipment utilisation [67]. Stakeholder coordination is crucial for sustainability within food SCs [68,69]. Government collaboration is highlighted by Weng et al. (2015) to harmonise industrial structures [67]. Game theory is often used to address cooperation challenges in FLW reduction, emphasising inter-organisational relationship improvements, motivational involvement, data exchanges, and technology sharing [30]. It typically treats the FLW level as a factor or a limitation [70,71], for instance. Understanding these linkages aids in prospect research for effective FLW reduction strategies.

3.3.4. Management and Costs

Several studies highlight the significant costs faced by CSCLs [72,73,74]. These costs encompass investments in cold storage, refrigerated transportation [72,75], cooling infrastructure, including refrigerated vehicles and warehouses [76], refrigeration [66], and information technology [73,74]. Effectively addressing FLW relies heavily on investing in facility modifications within SCs and logistics systems, particularly in emerging economies. Strategies to minimise associated costs for necessary facility adjustments, coupled with collaboration among peers and stakeholders, are essential [77]. Reducing overall logistics expenses can offset facility costs, allowing for quality enhancement and FLW reduction. Vehicle routing optimisation is a key approach, lowering transportation and energy costs while minimising FLW through reduced travel times [14,78,79,80]. Management intertwines with ND and optimisation, while concepts like Freight Villages foster horizontal collaboration, utilising shared logistics infrastructure for sustainability benefits [81,82,83]. Future studies should develop models capable of concurrently analysing these multi-dimensional trade-offs.

3.3.5. Management and Inventory

Improper inventory management increases microbial hazards, foodborne illnesses, and FLW [84,85]. Inadequate temperature and hygiene control accelerate perishable product deterioration, often falling below acceptable quality standards [85]. Temperature fluctuations during transportation and storage worsen this [48,63], while CSCL ruptures harm food quality and increase losses [52,86]. Overstocking exacerbates FLW due to inaccurate demand predictions and poor coordination [85,87], stemming from imprecise predictions regarding demand, inadequate coordination, and a deficit in information sharing across stages. These factors, coupled with concerns for food quality and safety, amplify FLW across CSCL, directly and indirectly affecting customer satisfaction [88]. Various management measures aim to reduce FLW in inventory. The first-expired-first-out (FEFO) approach aligns product shelf life with transportation time to minimise waste [52,89]. FIFO ensures the earliest received products are sold first based on storage time, while least shelf life, first out (LSFO) prioritises products with minimum shelf life for sale, mitigating quality fluctuations during delivery [52]. Dynamic first-expired-first-out (FEFO) allows flexible delivery allocations based on shelf-life deviations, emphasising prioritisation of products with the least remaining shelf life [89,90]. Wireless sensor nodes enable shelf-life strategies, with programs enhancing information sharing to reduce FLW [91,92]. The effect evaluation for such vertical information exchange shows that based on an improved circulation of information, the amounts of FLW could be largely reduced [92,93]. Despite progress, the connection between shelf life and SC structure needs more research attention [88,89]. Nevertheless, the connection between shelf life and SC structure requires further research attention, emphasising the importance of integrating shelf-life considerations into CSCL to further mitigate FLW.

3.3.6. Management and Decision-Making

The management of meat and food CSCL systems involves critical decision-making processes across various aspects, including supplier selection [94,95,96], facility location [97,98], transportation mode [99,100], routing [61,101,102], energy mode and consumption [103,104], capacity [95,105], quality [60,61,106], and packaging [107,108,109]. These decisions directly influence minimising FLW, maximising profitability, and enhancing sustainability, underscoring the need to explore drivers, impediments, and benchmarks for strategic, tactical, and operational planning and the performance metric in meat and food CSCL [56,110,111]. Addressing decision-making complexities requires Multi-Criteria Decision-Making techniques (MCDM) and Decision Support Systems (DSS) [95,112]. Methods like Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE), and Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) are prevalent [112,113,114]. Nevertheless, conventional MCDM approaches often struggle in dynamic environments, prompting the integration of fuzzy logic for effective problem-solving [112,115]. Hence, decision structures of the existing meat CSCL systems need to be re-examined through a sustainability lens and by developing models capable of considering the dynamics of these environments. Assessing their impacts on the performance is an imperative aspect of this analysis.

3.3.7. Management and Risks

While risks are inevitable in SCs, food SCs, due to perishability attributes, are more vulnerable to risks, amplifying FLW levels [116,117,118]. These risks typically fall into disruption and operational categories, stemming from human-made or natural disasters and day-to-day uncertainties [119]. Effective risk assessment and management are crucial for countering risks and negative impacts. They aid in tackling FLW by empowering enterprises to evaluate the repercussions of risk and waste reduction strategies, and they facilitate the screening of resilient food safety approaches [120], enhancing sustainability performance [121]. Contemporary literature delineates three streams in SC risk management. One advocates systematic risk mitigation to enhance global FSCs performance [122,123,124]. Another delves into SC architecture and planning [125,126,127,128], while the third focuses on new information technologies and artificial intelligence incorporation [125,129,130]. Nevertheless, these studies often overlook the intricate risks in meat CSCL and the role of risk assessment frameworks in optimising resource utilisation and reducing FLW. Addressing these gaps is crucial for future research to enhance the resilience and efficiency of meat CSCL, particularly in the beef industry.

3.3.8. Management and Waste Reduction

In food and meat CSCL management, waste management is pivotal, employing two primary approaches: Prevention and Reduction. Prevention involves averting FLW through CSCL, technological solutions, proper packing, and food surplus donation [52,109,131,132]. Reduction focuses on managing FLW post-occurrence, employing methods like composting, converting waste into animal feed or fuel (FW valorisation), or landfilling [109,133,134,135]. Contemporary literature presents mainly two streams of FLW studies. One stream, exemplified by studies [12,136,137], analyses socio-economic, demographic, and behavioural factors impacting FLW at the household and consumer level. Another stream addresses FLW sources in FSCs and strategies for prevention and reduction. Waste management in FCSCL intersects with inventory management, ND optimisation, and IT application. Gholami-Zanjani et al. (2021) [138] and Buisman et al. (2017) [87] applied discounting strategies based on the age of products and considered dynamic shelf life to reduce FLW at the retail level. Practices like first-expired-first-out in inventory management [52] and cost incorporation in procurement strategies [139] significantly lower FLW. Effective CSCL and time–temperature management are crucial across FSCs [140,141]. Research also underscores the role of information dissemination, awareness campaigns, and education programs in FW management [142,143,144,145]. Future studies should integrate these insights into models and strategies, focusing on optimising CSCL systems, especially within the beef meat industry.

3.3.9. Management and Information

The circulation of information at horizontal and vertical levels is pivotal in CSCL. Information technologies and digital tools enable planning, sharing, and synchronising inventory levels based on demand forecasts and real-time data [146], thereby enhancing inventory management accuracy and efficiency, consequently reducing FLW. Real-time cargo visibility technologies aid in locating and monitoring perishable product characteristics, facilitating the adoption of optimal intervention strategies like rerouting deliveries to minimise FLW in the distribution phase and to improve FCSCL performance [147]. Finally, information technology ensures the integrity of FCSCL by facilitating seamless information flow among stakeholders [148,149], significantly impacting food safety and security. These efforts reflect the interconnectedness of IT and management themes. The integration of information technologies improves the management of CSCL systems. As these systems have become more complex in recent years, they now involve more data-driven decisions. Conversely, in the management theme, adopting technologies is considered a strategic decision aligned with the SFLM approach, which enhances the efficiency and sustainability of CSCL systems [93]. Despite notable benefits, the adoption of information technologies in FCSCL lags [150]. Understanding the challenges faced by logistics professionals is crucial to boost their implementation, improve efficiency, and mitigate FLW.

3.3.10. Management and Cold Chain Deficiencies

The last identified subject in the management theme refers to FCSCL deficiencies impacting FLW. The literature review reveals several aspects involved in deficiencies in meat and food CSCL. We classified them into three groups. At a strategic level, some of the most common CSCL deficiencies include the lack of cold storage [151,152,153], processing facility [9,13], integration [154,155], cooperation [13,156], lack of proper regulation [154,157], standardisation [158], lack of funds [21], poor logistics ND [21,158], poor logistic infrastructure [152,153], high expenses and costs [154,159]. Tactical level deficiencies include improper handling [154,160], lack of modern methods in handling, processing, and packing phases [51,152], lack of proper temperature monitoring and traceability [161,162], lack of cold chain expertise [23,154,155]. Operational level deficiencies include the shortage of refrigerated trucks and vehicles [153,158], lack of equipment problems [163], poor road infrastructure [9,13], and lack of IT-skilled labourers [21,157].

3.4. Sustainability

The sustainability concept itself is not a new research area; however, enhancing sustainability in FSCs and CSCL is a pressing issue [32]. Incorporating the sustainability concept into meat CSCL can improve the CSCL sustainability performance by comparing and aligning the economic, social, and environmental objectives with sustainability dimensions [164,165]. Further, the sustainability concept ties closely with FLW reduction [166,167], meeting rising customer demands for the inclusion of sustainable practices [168]. The subsequent section delves into these interconnected dynamics.

3.4.1. Sustainability and Closed-Loop SCs (CLSCs)

CLSCs integrate forward and reverse logistics, enhancing waste product utilisation and mitigating CSCLs’ economic, social, and environmental impacts [169,170]. In this realm, some studies delved into specific domains of the FSCs; Ko and Evans (2007) [171] and Mosallanezhad et al. (2023) [172] model third-party logistics and sea food-driven CLSC networks. Accorsi et al. (2017) [173] present a traceability system for a dairy SC, enhancing competitiveness and efficiency through technology and monitoring. Alinezhad et al. (2022) [174] design a sustainability-driven CLSC network, optimising economic and environmental factors for sustainable management. Sgarbossa et al. (2017) [175] explore proactive sustainable strategies and practices for managing SFSCs, highlighting the importance of CLSC models for environmental responsibility. Zhang et al. (2022) [176] optimise food CLSCs with reusable transport items, reducing logistic expenses and carbon emissions. Bogataj et al. (2020) [125] focus on mitigating risks and income improvement through enhanced planning and control in meat SCs. In contrast, Amin’s (2020) [177], MahmoumGonbadi’s (2021) [178], and Tavana’s (2022) [179] studies provide a comprehensive review of CLSCs. Nevertheless, the CLSC domain lacks studies on the utilisation of FW in meat CSCLs, which can include the conversion of FW as valuable input for other chains. To fill this gap, developing comprehensive models is required that account for the products wasted or rejected by customers and the sustainability considerations in beef meat CSCL. Further, to leverage the benefits of CLSC, the implementation must be facile and inexpensive, leading to cost-effective, efficient, and sustainable systems.

3.4.2. Sustainability and Business Models

Sustainable business models play a crucial role in reducing FLW in CLSC systems. Conventional CSCL faces sustainability challenges, spurring a demand for improved models. The circular economy (CE) offers a solution, addressing sustainability issues in traditional SCs by enhancing resource efficiency [51,180]. Studies in this realm predominantly centre on applying a CLSC approach, emphasising the comprehensive utilisation of raw materials through reuse, waste reduction, recycling, and the second-time manufacturing processes [181]. In this approach, FW is recognised as a valuable resource viable for reuse and recycling, contributing to nutrient and energy valorisation [175] or as an ingredient for animal feed and natural fertilisers [182]. To promote CE principles in SFCSCL, addressing barriers [21,183] and critical factors [184] is crucial. Challenges unique to the beef meat and food industry, like difficulty in directly transforming end products back into raw materials [32], highlight the need for incorporating CE concepts into distribution planning.
Alternative food SC networks (AFSC) are also gaining momentum among SFCSCL studies, acknowledged for their unique traits like relocalisation, straight distribution, enhanced connectivity, and superior quality [185,186,187]. Short FSCs are frequently discussed in the literature [188,189,190,191], reflecting their prevalence. Wiskerke et al. (2007) [185] discussed technological and institutional forces shaping the structure of processes and practices, improving sustainability performance for a pork SC. Collison et al. (2007) [192] and De Bernardi (2018) [193] delved into challenges faced by AFSCs, particularly regarding fresh products, advocating for technology adoption, information sharing and digitalisation to enhance connectivity and sustainability in food logistics, reducing FLW and emissions. Despite their advantages, AFSCs present challenges due to their stochastic nature and weak links between production and consumption ends, complicating measurements of local food consumption. Further, import reliance contradicts AFSC’s goals of promoting local food systems. These issues create a notable literature gap in understanding how to model production and distribution processes in AFSC, particularly CSCL, for beef meat products.

3.4.3. Sustainability and Wastage Hotspots

Identifying and addressing wastage and unsustainability hotspots in FSCs is crucial for investigating their impact on FLW [194,195,196]. This entails assessing FSCL stages, methodologies, practices, technologies, and alternatives across the system [197]. Moreover, the utilisation of impact assessment is crucial in the process of making decisions based on sustainability considerations [198]. The literature introduces a range of impact assessment tools tailored to this objective. The most prominent and accepted approaches include Mass Flow Analysis (MFA) [199,200], exergy analysis [201], Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [202,203], economic input–output LCA [204], and water footprint assessment [205]. While the production stage often garners attention for environmental effects [195], the distribution stage and targeted markets (local, regional, international) require deeper exploration. In this realm, limited attention has been assigned to exploring the environmental effects of CSCL, particularly concerning FLW [157,206]. Some studies, like [51,207], conducted impact assessment regarding different FLW prevention and management interventions. Lipińska et al. (2019) [208] examined how enhancing logistics systems contributes to the enhanced sustainability performance of the FSC systems. Nevertheless, unlike economic performance, quantifying social and environmental performance remains challenging [209]. To comprehensively address meat and FCSCL impacts in the transportation and distribution phase, upcoming studies should integrate social, environmental, and financial factors for optimised logistics.

3.4.4. Sustainability and Packing

Sustainability efforts to reduce FLW also encompass packaging concerns, notably meat and transport packing, which contribute 15% of municipal solid waste and are on the rise [210]. While reusable packaging holds environmental promise [211], it practically requires additional logistical efforts such as collection, cleaning, and recycling [210,212]. This urges a need to scrutinise the effects brought about by these logistical processes [213]. Conversely, proper meat/food product packaging can decrease FLW in FCSCL [214,215]. Meat packaging acts as a protective barrier, preventing direct exposure to external elements, minimising secondary contamination risk, and maintaining meat quality by creating a confined environment and curbing decay [216]. Currently, three predominant packing methods aid in reducing FLW in CSCL systems. Active packaging employs substances to preserve meat quality and extend shelf life [217]. Intelligent packaging not only provides meat quality information but also integrates with technology for enhanced safety, quality, traceability, and decision support in FCSCL [218,219], minimising FLW [218,220]. Green packaging emphasises eco-friendliness and sustainability, using non-toxic, natural-driven components and degradable materials to minimise environmental impact while ensuring meat quality and boosting sales efficiency [221]. Despite the benefits, studies should focus on designing and optimising CSCL by incorporating packing and associated economic, social, and environmental sustainability considerations. Hence, the exploration of low-carbon CSCL stands out as a crucial avenue for future research.

3.4.5. Sustainability and Information Flow

Data sharing and accessibility can enhance sustainability performance and lead to FLW reduction [93,222]. Understanding the information flow and its determinants is essential for designing interventions to mitigate FLW and associated food security risks [223]. Two perspectives emerge in this context: one highlights the lack of comprehensive data on FLW in FSCs, hindering effective reduction strategies. This underscores the importance of obtaining data on FLW extent, origins, and implications across economic, social, and environmental scales [224,225]. The other perspective emphasises the need to comprehend dynamics within meat and food CSCL phases to reduce FLW effectively, necessitating evaluation of information across the entire system beyond individual stages. The rapid evolution of the Internet, information technologies, and electronic devices presents viable solutions for FLW mitigation, facilitating efficient information sharing and traceability throughout supply chain stages [146].
Kaipia et al. (2013) [93] demonstrated that improving information exchange and adjusting material flows reduces FLW. Rijpkema et al. (2014) [139] found that considering shelf-life information in order policies effectively decreases FLW. Kamble et al. (2019) [226] and Rejeb (2018) [227] showed that RFID technologies aid in FLW reduction through better inventory management. Jo et al. (2022) [146] proposed a blockchain-based dataset to tackle FLW in meat SCs. Online and social media platforms can reduce FLW by reshaping product distribution, facilitating direct sharing, donation, or redistribution, and benefiting end-users or intermediaries [228,229]. Despite the potential of new information technologies to enhance sustainability and reduce FLW, research on their application in meat CSCL remains scarce. Future studies should address this gap by integrating different meat SCs echelons, engaging multiple stakeholders, and considering economic, social, and environmental aspects. Developing an evaluation system for sustainable meat CSCL focusing on FLW reduction through technology is crucial. This would assess how concentrating on one sustainability aspect affects others and elucidate the interactions among sustainability pillars, FLW, and related parameters.
The items described in Section 3.3 to Section 3.4 highlight the internal nexus of management and sustainability themes. The management theme affects the sustainability themes through the following: 1—the adoption of the SFLM approach; 2—inclusion of collaboration among stakeholders, which enhances equipment, facilities, and resource utilisation, thereby improving system sustainability; 3—inventory management, which can reduce FLW; 4—management decision-making processes at strategic, tactical, and operational levels; 5—risk management to improve the resiliency of CSCL systems; 6—waste reduction strategies; and t—the adoption of IT(s). Conversely, the sustainability theme impacts the management themes by offering and advising on sustainable objectives, practices and approaches, including 1—developing CLSCs; 2—implementing sustainable business models; 3—investigating of wastage hotspots; 4—introducing sustainable packing; and 5—emphasising improvements in information flow and application of data-sharing practices.

3.5. Network Design Optimisation

The third theme refers to the concept of CSCL network design and optimisation. The following section delves into this concept and scrutinises how it can play a crucial role in reducing FLW across these systems for the beef meat industry.

3.5.1. Network Design and Decision Levels

Perishable products encounter significant challenges in CSCL, including quality decline, value loss over time, and potential hazards from reduced functionality [230]. Further, expanding networks and longer distances between production and consumption sites, coupled with varying food demands, create a dynamic and time-sensitive operational environment, complicating FSC network design and management [230,231,232]. Addressing location, inventory, and routing issues in the ND process is crucial to enhance logistics efficiency across the FCSCL [233,234]. Optimising perishable FSC networks has the potential to slash business costs by 60% and improve service levels [235]. Moreover, ND problems, alongside associated decisions, constitute the primary decision-making challenges in perishable product SC management, as depicted in Figure 11. Optimising facility location involves long-term strategic decisions, while tactical decisions handle medium-term network problems such as fleet size and stock level. Operational decisions focus on short-term decisions such as inventory control across FCSCL and routing allocation for perishable food products [234].
Mathematical programming (MP) models play a crucial role in efficiently addressing logistics complexities and aiding strategic, tactical, and operational decision-making processes in SCs. MP models encompass linear programming (LP), non-linear programming (NLP), integer linear programming (ILP), integer non-linear programming (INLP), mixed-integer linear programming (MILP), mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP), and multi-objective programming (MOP) [236]. The distinction between multi-objective programming (MOP) and the other models mentioned lies primarily in the nature and treatment of objectives. All these models, excluding MOP, typically focus on a single objective function. These methods are designed to optimise one primary goal, though some can incorporate multiple objectives if they are aggregated into a single composite objective function or weighted sum. MOP, on the other hand, explicitly handles multiple conflicting objectives simultaneously. It aims to find a set of solutions that represents a trade-off among these objectives, where no objective can be improved without worsening another.
Model selection relies on the characteristics of variables, constraints, and the objective function crucial for achieving optimal outcomes across various applications. However, CSCL network design and optimisation are recognised as NP-hard problems, challenging to find efficient solutions for [230,237]. Addressing this issue for integrated SCND problems involves two categories: exact and non-exact methods. Exact techniques like Benders decomposition, Column generation, and Branch-and-cut precisely determine optimal outcomes [238,239]. Non-exact methods, such as heuristics and meta-heuristics, offer alternatives. Solving integrated decision-making models involves decomposing the problem into subproblems, facilitating more efficient handling using exact or heuristic methods.

3.5.2. Network Design and the Location–Inventory Problem

Keshavarzfard et al. (2023) [240] presented a model addressing location–inventory problems in SCs handling perishable items. It accounts for the impact of demand fluctuations on pricing to improve financial performance of SC. Results reveal heightened pricing reliance on customer demand, leading to reduced profits, while decreased SC dependency boosts profits. Rahbari et al. (2022) [88] proposed a two-stage meat production model, reducing costs by 2% per kg of red meat through SC dynamics optimisation, validated with GAMS. Sensitivity analysis identified increased retailer storage and carcass suppliers’ limitations as cost escalators. Mohammadi et al., 2023 [241] offered a sustainable SC model optimising multiple objectives like effective pricing and environmental impact reduction. Validation via case studies and sensitivity analyses highlighted practicality. Gholami Zanjani et al., 2021 [138] devised a stochastic meat inventory planning framework, integrating resilience strategies using Monte-Carlo analysis, showing a 6% network performance improvement, especially sensitive to throughput capacity and lead time.

3.5.3. Network Design and Routing-Inventory Problem

Some studies delved into efficient approaches for handling perishable products through effective logistics routing and SC design. Tarantilis and Kiranoudis (2002) [242] addressed fresh meat delivery through a meta-heuristic approach, optimising vehicle routing. Zhang et al. (2003) [243] proposed taboo search algorithms to enhance refrigerated food distribution in SC structures. Wang and Ying (2012) [244] developed a model considering transport modes for refrigerated food within time constraints. Al Theeb et al. (2020) [74] introduced the IVRPCSC Model, minimising expenses in the cold SC with a multi-phase strategy. Real-world implementation saw a 9.25% cost reduction. Neves-Moreira et al. (2019) [245] crafted a solution for diverse product routing and production planning, targeting cost reduction in European meat SC stores.

3.5.4. Network Design and the Location Routing Problem

Another research stream targets the location routing problem. Govindan et al. (2014) [246] aimed to enhance sustainability in FSCs. Their study introduces a multi-objective optimisation model for the two-echelon multiple-vehicle location-routing problem with time windows, integrating environmental concerns. Their approach includes a bi-objective MILP to minimise SCs costs while considering environmental impact. Mohammed and Wang, (2017a) [247] developed a cost-effective meat SC network using a multi-objective possibilistic programming model, managing conflicting objectives effectively. Their robust optimisation model handles uncertainties and complexities in meat SC network design. Moreno, Pereira, and Yushimito (2020) [248] developed a novel approach, combining K-means-based clustering with integer programming to address location-routing problem in meat distribution. Their study presents a mathematical model for commercial territory design and applies a hybrid approach to solve it.

3.5.5. Network Design and the Integrated Location–Inventory Routing Problem

Rahbari et al. (2021) [249] addressed cost reduction challenges in a red meat SC by integrating location, inventory, and routing (LIR) decisions with time windows using an MILP model within an algebraic framework. Their objective was to decrease expenses across transportation, production, meat storage, and refrigerator rentals. By applying this approach to five SC echelons and incorporating a diverse vehicle fleet, they achieved a 4.20% reduction in product cost, validated through a case study. Similarly, Liu et al. (2022) [234] conducted a study in 2022 on a FSC in China, focusing on financial cost, carbon emission reduction, and product freshness maximisation. They utilised the YALMIP toolbox to optimise their multi-objective model and highlighted the correlation between vehicle speed, expenses, and pollutant discharges. Some studies address decision-making in uncertain environments. Qu et al. (2024) [250] for instance, developed a Maximum Expert Consensus Model (MECM) with a dynamic feedback mechanism based on robust optimisation principles to manage uncertainties in consensus-reaching. Though not designed for the red meat industry, this tool is applicable in various group decision-making scenarios, including policymaking, business strategy, and complex problem-solving requiring expert opinions. However, there remains a lack of studies addressing uncertainties and realistic industry assumptions in designing meat CSCL networks.
The content described in Section 3.5.1, Section 3.5.2, Section 3.5.3, Section 3.5.4 and Section 3.5.5 demonstrates that the ND theme is interconnected with the management theme. This is due to the nature of a variety of management decisions, at strategic, tactical, and operational levels, involved in the CSCL design and optimisation process. Specifically, facility location represents a strategic management decision, while inventory and routing represent tactical and operational management decisions, respectively. Figure 11 visualises that ND theme and process can cover only one aspect, for instance, designing and optimising the location of facilities or inventory or the routing problem; two aspects, for instance, LI, LR, IR problems; or all aspects of SC decisions in the management theme by addressing LIRP, reflecting their interdependency. Furthermore, incorporating or failing to incorporate management theme decisions into the ND theme and corresponding processes has a significant impact on the comprehensiveness, quality, and accuracy of the ND theme and process and CSCL efficiency. Figure 11 visualises how the management theme and SC decisions fit into the ND theme and the corresponding problems, reflecting their interdependency. The interconnectedness of the ND theme with sustainability and IT themes is further discussed in Section 3.5.6 and Section 3.5.7.

3.5.6. Network Design and Sustainability

Our study indicates that there is a direct relationship between logistics ND and sustainability objectives. Soysal et al. (2014) [251] tackled the challenge of creating a sustainable SC for beef products, integrating environmental benchmarks. They proposed a method utilising an MOLP model to minimise stock and distribution costs while reducing carbon dioxide emissions, highlighting social implications and delivery rates. Mohammed and Wang (2017b) [169] formulated a model incorporating fuzziness to address multiple objectives in an eco-friendly meat supply chain, employing Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) techniques. Mohebalizadehgashti et al. (2020) [252] proposed an MILP model to construct an eco-friendly network for the meat SC. This framework prioritised reducing expenses and CO2 emissions while maximising facility operational capacity and performance. It shows the feasibility of reducing emissions without high costs, offering an innovative method to enhance SC efficiency, particularly in managing complex objectives amidst uncertainties.
The literature also underscores the importance of developing integrated systems to monitor real-time temperatures, emissions, energy footprint, and land utilisation in FSCs and meat CSCL [253,254]. Even though a decline in temperature coupled with prolonged storage duration results in escalating costs, heightened energy consumption, and increased emissions across the CSCL [255,256], its absence leads to a surge in FLW. Hence, research must concentrate on reducing the energy levels essential for running the food CSCL systems. In this context, Keizer et al. (2015) [257] demonstrated that neglecting product deterioration rates in decision-making leads to delivering substandard quality products to customers, hindering high-quality services and excessing FLW. Coelho and Laporte (2014) [258] delved into inventory routing challenges, focusing on the strategic planning of restocking and delivering perishable products. Their study formulated models and evaluated sales prioritisation strategies, highlighting the inadequacy of traditional methods for managing perishable inventory due to shorter product life. Hasani et al. (2012) [259] devised a CLSC structure equipped with both food-driven and high-tech sensors, providing a strategic framework to manage perishable goods amid uncertainty. Song and Ko (2016) [260] explored diverse vehicle fleet utilisation for transporting food, enhancing vehicle routing strategies to address perishable product challenges. Keizer et al. (2017) [261] integrated perishable item characteristics into logistics operation planning, using an innovative MILP model to optimise logistics networks for perishable products with varying decay rates.
The above content indicates that ND is interconnected with sustainability themes because the ND and optimisation process determine whether to incorporate sustainability criteria while addressing ND theme’s problems and the ways to achieve this. Refining network design approach directly impacts developing sustainable CSCL and CLSCL systems required for addressing the sustainability challenges including FLW and to minimize environmental impacts. Conversely, the sustainability theme and relevant practices can also affect the ND theme elements. Sustainable practices including waste reduction, use of sustainable packaging, and optimal route planning often involve the use of durable and scalable solutions causing the design and optimisation process of CSCL systems to be more resource-efficient, cost-effective, durable, and collaborative, enhancing their overall efficiency and effectiveness.

3.5.7. Network Design and Information Flow

The role of information in SCND is pivotal for decision-making, inventory optimisation, risk mitigation, and communication, reducing FLW. Keshavarzfard et al. (2023) [240] present a model tailored to address location–inventory problems in perishable SCs, incorporating Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) and demand variation impacts on pieces to optimise decision-making across strategic, tactical, and operational levels, enhancing SCND efficiency and reducing FLW. Mohammed et al. (2023) [262] developed a meat SC network by incorporating a sustainable resilient trade-off framework for the facility-driven optimal order quantities. The study highlighted the role of information in developing the proposed integrated framework. Tavakoli-Moghaddam et al. (2019) [263] employed technological solutions to create eco-friendly reverse SCs for meat products, aiming to increase financial gains, customer satisfaction, and environmental sustainability. Mohammed et al. (2017) [264] developed a cost-effective decision-making algorithm for an RFID-enabled Halal meat SCND, aiming enhance traceability and minimise costs, demonstrating economic viability through innovative methodologies. The content described above indicates that the ND theme is interconnected with the IT theme because the ND phase determines which technologies are adopted, how they are upgraded, and how well these technologies are integrated, impacting real-time monitoring and data accuracy. A well-designed network can more easily incorporate these advancements, allowing for continuous improvement and adaptation. Conversely, the IT theme affects the ND theme and the effectiveness of CSCL design and optimisation process. Cold supply chain logistics relies heavily on accurate, real-time data to manage perishable goods. The application of new information, such as advanced analytics and IoT data, helps in optimising routes, managing inventory, and predicting demand more accurately.
Our review indicates that incorporating sustainability into logistics ND and optimisation can reduce FLW systemwide. Nevertheless, concurrent research on all sustainability pillars, logistics ND, and optimisation is scarce, particularly for the beef meat industry. Moreover, this study highlights a dearth of comprehensive studies on how information influences communication and coordination among network elements. Future studies should develop comprehensive, sustainable location–inventory routing models for beef logistics. These models must integrate all sustainability dimensions and reverse logistics impacts to effectively minimise FLW within the CSCL systems. Such studies should explore industry-specific challenges and opportunities, offering tailored insights into the role of information in SCND, which is crucial for mitigating FLW throughout the beef meat industry.

3.6. Information Technologies

The final theme explores the role of emerging information technologies in meat CSCL systems. Subsequently, it examines their potential to revolutionise these systems and provides insights into the current state of the art.

3.6.1. IT and Meat SC Transformation

The integration of new information technologies is poised to revolutionise meat CSCL from two perspectives. First, advancements in information technology and electronics have led to compact, efficient systems. Alfian et al. (2020) [265] recommend combining RFID tags and IoT for traceability. This fusion reduces meat spoilage during transport and enhances sustainability and traceability in logistics. Mejjaouli et al. (2018) [101] investigated perishable product logistics decision models, employing IT and temporary virtual machines in cloud-based decision-making. They adapt operations in real time to transportation conditions and geography. If food quality changes, they adjust transportation routes or sell nearby. Their research highlights significant cost reductions in optimising fresh meat shipments. The study by Jedermann et al. (2014) [52] found that enhancing information distribution and employing smart demand predictors reduce losses. Verghese et al. (2013) [266] highlighted RFID-enabled intelligent food packaging, enabling retailers to communicate with suppliers, optimising production schedules, managing inventory, and reducing FLW. Singh et al. (2018) [267] created a sustainable beef supplier selection framework using big data, cloud computing, and fuzzy techniques to assess production data and identify cost-effective premium suppliers, promoting low-carbon practices.
Second, the integration of new technologies enhances traceability, transparency, and real-time temperature monitoring, which is critical for food safety. This reduces food loss, preserves product value, and improves cost-efficiency, decision-making, and customer communication [268,269]. Specifically, within the meat CSCL, traceability serves two key purposes. One is to track the physical journey of products, treating them as a typical product. The other is to monitor the quality of perishable goods in real time, offering data on product and logistics conditions to ensure safety and compliance with food standards [253] by tracking the chronological record of temperature, humidity, and diverse environmental elements [270]. The latter purpose of new IT applications has nexuses to sustainability, management, and ND optimisation principles, especially in a food safety context. Food safety aims to set a consistent criterion meeting general and specific requirements across FCSCL, involving processes influenced by societal and natural factors [57]. Hence, it serves as an indicator application of social sustainability, with implications for ecological and environmental considerations [271] supported by new IT tools and application.
Additionally, new IT integration improves FSC stakeholder collaboration and management system efficiency [18], which is crucial for ensuring food safety [58,272] by enabling critical information exchanges [273]. Further, it facilitates the implementation of management systems based on early warning and risk mitigation frameworks, supporting food safety, risk reduction, financial success, and enhanced sustainability performance. For instance, Gholami-Zanjani et al. (2021) [274] introduced a risk-analysis method utilising scenario pruning and Benders partitioning to evaluate production, storage, and environmental factors in meat SCs, enhancing safety evaluations and product quality. Nevertheless, further exploration is needed to fully understand the potential role of these factors in enhancing SFSC efficiency [275].
Lastly, new IT applications aid in collecting and monitoring a wide range of data in FSCs, including demand, market trends, temperature, and environmental factors. They facilitate CSCL ND and optimisation while considering management and sustainability considerations by investigating data for suppliers, stock levels, transport fleet and route, packaging, waste management, energy efficiency, logistics operations, environmental impacts, and FLW [52,58,276,277]. The final point emphasises the connection between new IT applications and food safety culture. SC food safety performance relies on the shared values, attitudes, and beliefs within organisations [278]. This culture is reflected in technology, management, staff, and operational environments [279]. Despite its growing importance, there is a lack of research in this area, and manufacturers are hesitant to assess their food safety culture adequately.

3.6.2. Emerging Information Technologies and Meat SCs

Numerous emerging technologies are vying to tackle the challenges in meat CLSCL. This overview details the current research status, constraints, and expected advancements in instruments (Alphanumeric codes, Bar codes, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN)) and systems, including the Internet of Things (IoT), advanced data analytics (Big data/BD), Blockchain technology (BC), and Digital Twin Technology (DT).

Technical Instruments

Alphanumeric codes, a blend of numbers and letters in various sizes, offer simplicity and affordability. Yet, their manual read-and-write process poses limitations. Challenges include poor performance, vulnerability to data corruption, undefined standards, limited connectivity, and no environmental sensing capability. These drawbacks have led to their near replacement by barcodes. Barcodes, optical and machine-readable, encode alphanumeric data through vertical bars, spaces, squares, and dots. They excel in simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and precise traceability compared to alphanumeric codes. However, they necessitate line-of-sight reading, making them ineffective for damaged labels. Scanners read them sequentially, and they lack environmental sensing capability. RFID functions by detecting labelled objects using radio waves, allowing for identification or tracking without direct line of sight. It reads and writes tags with faster data rates and larger memory compared to prior technologies, supporting reversible tags. It excels in reading multiple tags simultaneously but requires a reader for data collection and is unable to initiate communication itself. RFID lacks device cooperation and is limited to single-hop data reading. Despite benefits, it can be costly, and environmental sensing is limited. WSNs collect data from the environment, employing sensors for monitoring. They enable multi-hop networking and in-network processing, ensuring secure communication via diverse network topologies. The WSN offers extended reading ranges and integrates with Sensor–Actuator networks. Nonetheless, it is not ideal for identification and demands energy-efficient methods to maintain continuous sensing [253].

Technological Systems

IoT is an evolution of traditional Internet technology, integrating Global Positioning System (GPS), Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), and data-driven sensors through the Internet infrastructure. This creates a vast network that fosters seamless communication among interconnected devices and between devices and individuals, enhancing connectivity and efficiency [280]. In meat CSCL, traditional data collection relies on barcode scanning and manual record-keeping. This method hinders efficient information gathering, exchange, and dissemination within the SC. Operators struggle to adapt to dynamic conditions like temperature fluctuations, moisture levels, and spatial changes. Improved data acquisition methods are necessary to enhance adaptability and responsiveness in the meat CSCL [281]. The integration of IoT technology significantly elevates traceability, transparency, integrity, and safety within meat CSCL networks. IoT devices gather real-time data on meat and food products, encompassing inventory status, spatial coordinates, and environmental factors such as moisture and temperature. This data transmission occurs across all CSCL nodes, facilitating seamless information exchange throughout the SC. Such interconnectedness empowers stakeholders, including distributors, producers, regulators, and consumers, with enhanced decision-making capabilities [282]. Alfian and colleagues’ study (2020) [265] indicates that by combining RFID technology with humidity and temperature sensors, the system extends beyond mere tracking, offering real-time monitoring of environmental conditions to safeguard product quality and minimise risks. Additionally, it enables instant tracking and comprehensive recording of meat specifics, serving as a proactive measure against the distribution of inferior goods, thereby enhancing consumer confidence and safety. Nevertheless, the integration of advanced data-sensing technologies incurs significant expenses in setup and energy usage. These costs escalate the overall investment in meat CSCL, prolonging economic return cycles and reducing production output. Consequently, this financial burden becomes a pivotal factor limiting the adoption of IoT technology in beef meat industry CSCL operations, hindering its widespread implementation.
Big data emerges as IoT technology integrates into meat CSCL systems, vastly expanding data volumes. While SC management traditionally relied on statistical and operational methods for supply–demand alignment, this shift brought about a significant accumulation of data. This includes product details, supplier information, retail data, consumer transactions, and third-party logistics data. The term “Big data” encompasses this comprehensive dataset, necessitating advanced analytical approaches for effective management [283]. SC analytics refers to the sophisticated application of big data analytics [284]. Efficient analysis and processing of big data could enhance meat quality and security solutions, benefiting all stakeholders via furnishing decision support for meat CSCL management [285]. Current research, exemplified by Sestino et al. (2020) [280], underscores the need to boost data analysis method functionality and efficiency by leveraging advanced technologies such as distributed computing, machine learning, deep learning, and cloud computing. These advancements aim to extract richer insights, providing technical support for advancing sustainable and efficient CSCL for the beef meat industry. Furthermore, the extensive incorporation of private and confidential data in CSCL systems poses a significant risk to stakeholders, potentially resulting in substantial losses if breached. Thus, safeguarding data privacy and security in CSCL systems is a critical focus of both ongoing and future research endeavours.
BC technology is increasingly integrated into current FCSCL systems, complementing the predominant use of RFID, WSN, GPS, and various sensing tools. These technologies actively monitor SCs in real time, ensuring traceability and food product quality oversight [286]. However, they are reliant on centralised client–server communication and face vulnerabilities to data tampering, challenging data security and accuracy. This affects meat product quality, safety, and CSCL supervision. In contrast, BC pioneers decentralised record-keeping, offering reliability, cost-effectiveness, optimal performance, traceability, and security. These traits ensure data and transaction protection, highlighting BC’s superiority in safeguarding meat SC integrity and enhancing operational efficiency [287]. Furthermore, it fosters trust by improving transaction clarity [288]. Sander et al. (2018) [161] examined traceability and transparency issues in current meat SCs, considering stakeholders’ perspectives. They found BC implementation improves both traceability and transparency, preventing issues like deception and fraud, underscoring BC’s role in addressing challenges within SCs for promoting integrity and accountability throughout the SC.
The complexities of meat CSCL, such as data diversity, loss, and sensor precision, amplify challenges in integrating BC mechanisms. Emerging strategies seek to mitigate these hurdles. Powell et. al. (2021) [289] introduced a novel BC-driven framework merging BC and IoT. This fusion creates a secure, unalterable digital ledger, revolutionising the management, distribution, and verification of data in the industry. The primary aim is to ensure beef-related data’s legitimacy and authenticity, empowering consumers to accurately verify product information. This improves SC efficiency by addressing information imbalances among stakeholders and promoting transparency and trust in transactions. Due to blockchain’s complexity, its current advancement is in the initial phases, with limitations in implementing it in meat SC and CSCL. Furthermore, balancing data privacy and transparency creates conflicts within the BC framework, affecting the traceability and security of CSCL systems. To address this, businesses, regulatory bodies, and governments must collaboratively establish legal frameworks, regulations, and policies ensuring the reasonable and secure disclosure of information. This proactive approach is vital for fostering trust and efficiency in meat CSCL operations.
DT is an innovative simulation method that creates a virtual replica of real processes. It is intricately tied to the physical world through sensor data and sophisticated analytics [290,291], enhancing the optimisation of designs and processes. The utilisation of DT technology in contemporary CSCL systems for meat products is progressively developing. This evolution targets challenges like declining meat quality, increased energy usage, and significant expenses linked to food distribution network upkeep [292]. Employing DT technology enables precise digital control of meat quality within CSCL systems by simulating and predicting environmental and temporal fluctuations. This approach provides an intelligent understanding of meat quality, incorporating data from diverse sources and scales. Hence, DT empowers decision-making processes and aids in optimal product regulation identification, fostering adaptable operational management.
In the DT realm, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is pivotal for managing meat CSCL due to its extensive usage [1]. Virtual models of actual meat products are created and tested before implementation by utilising CFD technology. These simulation models accurately replicate real-world conditions, enhancing the optimisation of the product design process [293]. Kuffi et al. (2016) [291] utilised a CFD model to investigate the impact of various cooling factors on beef carcass cooling dynamics. The analysis involved variables such as the speed of cooling, consistency of temperature, and alterations in meat quality during refrigeration. The aim was to enhance the efficiency of the cooling process by refining the operational conditions. Results outlined significant cooling rate variations and pH shifts across different carcass sections, impacting meat quality. Verboven et al. (2020) [290] utilised a multifield coupling cross-scale model with CFD DT technology, enhancing FSC analysis. Improved understanding of fluid dynamics, thermal exchange, and mechanical alterations exposes meat quality variations, optimising FSC to reduce food quality loss, cut energy usage, and boost economic benefits. Despite advancements, challenges persist in implementing DT, particularly regarding data security and management efficiency. These obstacles hinder information preservation, retrieval, exchange, and integrity. Future efforts should prioritise integrating BC with DT in meat distribution systems to bridge security and management gaps, thereby improving information security and management efficiency in meat CSCL systems.
Section 3.4 and Section 4.4 reveal that in meat CSCL, the IT and sustainability themes are closely linked in several key ways: 1—Enhanced efficiency, as IT tools boost meat CSCLs efficiency by optimising temperature control, reducing energy use, and minimising waste. This leads to a smaller carbon footprint and lower resource consumption, thereby advancing sustainability. 2—Traceability and transparency, as advanced tracking and monitoring systems provided by IT improve traceability in the cold chain. This increased transparency helps manage resources better and quickly address inefficiencies, supporting sustainable practices. 3—Energy transition, as new IT(s) facilitate the energy transition in CSCLs. Innovations like energy-efficient routing and refrigeration align with sustainability goals by cutting down energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. 4—Quality assurance, as IT(s) such as real-time monitoring, intelligent packaging, DT, and automated alerts ensure meat quality throughout the cold chain. These advancements in CSCL enhance efficiency, reduce waste, and minimise environmental impact, directly supporting sustainable practices, promoting sustainability.

4. Discussion

The current review aims to pinpoint state-of-the-art potential tools and solutions for addressing beef meat CSCL challenges to minimise FLW within the system. Findings indicate that four specific themes—management, sustainability, logistics ND and optimisation, and IT—can actively contribute to mitigating the issue of FLW within the CSCL system for the beef meat industry. Our findings interestingly suggest that these themes interact with each other, and simultaneous consideration of them poses a greater potential to address the FLW issue across these systems. While there is a significant amount of research focusing on investigating and addressing FLW across the food SCs, most of these studies have an emphasis on agricultural products. In comparison, relatively few studies have examined this issue along the food CSCL systems, particularly for the meat industry, with even fewer studies focusing specifically on beef meat. Further, most studies have focused on addressing the issue of FLW across entire SCs, while CSCL, especially CSCL, a crucial part of the food SCs, has not been sufficiently investigated in terms of (I) the effects related to the simultaneous consideration of all sustainability dimensions, (II) the effects related to the simultaneous consideration of all decision levels associated with cold chain logistics network design, (III) the mutual trade-off existing among components forming the sustainability or logistics network design concepts, (IV) the potential effect of utilising new information technology in FLW reduction, including the drives and barriers involved in their adoption, and (V) the simultaneous effect of considering all the above-mentioned factors on the levels of FLW reduction across CSCL for the beef meat industry.

4.1. Management

The first identified theme, management, plays a pivotal role in food and meat CSCL [54], evolving through phases like Traditional LM, Food LM, and Sustainable Food LM. Integrating emerging technologies could usher in an “Intelligent SFLM” phase. Despite advancements, FLW remains high due to suboptimal CSCL management [29,52,158]. This comprehensive review underscores the importance of effective management practices in addressing FLW and enhancing the sustainability of food and meat CSCL systems. These subjects encompass the impacts of diverse logistics strategies and the consequences of regulations and standards, especially mandatory legislations and guidelines [72,75], collaboration and coordination [22,66,294], information flow, SC transparency [22,27,295] and employee training [77], waste reduction, inventory, cold chain ruptures, risk management, poor temperature, hygienic controls [54,120,296], high costs, and deficiencies in CSCLs. These items were reviewed and discussed in Section 3.3.1, Section 3.3.2, Section 3.3.3, Section 3.3.4, Section 3.3.5, Section 3.3.6, Section 3.3.7, Section 3.3.8, Section 3.3.9 and Section 3.3.10. While existing literature extensively covers food SC management, available discussions on the above-mentioned subjects are relatively limited in the context of beef meat CSCL. Our research underscores the necessity of incorporating FW management strategies into beef meat CSCL network design. Waste management and recycling are crucial for sustainable FSCs [51], alongside examining practices that may potentially lead to FLW. Further, the complexity of waste management entails significant financial and resource investments, covering collection, transportation, treatment, and energy consumption. Therefore, it is imperative to consider these factors in research focused on waste management and valorisation strategies. Finally, our review reveals that prevailing strategies in FCSCL prioritise processes, institutionalisation, and profit, neglecting the importance of customer centricity. Customer value management, emphasising consumer needs and satisfaction, is crucial [297]. This approach ensures higher sales and reduces FLW, necessitating collaboration among logistics stakeholders. Thus, future CSCL management in the beef industry should shift towards customer-centric strategies to enhance overall efficiency and satisfaction.

4.2. Sustainability

Sustainability is another key focus in food and meat CSCL research, aligning with reducing FLW. Adhering to the sustainability concept, as advocated by Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) [152], emphasises prevention as the most effective strategy for reducing FW. Embracing sustainable design facilitates waste prevention and reduction in harmony with the hierarchy of waste management strategies [298]. FW is generally categorised into avoidable and unavoidable, aligning with the sustainability concept that avoidable waste should be minimised first, while unavoidable waste should be repurposed. Studies suggest methods to minimise avoidable FW, including addressing issues like transportation, packaging, and product handling [162,299,300]. Unavoidable FW, on the other hand, is rooted in inedible items or components of food products. These can also be transformed into valuable products such as animal food, enzymes for industrial processes, edible fibers, and sustainable biofuels [301,302]. Further, activities like value creation, recycling, remanufacturing, and recovery linked to the valorisation of FW have the capacity to generate job opportunities and stimulate an economic boom, known to be associated with social sustainability enhancement [303]. Another group of studies emphasises the environmental dimension, highlighting how reducing FLW minimises environmental impacts, aligning with sustainability goals [30,304]. Hence, adhering to the sustainability concept can positively contribute to FLW reduction by supporting its prevention in the first place (avoidable food loss and waste prevention) or converting the unavoidable part into valuable components. On the other hand, neglecting FLW importance adversely affects the sustainability and efficiency of FCSCLs, causing reduced profitability, depleted financial resources, a decline in customer value and repurchase intention [2,305]. Additionally, it tarnishes the reputation of logistics service providers, causing a decline in labour productivity and wages, diminishing nutritional content, and heightening concerns in food safety, security, price, accessibility, and public health [129,306]. Moreover, FLW exacerbates environmental issues by contributing to increased methane and CO2 gas emissions, energy wastage, and non-productive resource uses [13,14,29]. These highlight a two-directional link between FLW amounts and CSCL efficiency and sustainability. Finally, recent reviews highlight a surge in the adoption of proactive sustainability measures among corporations, fostering equity in social, environmental, and economic domains [21,30,175,307]. They stress the importance of exploring diverse strategies to tackle FLW [47,308]. This underscores the need to develop comprehensive approaches to sustainable CSCL for the beef industry. Our review indicates that implementing CLSC practices and models is vital for sustainable operations and FLW reduction. Optimisation of CSCL networks and the extraction of value from product retrieval processes are key. This involves integrating forward and reverse logistics to manage, store, and transport products, packaging, ingredients, or reusable waste [309,310]. Such initiatives aim to minimise FLW and enhance sustainability across the SCs. Nevertheless, our review indicates that studies addressing all three sustainability dimensions and their connection with FLW in beef meat CSCL are notably lacking.

4.3. Network Design

Well-designed CSCLs regulate temperature, cut travel times, energy usage, and FLW, preserving 40% of the food inventory [311,312]. Nevertheless, non-optimal design can increase FLW [52], with nearly 30% occurring in CSCLs [8]. Designing logistics networks for meat products requires balancing intricate nexuses among facility location, inventory management, and vehicle routing. Logistics ND and optimisation tie to SC decisions and hence to the management theme. The literature emphasises incorporating these decisions in optimising FSCs to reduce FLW, transportation inefficiencies, emissions, and environmental impacts [106]. SC decisions are typically categorised into strategic, tactical, and operational tiers, each handling long-term, intermediate, and short-term arrangements, respectively [303]. Strategic decisions align with organisational objectives, dealing with prolonged investment-driven concerns such as facility locations, required infrastructures, technology, and supplier networks. Achieving sustainable development also stands as a key strategic objective for SCs, and an elevated degree of integration in their design and structure is crucial to attain this objective [313]. The literature advocates sustainability-driven ND and optimisation for food and meat CSCL to minimise FLW, costs, emissions, and environmental impact while enhancing food quality, transportation efficiency, and social benefits [46,106]. Tactical decisions align with strategic benchmarks, focusing on production planning and manufacturing scheduling for periods ranging from months to a year. They encompass stock handling, material movement supervision, and operational logistics. Operational decisions, preceding tactical ones, entail daily management of procurement, logistics, and distribution operations [314]. The quality of this decision is important considering the limited shelf life and dynamic and time-dependent nature of food products.
While location, routing, and inventory literature is vast, there is a gap in addressing supply uncertainties in meat CSCL design under sustainability frameworks. Realistic assumptions, especially for perishable product industries, are rarely explored. Many studies focus on one or two sustainability dimensions, overlooking its multi-dimensional nature and trade-offs. Additionally, research on food perishability often overlooks how shelf-life considerations affect sustainability pillars. Addressing these gaps requires examining logistics chains that extend across various time frames and products. This analysis should be based on practical assumptions regarding uncertainties in demand, price reductions, and backlog accumulation. Subsequent investigations should also consider uncertainties associated with facility location and the planning of CSCL networks to improve their economic and sustainability performance. Further characteristics, including the ability to adapt to demand variations, the capability to manage fluctuations in volume and scheduling, strategies for maintaining high quality, and adopting approaches centred on enhancing customer contentment, can be incorporated into CSCL ND and optimisation research.
Further, our review indicates that incorporating information technologies in ND and the optimisation process needs to be extensively explored due to its great potential to reduce FLW, fostering their effective management and sustainable operation [315]. Finally, there is a significant opportunity to derive value from FW by converting it into valuable products, yet FW recovery plants are largely overlooked when optimising meat CSCL networks. To rectify this, research should prioritise integrating essential performance agents into meat industry logistics ND. However, addressing all logistics chain aspects complicates network configuration. For example, industries struggle to align tactical inventory decisions and operational transportation variants with strategic facility location planning [316]. Hence, future studies need to develop comprehensive models to tackle these challenges, harmonising short- and medium-term interventions with long-term strategies for optimal sustainable performance in beef meat CSCL systems.

4.4. Information Technology

The integration of information technologies in food and meat CSCL holds immense potential. Maintaining an uninterrupted cold chain is crucial for ensuring meat quality and safety by regulating temperature and humidity. However, the current meat SCs often face integrity issues, leading to significant FLW and economic detriment due to prevalent chain breaks. In response, logistics firms need to find innovative ways to enhance SC sustainability performance [317,318]. The adoption of new technologies can not only potentially enhance CSCL integrity and sustainability but also reduce FLW. Information technologies enable real-time inventory management, facilitating synchronised planning and forecasting based on demand signals, whether from financial or real-time data [319], providing the instant flow of information among different parties involved in the food SCs [148,149,320]. Effective data exchange and data accessibility contribute to elevating sustainability adherence for all engaged parties [222], and efficient distribution of information and understanding the factors that impact its usage are essential for executing organisational tactics to minimise FLW [223].
Real-time cargo visibility tech and monitoring systems, along with relevant data, identify perishable product locations and characteristics, enhancing meat/food CSCL sustainability and tackling food safety and FLW concerns [321]. Reviewing the state of the art in this theme indicates, notably, four key technologies: IoT, Big Data, Blockchain, and Digital Twin, which have emerged in food and meat CSCL, each with distinct benefits and drawbacks analysed in Section Technological Systems. Despite the recognised necessity and potential advantages of utilising information technologies in addressing the intricate challenge of FLW, its application level in meat/food CSCL has been relatively slow-paced and far behind expectations [32,56,150]. This can affect not only the food safety of products but also the tendency to use information technologies and to improve the sustainability of logistics systems. Our review indicates challenges, including non-compliant data, varied standards, uneven distribution of data among involved parties, unconventional business production methods, and divergent methods for regulatory assessments within the SCs, which pose substantial hindrances to the robust and sustained application of information technologies in meat CSCL systems. Hence, these subjects should be the focus of future studies. Future research should also investigate how external surroundings influence the food safety culture within an organisation. This entails assessing the performance of firms operating in diverse food safety environments. Furthermore, it is vital to initiate a conversation concerning the interactions among information technology protocols, food safety guidelines, and regulatory structures endorsing sustainability. This should be performed with the aim to discover the means of aligning these policies with the CSCL operational perspective in the food industry. This requires investigating traceability implementation in meat and food CSCL. Understanding the potential drivers and barriers faced by logistics professionals in adopting real-time cargo visibility technologies and implementing data-sharing practices among the network stakeholders is a necessity, leading to paving its application across the logistics chains and improving their performance.
Figure 12 illustrates a conceptual framework developed based on our review findings. It suggests achieving a superior optimisation level through the effective integration of these identified key themes, which leads to elevated sustainability performance and reduced levels of FLW. This conceptual framework and correlational relationships proposed should be explored and validated from the questionnaire survey, and other appropriate methods, such as structural equation modelling, should be incorporated in future studies.

5. Conclusions

This study significantly advances the literature on CSCL for red meat and addresses the pressing issue of reducing FLW. In providing an overview of the state of the art, RO1, we found four pivotal themes on CSCL for the red meat industry, management, sustainability, network design (ND), and new information technologies (IT), each contributing uniquely to mitigating FLW. Management stood out as the predominant theme, followed by sustainability, ND, and IT.
Through methodology, we found four main research themes related to RO2, pinpointing significant areas of research, their potential role, and associated elements in mitigating red meat waste reduction across CSCL, providing insights into how the field of CSCL in the red meat industry is evolving.
With regard to RO3 identifying the directions within each theme that warrant further research advancement, our review highlights a dearth of studies on reducing FLW within food CSCL, particularly for the beef meat industry. This is concerning given beef’s high production value and susceptibility to CSCL fluctuations, underscoring the need for targeted research to mitigate FLW and optimise efficiency in these systems. Future studies need to thoroughly examine the following aspects, including (I) the direct effect and internal trade-offs related to the simultaneous consideration of all sustainability dimensions on FLW reduction, (II) the direct effects, internal trade-offs, and the simultaneous effects related to the consideration of all decision levels involved in CSCL ND, (III) the direct effect and existing potentials in the use of new ITs, the barriers and drivers for their adoption and for sharing the information, (IV) the analysis of the mutual trade-offs among the mentioned components (I, II, and III), and finally (V) the simultaneous effect of considering all these factors (I, II, III) on the amount of FLW along the CSCL systems for the beef meat while considering the time-dependent nature of meat and food products and uncertainties across these systems.
Our research introduces an innovative conceptual framework that highlights the interconnectedness of key themes and their direct impact on reducing FLW in meat CSCL systems, ensuring the study’s originality. It provides valuable insights into how these themes contribute to FLW reduction and sustainability in meat CSCL. These findings deepen understanding of each theme’s significance in mitigating FLW, benefiting researchers, practitioners, and managers in the meat and CSCL industries. Future studies should explore these aspects further, developing models to incorporate their simultaneous impact. This would aid managers and stakeholders in decision-making, enhancing sustainability performance.
To address the RQ, the study provided an in-depth discussion by integrating all key findings related to the four main identified themes and their associated key subjects. This information was obtained through the methodology process illustrated in Figure 2 and by incorporating additional insights gained from addressing the research objectives. Based on what was discussed earlier, here is the summary of the current state of the art on beef CSCL in terms of management, sustainability, network design, and the use of information technologies for red meat waste reduction:
  • Management:
    Effective management practices are crucial for addressing FLW in beef CSCL systems.
    There is a notable transition from LM to FLM and SFLM, with the potential for emerging technologies to create an “Intelligent Sustainable Food Logistics Management” phase.
    Suboptimal management practices continue to contribute significantly to FLW, underscoring the need for enhanced strategies and adherence to regulations and standards.
  • Sustainability:
    Sustainability in beef CSCL involves addressing social, economic, and environmental benefits.
    Reducing FLW can lead to increased profits, improved customer satisfaction, public health, equity, and environmental conservation by minimising resource use and emissions.
    Comprehensive research integrating all sustainability dimensions is needed to fully understand and mitigate FLW. Current efforts often address only parts of sustainability. A more holistic approach is required to balance environmental, economic, and social dimensions effectively.
  • Network Design:
    Effective network design and optimisation are pivotal in reducing FLW within beef CSCL systems.
    There is a necessity for integrating all three levels of management decisions in the logistics network design process. Decision levels in network design must be considered to understand trade-offs among sustainability components in this process.
    Future research should focus on integrating management decisions and network design, CSCL uncertainties, sustainability dimensions, and advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and reduce waste in beef CSCL systems.
  • Information Technologies:
    Information technologies such as Digital Twins (DTs) and Blockchain (BC) play a significant role in improving efficiency and reducing FLW in beef CSCL.
    The integration of these technologies can enhance understanding of fluid dynamics, thermal exchange, and meat quality variations, optimising the cooling process and reducing energy usage.
    Challenges like data security and management efficiency need to be addressed to maximise the benefits of these technologies.
The review’s limitations stem from the selected publication timeframe and the broad spectrum of topics related to FLW within CSCL systems. The classification of this vast scope is constrained to our extracted themes. Initially, our literature review focused on FLW in meat SC, particularly beef. Keywords like “beef”, “meat”, and “supply chain logistics” were used in searches across Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. However, due to limited data on FLW in beef logistics, we broadened our scope to general meat SC. This involved replacing “beef” with “meat” in the review. Despite these adjustments, the review offers valuable insights into FLW reduction in meat and beef meat CSCL.
This study seeks to elucidate the cutting-edge research themes and their prospective roles in mitigating red meat waste. The findings can have significant implications for regional and national CSCLs of meat and food, influencing global logistics and distribution operations, as well as shaping environmental policies. Furthermore, the research underscores the interdependencies among the identified themes and their collective impact on system efficiency. It suggests that during the ND process, the simultaneous effects and interactions of the four identified themes should be considered to address trade-offs effectively, leading to improved sustainability performance and efficiency. Finally, the study’s outcomes may encourage organisations to enhance the integration of all CSCL stakeholders towards a unified objective, thereby advancing the overall sustainability performance of the logistics network.

Author Contributions

S.D.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Project administration, Software, Data curation. P.S.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing—review and editing, Investigation, Supervision. N.S.: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing—review and editing, Investigation, Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received external funding from The End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) (35601).

Data Availability Statement

The data used for this research are publicly available. We used Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for this purpose.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and financial contribution of The End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) and the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centre Program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Overview of literature on the management theme.
Table A1. Overview of literature on the management theme.
Scholar, Ref.YearSubjectObjectives
I
IIMethodologyIndustry (Product)Measures to Reduce FLW
Gunasekaran et al. [39]2008Logistics managementTo improve the responsiveness of SCsTo increase the competitiveness of SCsGroup Process and Analytical Hierarchy ProcessMulti-industry-
Dabbene et al. [40]2008Food logistics management To minimise logistic costsTo maintain food product qualityStochastic optimisationFresh food -
Lipinski et al. [42]2013Food logistics managementTo minimise the costs associated with food wasteTo reduce food wasteQualitative analysisFood productsProposing appropriate strategies
van der Vorst et al. [43]2011Food logistics managementTo improve the competitiveness level, maintaining the quality of productsTo improve efficiency and reduce food waste levelsQualitative analysisAgrifood productsThe development of a diagnostic instrument for quality-controlled logistics
Soysal et al. [45]2012Sustainable logistics management To enhance the level of sustainability and efficiency in food supply chainsTo reduce FLW levelsQualitative analysisFood supply chainsThe analysis of existing quantitative models, contributing to their development
Bettley and Burnley [48]2008Sustainable logistics management (SLM) To improving environmental and social sustainabilityTo reduce costs and food wasteQualitative analysisMulti-industryapplication of a closed-loop supply chain concept to incorporate sustainability into operational strategies and practices
Zokaei and Simons, [322]2006 SML, Collaboration, Regulation, Cost, Inventory, Waste reduction, Information sharing,To introduce the food value chain analysis (FVCA) methodology for improving consumer focus in the agri-food sectorTo present how the FVCA method enabled practitioners to identify the misalignments of both product attributes and supply chain activities with consumer needsStatistical analysis/FVCARed meatSuggesting the application of FVCA can improve the overall efficiency and reduce the waste level
Cox et al. [323]2007SML, Cost, Decision-making, Risks, Waste reduction, Sustainability To demonstrate the proactive alignment of sourcing with marketing and branding strategies in the red meat industryTo showcase how this alignment can contribute to competitive advantage in the food industryQualitativeBeef and Red meatEmphasising the role of the lean approach, identifying waste hotspots, and collaboration in reducing food loss and waste
Jie and Gengatharen, [324]2019SML, Regulation, Collaboration, Cost, Inventory, Waste reduction, Info. Sharing, IT, Sustainability, ScoTo empirically investigate the adoption of supply chain management practices on small and medium enterprises in the Australian food retail sectorTo analyse the structure of food and beverage distribution in the Australian retail marketStatistical analysisFood/Beef Meat IndustryAdopting lean thinking and improving information sharing in the supply chains
Knoll et al. [325]2017SML, Collaboration, Regulation, Cost, Inventory, Decision-making, Risks, Information sharing, Deficiencies, Network designTo characterise the supply chain structureTo identify its major fragilitiesQualitativeBeef meat-
Schilling-Vacaflor, A., [326] 2021Regulation, SustainabilityTo analyse the institutional design of supply chain regulationsTo integrate human rights and environmental concerns into these regulationsQualitativeBeef and Soy Industries-
Knoll et al. [327]2018Regulation, Collaboration, Cost, Risks, Deficiencies, Decision-making, Sustainability, Information sharingTo analyse the information flow within the Sino-Brazilian beef trade, considering the opportunities presented by the Chinese beef market and the vulnerabilities in the supply chainTo investigate the challenges and opportunities in the information exchange process between China and Brazil within the beef trade sectorMixed methodBeef Industry-
E-Fatima et al. [328]2022Regulation, Risks, Safety, Collaboration, Business model, Packing, information sharingTo critically examine the potential barriers to the implementation and adoption of Robotic Process Automation in beef supply chainsTo investigate the financial risks and barriers to the adoption of RPA in beef supply chainsMixed methodBeef supply chain-
Jedermann et al. [52] 2014Regulations and Food SafetyTo reduce food loss and wasteTo improve traceabilityQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsProposing appropriate strategies to improve quality monitoring
Kayikci et al. [51]2018Regulations, Sustainability, Waste reductionTo minimise food waste by investigating the role of regulations To improve sustainability, social and environmental benefitsGrey prediction methodRed meatProposing circular and central slaughterhouse model and emphasising efficiency of regulations based on circular economy comparing with the linear economy model
Storer et al. [329]2014Regulation, Collaboration, Cost, Inventory, Decision-making, Risks, IT, Sustainability To examine how forming strategic supply chain relationships and developing strategic supply chain capability influences beneficial supply chain outcomesTo understand the factors influencing the utilisation of industry-led innovation in the form of electronic business solutionsMixed methodsBeef supply chain-
Liljestrand, K., [63]2017Collaboration, FLW, Information sharingTo analyse sustainability practices adopted in collaboration, including vertical collaboration in the food supply chainTo explore the role of collaboration in tackling food loss and wasteQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsInvestigating how Food Policy can foster collaborations to reduce FLW
Mangla et al. [330]2021Collaboration, food safety and traceabilityTo enhance food safety and traceability levels through collaboration lensTo examine traceability dimensions and decrease information hidingQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsOffering a framework for collaboration role in reducing info hiding and FLW in the circular economy
Liljestrand, K. [63]2017Collaboration, FLW, Information sharingTo investigate the role of logistics management and relevant solutions in reducing FLWTo explore the role of collaboration in food supply chainsQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsExamining the role of collaborative forecasting in reducing food waste
Esmizadeh et al. [79]2021Cost and Network designTo investigate the relations among cost, freshness, travel time, and Hub facilities vs Distribution centresTo investigate the product perishability effect in the distribution phase under hierarchical hub network designDeterministic optimisationMeat and food products-
Cristóbal et al. [304]2018Cost, FLW and SustainabilityTo consider the cost factor in the planning to reduce FLWTo develop a method to reduce costs and FLW environmental effects and improve the sustainability levelMixed methodMeat and Food productsProposing novel methods and programmes for cost effective and sustainable FLW management
Esmizadeh et al. [79]2021Cost and Network designTo investigate the relations among cost, freshness, travel time, and Hub facilities vs Distribution centresTo investigate the product perishability effect in the distribution phase under hierarchical hub network designDeterministic optimisationMeat and food products-
Faisal. M. N., [331]2015Cost, Risks, Regulations, Deficiencies, Collaboration, Decision-making, IT, Information sharing To identify variables that act as inhibitors to transparency in a red meat supply chainTo contribute to making the supply chain more transparentMixed methodRed meat-
Shanoyan et al. [332]2019Cost, Risks, Information sharingTo analyse the incentive structures at the producer–processor interface within the beef supply chain in BrazilTo assess the dynamics and effectiveness of incentive mechanisms between producers and processors in the Brazilian beef supply chainQualitativeBeef Industry-
Nakandala et al. [333]2016Cost, SustainabilityTo minimise transportation costs and CO2 emissionsTo maximise product freshness and qualityStochastic optimisationMeat and food products-
Ge et al. [334]2022Cost, Decision-making, To develop an optimal network model for the beef supply chain in the Northeastern USTo optimize the operations within this supply chainMathematical modellingBeef meat-
Hsiao et al. [335]2017Cost, Inventory, Network designTo maximise distribution efficiency and customer satisfactionZTo minimise the quality drop of perishable food products/meatDeterministic optimisationMeat products-
Shanoyan et al. [332]2019Cost, Risks, Information sharingTo analyse the incentive structures at the producer–processor interface within the beef supply chain in BrazilTo assess the dynamics and effectiveness of incentive mechanisms between producers and processors in the Brazilian beef supply chainQualitativeBeef Industry-
Magalhães et al. [85]2020Inventory and FWTo identify FLW causes in the beef supply chain in Brazil and explore the role of inventory management strategies and demand forecasting in FLW issueTo investigate their interconnectionsMixed methodBeef meat industryProviding a theoretical basis to implement appropriate FLW mitigation strategies
Jedermann et al. [52] 2014Inventory and Food SafetyTo reduce food loss and wasteTo improve traceabilityQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsProposing appropriate strategies to improve quality monitoring
Meksavang et al. [336]2019Inventory, Cost, Decision-making, Information sharing, SustainabilityTo develop an extended picture fuzzy VIKOR approach for sustainable supplier managementTo apply the developed approach in the beef industry for sustainable supplier managementMixed methodsBeef meat-
Herron et al. [89]2022Inventory and SustainabilityTo identify the minimum shelf life required to prevent food waste and develop FEFO modelsTo identify the risk of food products reaching the bacterial danger zone Deterministic optimisationMeat productsBuilding a decision-making model and incorporating quality and microbiological data
Rahbari et al. [95]2021Decision-making and Network designTo minimise distribution cost, variable costTo reduce inventory costs, the total costDeterministic optimisationRed meat-
Taylor D.H., [337]2006Decision-making, Cost Risks, Inventory, Waste Reduction, Deficiencies, Sustainability, Env.To examine the adoption and implementation of lean thinking in food supply chains, particularly in the UK pork sectorTo assess the environmental and economic impact of lean practices in the agri-food supply chainQualitativeRed meatSuggesting the combination of Value Chain Analysis and Lean principles
Erol and Saghaian, [338]2022Risks, Cost, RegulationTo investigate the dynamics of price adjustment in the US beef sector during the COVID-19 pandemicTo analyse the impact of the pandemic on price adjustments within the US beef sectorMixed methodBeef Industry-
Galuchi et al. [339]2019Risks, Regulations, Sustainability, Soc., Env.To identify the main sources of reputational risks in Brazilian Amazon beef supply chainsTo analyse the actions taken by slaughterhouses to manage these risksMixed methodBeef supply chainMitigating risks
Silvestre et al. [340]2018Risks, Collaboration, Regulation, Management, Sustainability To examine the challenges associated with sustainable supply chain managementTo propose strategies for addressing identified challengesQualitativeBeef Industry-
Bogataj et al. [125]2020Risks, Cost, Sustainability, InventoryTo maximise the profitTo improve sustainability performanceMixed methodBeef industryIncorporating the remaining shelf life in the decision-making process
Nguyen et al. [126]2023Risks, Waste reduction, Sustainability, Cost, InventoryTo improve the operational efficiencyTo reduce carbon footprint and food wasteStatistical analysisBeef industryIdentifying the root causes of waste and proposing a framework composed of autonomous agents to minimise waste
Amani and Sarkodie, [129]2022Risks, Information technologies, SustainabilityTo minimise overall cost and wasteTo improve the sustainability performanceStochastic optimisationMeat productsIncorporating artificial intelligence in the management context
Klein et al. [130]2014Risks, Information TechnologiesTo analyse the use of mobile technology for management and risk controlTo identify drivers and barriers to mobile technology adoption in risk reduction-Beef meatIntroducing a framework that connects the challenges associated with the utilisation of mobile technology in SCM and risk control
Gholami-Zanjani et al. [138]2021Risk, ND, Inventory, Wastage Hot Spots, SustainabilityTo reduce the risk effect and improve the resiliency against disruptionsTo minimise environmental implicationsStochastic optimisationMeat products-
Buisman et al. [87]2019Waste reductionTo reduce food loss and waste at the retailer levelTo improve food safety level and maximise the profitStochastic optimisationMeat and Food productsEmploying a dynamically adjustable expiration date strategy and discounting policy
Verghese et al. [109]2015Waste reduction, Information Technologies and SustainabilityTo reduce food waste in food supply chains and relevant costsTo improve the sustainability performanceQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsApplying of information technologies and improved packaging
Jedermann et al. [52] 2014Waste reductionTo reduce food loss and wasteTo improve traceabilityQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsIntroducing some initiatives and waste reduction action plans
Mohebi and Marquez, [131]2015Waste reduction and Information TechnologiesTo improve the customer satisfaction and the quality of food productsTo reduce food waste and lossQualitative analysisMeat productsProposing strategies and technologies for meat quality monitoring during the transport and storage phases
Kowalski et al. [133]2021Waste reduction and Information TechnologiesTo reduce food wasteTo create a zero-waste solution for handling dangerous meat wasteMixed methodMeat productsRecovering meat waste and transforming it into raw, useful materials
Beheshti et al. [135]2022Waste reduction, Network design, and Information TechnologiesTo reduce food waste by optimising the initial rental capacity and pre-equipped capacity required for the maximisation of profitTo optimise CLSCs and to improve cooperation level among supply chain stakeholdersStochastic optimisationMeat productsApplying optimisation across reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chains
Albrecht et al. [140]2020Waste reduction, IT, Decision-making, InventoryTo examine the effectiveness of sourcing strategy in reducing food loss and waste and product quality To validate the applicability of the TTI monitoring system for meat productsMixed methodMeat productsApplying of new information technologies in order to monitor the quality of products
Eriksson et al. [341]2014Waste reduction and SustainabilityTo compare the wastage of organic and conventional meatsTo compare the wastage of organic and conventional food productsMixed methodMeat and perishable food productsProviding hints to reduce the amount of food loss and waste based on research findings
Accorsi et al. [342]2019Waste reduction, Decision support, Sustainability (Eco., Soc., Env.)To address sustainability and environmental concerns related to meat production and distributionTo maximise the profitDeterministic optimisationBeef and meat productsProviding a decision-support model for the optimal allocation flows across the supply chain and a system of valorisation for the network
Jo et al. [146]2015Information technologies, SustainabilityTo reduce food loss and waste levels, improve food traceability and sustainabilityTo minimise CO2 emissionsMixed methodBeef meat productsIncorporating blockchain technology
Ersoy et al. [343]2022Information technologies, Sustainability, Food loss and WasteTo improve collaboration among multi-tier suppliers through knowledge transfer and to provide green growth in the industry To improve traceability in the circular economy context through information technology innovationsStatistical analysisMeat productsSuggesting a validated conceptual framework expressing the role of information technologies in information sharing
Kler et al. [147]2022Information technologies, SustainabilityTo minimise transport CO2 emission level and food waste levelTo improve traceability and demand monitoring levelsData AnalyticsMeat productsEmploying information technologies (IoT) and utilising data analytics for optimising the performance
Singh et al. [118]2018IT, Information sharing, Waste reduction, Decision-making, and PackingTo explore the application of social media data analytics in enhancing supply chain management within the food industryTo investigate how social media data analytics can be utilised to improve decision-making processes and operational efficiencyMixed methodBeef and food supply chainHighlighting the role of content analysis of Twitter data obtained from beef supply chains and retailers
Martinez et al. [23]2007Deficiencies, Regulation, Cost, InventoryTo improve food safetyTo lower regulatory costStatistical analysisMeat and food products-
Kayikci et al. [51]2018Deficiencies, Regulations, Waste reduction, Sustainability To minimise food waste by investigating the role of regulationsTo improve sustainability, social and environmental benefitsGrey prediction methodRed meatProposing circular and central slaughterhouse model and emphasising efficiency of regulations based on circular economy comparing with the linear economy model
Nychas et al. [151]2008Deficiencies, Waste reduction, Information TechnologiesTo characterise the microbial spoilage of meat samples during distributionTo assess the factors contributing to meat spoilageMixed methodMeat productsIdentifying and discussing factors contributing to meat spoilage
Sander et al. [161]2018Deficiencies, Risks, Information TechnologiesTo investigate meat traceability by outlining the different aspects of transparency To understand the perspectives of various stakeholders regarding BCTQualitative analysisMeat products-
Table A2. Overview of literature on the sustainability theme.
Table A2. Overview of literature on the sustainability theme.
Scholar, Ref.YearSubjectObjectives
I
IIMethodologyIndustry (Product)Measures to Reduce FLW
Mahbubi and Uchiyama, [344] 2020Eco, Soc., Evn., Management, Collaboration, IT, Information sharing To identify the Indonesian halal beef supply chain’s basic systemTo assess the sustainability level in the Indonesian halal beef supply chainLife cycle assessmentBeef IndustryIdentifying waste in different actors’ sections
Bragaglio et al. [345]2018Env., Management, Inventory, Decision-makingTo assess and compare the environmental impacts of different beef production systems in ItalyTo provide a comprehensive analysis of the environmental implicationsLife cycle assessmentBeef Industry-
Zeidan et al. [346]2020Env., Management, Collaboration, CostTo develop an existence inductive theoryTo study coordination failures in sustainable beef productionQualitativeBeef Industry-
Santos and Costa, [347]2018Env., Packing, Management, Cost, RegulationsTo assess the role of large slaughterhouses in promoting sustainable intensification of cattle ranching in the Amazon and the CerradoTo evaluate the environmental and social impacts of large slaughterhouses Statistical AnalysisBeef Industry-
E-Fatima et al. [348]2023Business model, Packing, Eco., Socio., Env., Management, Waste reductionTo investigate the financial risks and barriers in the adoption of robotic process automation (RPA) in the beef supply chainsTo examine the potential influence of RPA on sustainability in the beef industrySimulationBeef IndustryAdopting Robotic Process Automation
Huerta et al. [349]2015Env., Packing, Waste Management, WasteTo assess the environmental impact of beef production in MexicoTo conduct a life cycle assessment of the beef production processLife cycle assessmentBeef IndustrySuggesting utilising generated organic waste to produce usable energy
Cox et al. [350]2007Env., Business model, Packing, Management, Waste reduction, Information sharing, Cost, Risk To explore the creation of sustainable strategies within red meat supply chainsTo investigate the development of sustainable practices and strategies in the context of red meat supply chainsQualitativeRed meat IndustryProposing the adoption of lean strategies in the red meat supply chain industry
Teresa et al. [351]2018Eco., Env., Business model, Management, Deficiencies, Regulation, Collaboration, CostTo provide current perspectives on cooperation among Irish beef farmersTo explore the future prospects of cooperation within the context of new producer organisation legislationQualitativeBeef IndustryHighlighting the role of legislation in the joint management of waste
Kyayesimira et al. [352]2019Eco., Waste hotspots, Management, RegulationsTo identify and analyse the causes of losses at various post-harvest handling points along the beef value chain in UgandaTo estimate the economic losses incurred due to those factors Statistical analysisBeef IndustryProviding insights into potential improvements in the beef value chain management
Ranaei et al. [353]2021Env., Eco., Wastage hotspots Management, deficiencies, Waste reduction, Regulation, Collaboration To identify the causes of meat waste and meat value chain losses in IranTo propose solutions to reduce meat value chain lossesQualitativeMeat/Red Meat IndustryIdentifying the causes and hotspots of wastage points and proposing solutions
Wiedemann et al. [354]2015Env., Eco., Waste hotspots, Manag., InventoryTo assess the environmental impacts and resource use associated with meat exportTo determine the environmental footprintLife Cycle AssessmentRed meat IndustryProviding insights into potential improvements
Pinto et al. [167]2022Sustainability (Eco., Evo., Soc.) Management To explore the sustainable management and utilisation of animal by-products and food waste in the meat industryTo analyse the food loss and waste valorisation of animal by-productsMixed methodMeat products and industryEmploying the CE concept in the context of the meat supply chain suggested the development of effective integrated logistics for wasted product collection
Chen et al. [195]2021Sustainability (Env.) and ManagementTo identify existing similarities among animal-based supply chains To measure the reduction effect of interventions appliedMixed methodBeef meat and food productsApplying the food waste reduction scenario known to be effective in emission reduction
Martínez and Poveda, [355] 2022Sustainability (Env.), ManagementTo minimise environmental impacts by exploring refrigeration system characteristicsTo develop refrigeration systems-based policies for improving food qualityMixed methodMeat and food products-
Peters et al. [202]2010Sustainability (Env.), Wastage hotspotsTo assess the environmental impacts of red meat in a lifecycle scopeTo compare the findings with similar cases across the worldLife Cycle Impact AssessmentBeef meat and red meat-
Soysal et al. [251]2014Sustainability (Env.), Wastage hotspots, Network DesignTo minimise inventory and transportation costs To minimise CO2 emissions Deterministic optimisationBeef meat-
Mohebalizadehgashti et al. [252]2020Sustainability (Env.), Wastage hotspots, Network DesignTo maximise facility capacity, minimise total cost To minimise CO2 emissions Deterministic optimisationMeat products-
Fattahi et al. [356]2013Sustainability (Env.), Packing, ManagementTo develop a model for measuring the performance of meat SCTo analyse the operational efficiency of meat SCMixed methodMeat products-
Florindo et al. [357]2018Sustainability (Env.), Wastage hotspots, ManagementTo reduce carbon footprint To evaluate performance Mixed methodBeef meat-
Diaz et al. [358]2021Sustainability (Env.), Wastage hotspotsTo conduct a lifecycle-based study to find the impact of energy efficiency measuresTo evaluate environmental impacts and to optimise the energy performanceLife Cycle Impact AssessmentBeef meatReconversing of Energy from Food Waste through Anaerobic Processes
Schmidt et al. [359]2022Sustainability (Env.), Wastage hotspots, Management, Information TechnologiesTo optimise the supply chain by considering food traceability, economic, and environmental issuesTo reduce the impact and cost of recalls in case of food safety issuesDeterministic optimisationMeat products-
Mohammed and Wang, [169]2017Sustainability (Eco.) Management, Decision-making, Network designTo minimise total cost, To maximise delivery rateTo minimise CO2 emissions and distribution time Stochastic optimisationMeat products-
Asem-Hiablie et al. [203]2019Sustainability (Env.), energy consumption, greenhouse gasTo quantify the sustainability impacts associated with beef productsTo identify opportunities for reducing its environmental impactsLife cycle assessment Beef industry -
Bottani et al. [206]2019Sustainability (Eco., and Env.), Packaging, Waste managementTo conduct an economic assessment of various reverse logistics scenarios for food waste recoveryTo perform an environmental assessment for themLife cycle assessmentMeat and food industryExamining and employing different reverse logistics scenarios
Kayikci et al. [51]2018Sustainability (Eco., Soc., Env.) Management, Regulations, Waste reductionTo minimise food waste by investigating the role of regulations To improve sustainability, social and environmental benefitsGrey prediction methodRed meatProposing circular and central slaughterhouse model and emphasising efficiency of regulations based on circular economy comparing with the linear economy model
Tsakiridis et al. [204]2020Sustainability (Env.), Information technologiesTo compare the economic and environmental impact of aquatic and livestock productsTo employ environmental impacts into the Bio-Economy modelLife cycle assessmentBeef and meat products-
Jo et al. [146]2015Sustainability (Eco. and Env.), Management, Cost, Food Safety, Risks, Information TechnologiesTo reduce food loss and waste levels, improve food traceability and sustainabilityTo minimise CO2 emissionsMixed methodBeef meat productsIncorporating blockchain technology
Jeswani et al. [224]2021Sustainability (Env.), Waste managementTo assess the extent of food waste generation in the UKTo evaluate its environmental impactsLife cycle assessmentMeat productsQuantifying the extent of FW and impact assessment
Accorsi et al. [210]2020Sustainability (Eco. and Env.), Waste Management, Decision-making, Network design (LIP)To reduce waste and enhance sustainability performanceTo assess the economic and environmental implications of the proposed FSCDeterministic optimisationMeat and food industryDesigning a closed-loop packaging network
Chen et al. [195]2021Sustainability (Env.) and Waste ManagementTo identify the environmental commonality among selected FSCsTo measure the reduction effect of novel interventions for market characteristicsLife cycle assessmentBeef meat and food productsConfirming the efficiency of food waste management and reduction scenario
Sgarbossa et al. [175]2017Sustainability (Eco., Evo., Soc.) Network designTo develop a sustainable model for CLSCTo incorporate all three dimensions of sustainability Deterministic optimisationMeat productsConverting food waste into an output of a new supply chain
Zhang et al. [176]2022Sustainability (Eco. and Env.), Packaging, Network designTo maximise total profitTo minimise environmental impact, carbon emissionsStochastic optimisationMeat and food productsUsing Returnable transport items instead of one-way packaging
Irani and Sharif., [223]2016Sustainability (Soc.) Management, ITTo explore sustainable food security futuresTo provide perspectives on FW and IT across the food supply chainQualitative analysisMeat and food productsDiscussing potential strategies for waste reduction
Martindale et al. [180]2020Sustainability (Eco. and Env.), Management, food safety, IT (BCT)To develop CE theory application in FSCs by employing a large geographical databaseTo test the data platforms for improving sustainabilityMixed methodMeat and food products-
Mundler, and Laughrea, [187]2016Sustainability (Eco., Env., Soc.)To evaluate short food supply chains’ contributions to the territorial developmentTo characterise their economic, social, and environmental benefitsMixed methodMeat and food products-
Vittersø et al. [189]2019Sustainability (Eco., Env., Soc.)To explore the contributions of short food supply chains to sustainabilityTo understand its impact on all sustainability dimensionsMixed methodMeat and food products-
Bernardi and Tirabeni, [193]2018Sustainability (Eco., Env., Soc.)To explore alternative food networks as sustainable business modelsTo explore the potentiality of the sustainable business model proposedMixed methodMeat and food productsEmphasising the role of accurate demand forecast
Bonou et al. [197]2020Sustainability (Env.)To evaluate the environmental impact of using six different cooling technologiesTo conduct a comparative study of pork supply chain efficiencyLife cycle assessmentPork products-
Apaiah et al. [201] 2006Sustainability (Env.), Energy consumptionTo examine and measure the environmental sustainability of food supply chains using exergy analysisTo identify improvement areas to diminish their environmental implications Exergy analysisMeat products-
Peters et al. [202]2010Sustainability (Env.), energy consumption, greenhouse gasTo assess greenhouse gas emissions and energy use levels of red meat products in AustraliaTo compare its environmental impacts with other countriesLife cycle assessmentRed meat products-
Farooque et al. [21]2019Sustainability (Env., and Eco.) Management, Regulation, CollaborationTo identify barriers to employing the circular economy concept in food supply chainsTo analyse the relationship of identified barriersMixed methodFood productsEmploying the CE concept in the context of the food supply chain
Kaipia et al. [93]2013Sustainability (Eco. and Env.) Management, Inventory, Information TechnologiesTo improve sustainability performance via information sharingTo reduce FLW levelQualitative analysisFood productsIncorporating demand and shelf-life data information sharing effect
Majewski et al. [191]2020Sustainability (Env.) and Waste managementTo determine the environmental impact of short and longfood supply chainsTo compare the environmental sustainability of short and long-food supply chains Life cycle assessmentFood products-
Rijpkema et al. [139]2014Sustainability (Eco. and Env.) Management, Waste reduction, Information Technologies To create effective sourcing strategies for supply chains dealing with perishable productsTo provide a method to reduce food waste and loss amountsSimulation modelFood productsProposing effective sourcing strategies
Table A3. Overview of the literature on network design theme.
Table A3. Overview of the literature on network design theme.
Scholar, Ref.YearModelling Stages:
Single or Multi
Solving ApproachObjectives
I
II/IIIModel TypeSupply Chain Industry (Product)Main Attributes
Domingues Zucchi et al. [360]2011MMetaheuristic/GA and CPLEXTo minimise the cost of facility installationTo minimise costs for sea and road transportation MIPBeef meatLP
Soysal et al. [251]2014Sε-constraint methodTo minimise inventory and transportation cost To minimise CO2 emissions LPBeef meatPIAP
Rahbari et al. [95]2021MGAMSTo minimise total cost To minimise inventory, transport, storage costs MIPRed meatPLIRP
Rahbari et al. [249]2020SGAMSTo minimise total cost MIPRed meatPLIRP
Neves-Moreira et al. [245]2019SMetaheuristicTo minimise routing cost To minimise inventory holding cost MIPMeatPRP
Mohammadi et al. [241]2023SPre-emptive fuzzy goal programmingTo maximise total profitTo minimise adverse environmental impactsMINLPMeat/Perishable food productsLIP
Mohebalizadehgashti
et al. [252]
2020Sε-constraint methodTo maximise facility capacity, minimise total cost To minimise CO2 emissions MILPMeatLAP
Mohammed and Wang, [247]2017aSLINGOTo minimise total cost To minimise number of vehicles/delivery timeMOPPMeatLRP
Mohammed and Wang, [169]2017bSLINGOTo minimise otal cost, to maximise delivery rateTo minimise CO2 emissions and distribution time FMOPMeatLRP
Gholami Zanjani et al. [138] 2021MMetaheuristicTo improve the resilience and sustainabilityTo minimise inventory holding cost MPMeatIP
Tarantilis and Kiranoudis, [242]2002SMetaheuristicTo minimise total costTo maximise the efficiency of distributionOMDVRPMeatLRP
Dorcheh and Rahbari, [361]2023MGAMSTo minimise total cost To minimise CO2 emissions MPMeat/PoultryIRP
Al Theeb et al. [74]2020MHeuristic CPLEXTo minimise total cost, holding costs, and penalty costTo maximise the efficiency of transport and distribution phaseMILPMeat/Perishable food productsIRP
Moreno et al. [231]2020SMetaheuristic/hybrid approachTo maximise the profitTo minimise the costs, delivery times MIPMeatLRP
Javanmard et al. [362]2014SMetaheuristic/Imperialist competitive algorithmTo minimise inventory holding cost To minimise total cost NSFood and MeatIRP
Ge et al. [334]2022SHeuristic algorithm To develop an optimal network model for the beef supply chain in the Northeastern USTo optimize the operations within this supply chainMILPBeef meatLRP
Hsiao et al. [335]2017SMetaheuristic/GATo maximise distribution efficiency and customer satisfactionTo minimise the quality drop of perishable food products/meatMILP *Meat/Perishable food productsLRP
Govindan et al. [246]2014MMetaheuristic/MHPVTo minimise carbon footprint To minimise of the cost of greenhouse gas emissions MOMIP *Perishable food productsLRP
Zhang et al. [243]2003SMetaheuristicTo minimise cost, food safety risksTo maximise the distribution efficiencyMP *Perishable
food products
LRP
Wang and Ying, [244]2012SHeuristic, Lagrange slack algorithmTo maximise the delivery efficiencyTo minimise the total costsMINLP *Perishable
food products
LRP
Liu et al. [234]2021SYALMIP toolboxTo minimise cost and carbon emission To maximise product freshnessMP/MINLPPerishable
food products
LIRP
Dia et al. [363]2018SMetaheuristic/GATo minimise total cost To reduce greenhouse gas emissions/maximise facility capacity MINLPPerishable
food products
LIP
Saragih et al. [364]2019SSimulated annealingTo fix warehouse costTo minimise nventory cost, holding cost, and total cost MINLPFood productsLIRP
Biuki et al. [230]2020MGA and PSOTo incorporate the three dimensions of sustainabilityTo minimise total cost, maximise facility capacity MIP *Perishable
products
LIRP
Hiassat et al. [365]2017SGenetic algorithmTo implement facility and inventory storage costTo minimise routing cost MIPPerishable productsLIRP
Le et al. [366]2013SHeuristic- Column generationTo minimise transport cost To minimise inventory cost MPPerishable productsIRP
Wang et al. [367]2016STwo-phase Heuristic and Genetic algorithmTo minimise total cost To maximise the freshness of product quality MPPerishable
food products
RP
Rafie-Majd et al. [368]2018SLagrangian relaxation/GAMSTo minimise total cost To minimise product wastage MINLP *Perishable productsLIRP
* Modelling: LP—Linear Programming, MILP—Mixed Integer Linear Programming, MIP—Mixed Integer Programming, MINLP—Mixed Integer Non-Linear Programming, MP—Mathematical Programming.
Table A4. Overview of literature on the information technology theme.
Table A4. Overview of literature on the information technology theme.
Scholar, Ref.YearSubject Objectives
I
IIMethodologyIndustry (Product)Measures to Reduce FLW
Singh et al. [267]2018Information technologies, Sustainability, Regulations, ManagementTo measure greenhouse emission levels and select green suppliers with top-quality productsTo reduce carbon footprint and environmental implicationsMixed methodBeef supply chain-
Singh et al. [369]2015Information technologies, Sus. (Env.), Inventory, Collaboration, ManagementTo reduce carbon footprint and carbon emissionsTo propose an integrated system for beef supply chain via the application of ITSimulationBeef supply chain-
Juan et al. [7]2014Information technologies, Management, Inventory, Collaboration, ManagementTo explore the role of supply chain practices, strategic alliance, customer focus, and information sharing on food qualityTo explore the role of lean system and cooperation, trust, commitment, and information quality on food qualityStatistical analysisBeef supply chainBy application of IT and Lean system strategy
Zhang et al. [370]2020Information technologies, Management, Inventory, Food quality and safetyTo develop a performance-driven conceptual framework regarding product quality information in supply chainsTo enhance the understanding of the impact of product quality information on performanceStatistical analysisRed meat supply chain-
Cao et al. [371]2021IT, Blockchain, Management, Regulation, Collaboration, Risks, Cost, Waste reductionTo enhance consumer trust in the beef supply chain traceability through the implementation of a blockchain-based human–machine reconciliation mechanismTo investigate the role of blockchain technology in improving transparency and trust within the beef supply chain
Mixed methodBeef productsBy applying new information technologies
Kassahun et al. [372]2016IT and ICTsTo provide a systematic approach for designing and implementing chain-wide transparency systemsTo design and implement a transparency system/software for beef supply chainsSimulationBeef meat IndustryBy improving the traceability
Ribeiro et al. [373]2011IT and ICTsTo present and discuss the application of RFID technology in Brazilian harvest facilitiesTo analyse the benefits and challenges of implementing RFIDQualitativeBeef Industry-
Jo et al. [146]2015IT (BCT) Sustainability (Eco. and Env.), Management, Cost, Food safety, RisksTo reduce food loss and waste levels, improve food traceability and sustainabilityTo minimise CO2 emissionsMixed methodBeef meat productsBy incorporating blockchain technology
Rejeb, A., [227]2018IT (IoT, BCT), Management, risks, food safetyTo propose a traceability system for the Halal meat supply chainTo mitigate the centralised, opaque issues and the lack of transparency in traceability systemsMixed methodBeef meat and meat products-
Cao et al. [374]2022IT and blockchain, Management, Collaboration, Risk, Cost, SustainabilityTo propose a blockchain-based multisignature approach for supply chain governanceTo present a specific use case from the Australian beef industryA novel blockchain-based multi-signature approachBeef Industry-
Kuffi et al. [291]2016Digital 3D geometry scanningTo develop a CFD model to predict the changes in temperature and pH distribution of a beef carcass during chillingTo improve the performance of industrial cooling of large beef carcasses SimulationsBeef meat products-
Powell et al. [289]2022Information technologies, (IoT and BCT)To examine the link between IoT and BCT in FSC for traceability improvementTo propose solutions for data integrity and trust in the BCT and IoT-enabled food SCsMixed methodBeef meat products-
Jedermann et al. [52] 2014Management, Regulations and Food Safety, FW, Information sharing, RFIDTo reduce food loss and wasteTo improve traceabilityQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsBy proposing appropriate strategies to improve quality monitoring
Liljestrand, K., [63]2017Collaboration, FLW, Information sharingTo analyse sustainability practices adopted in collaboration, including vertical collaboration in the food supply chainTo explore the role of collaboration in tackling food loss and wasteQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsBy investigating how Food Policy can foster collaborations to reduce FLW
Liljestrand, K., [63]2017Collaboration, FLW, Information sharingTo analyse sustainability practices adopted in collaboration, including vertical collaboration in the food supply chainTo explore the role of collaboration in tackling food loss and wasteQualitative analysisMeat and Food productsBy investigating how Food Policy can foster collaborations to reduce FLW
Harvey, J. et al. [228]2020IT and ICTs, Sustainability (Env. and Sco.), waste reduction, Management, decision-makingTo conduct social network analysis of food sharing, redistribution, and waste reductionTo reduce food waste via information sharing and IT applicationMixed methodFood productsBy examining the potential of social media applications in reducing food waste through sharing and redistribution
Rijpkema et al. [139]2014IT (Sharing), Sustainability Management, Waste reduction To create effective sourcing strategies for SCs dealing with perishable productsTo provide a method to reduce food waste and loss amountsSimulation modelFood productsBy proposing effective sourcing strategies
Wu, and Hsiao., [375]2021Information technologies, Management, Inventory, Food quality and safety, RisksTo identify and evaluate high-risk factorsTo mitigate risks and food safety accidentsMixed methodFood supply chainBy reducing food quality and safety risks and employing improvement plans
Kaipia et al. [93]2013IT (Sharing), Sustainability (Eco. and Env.) Management, InventoryTo improve sustainability performance via information sharingTo reduce FLW levelQualitative analysisFood productsBy incorporating demand and shelf-life data information sharing effect
Mishra, N., and Singh, A., [229]2018IT and ICTs, Sustainability (Env.), waste reduction, Management, decision-makingTo utilise Twitter data for waste minimisation in the beef supply chainTo contribute to the reduction in food wasteMixed methodFood productsBy offering insights into potential strategies for reducing food waste via social media and IT
Parashar et al. [18]2020Information sharing (IT), Sustainability (Env.), FW Management (regulation, inventory, risks)To model the enablers of the food supply chain and improve its sustainability performanceTo address the reducing carbon footprints in the food supply chainsMixed methodFood productsBy facilitating the strategic decision-making regarding reducing food waste
Tseng et al. [58]2022Regulations, Sustainability, Information technologies, (IoT and BCT)To conduct a data-driven comparison of halal and non-halal sustainable food supply chainsTo explore the role of regulations and standards in ensuring the compliance of food products with Halal requirements and FW reductionMixed methodFood productsBy highlighting the role of legislation in reducing food waste and promoting sustainable food management
Mejjaouli, and Babiceanu, [101]2018Information technologies (RFID-WSN), Management, Decision-making To optimise logistics decisions based on actual transportation conditions and delivery locationsTo develop a logistics decision model via an IT applicationStochastic optimisationFood products-
Wu et al. [292]2019IT (Information exchange), Sustainability (Eco., and Env.)To analyse the trade-offs between maintaining fruit quality and reducing environmental impactsTo combine virtual cold chains with life cycle assessment to provide a holistic approach for evaluating the environmental trade-offsMixed methodFood/fruit productsBy suggesting a more sustainability-driven cold chain scenario

References

  1. Ren, Q.-S.; Fang, K.; Yang, X.-T.; Han, J.-W. Ensuring the quality of meat in cold chain logistics: A comprehensive review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 119, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nastasijević, I.; Lakićević, B.; Petrović, Z. (Eds.) Cold chain management in meat storage, distribution and retail: A review. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brodribb, P. A Study of Waste in the Cold Food Chain and Opportunities for Improvement; Expert Group: Hefei, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Castonguay, A.C.; Polasky, S.; Holden, M.H.; Herrero, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Godde, C.; Chang, J.; Gerber, J.; Witt, G.B.; Game, E.T. Navigating sustainability trade-offs in global beef production. Nat. Sustain. 2023, 6, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. FAO. FAOSTAT Online Database. 2021. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed on 20 September 2023).
  6. Australia, M.L. Global Beef Industry and Trade Report; Meat & Livestock Australia: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  7. Juan Ding, M.; Jie, F.; Parton, K.A.; Matanda, M.J. Relationships between quality of information sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2014, 25, 85–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, H.; Pan, P. (Eds.) Food waste in developed countries and cold chain logistics. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ishangulyyev, R.; Kim, S.; Lee, S.H. Understanding food loss and waste—Why are we losing and wasting food? Foods 2019, 8, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. National Food Waste Strategy: Halving Australia’s Food Waste by 2030. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, Australia. 2024. Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/food-waste#:~:text=Australia’s%20National%20Food%20Waste%20Strategy,the%20National%20Food%20Waste%20Strategy (accessed on 8 February 2024).
  11. Keegan, E.; Breadsell, J.K. Food waste and social practices in Australian households. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; De Hooge, I.; Amani, P.; Bech-Larsen, T.; Oostindjer, M. Consumer-related food waste: Causes and potential for action. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6457–6477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gokarn, S.; Kuthambalayan, T.S. Analysis of challenges inhibiting the reduction of waste in food supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 595–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yan, H.; Song, M.-J.; Lee, H.-Y. A Systematic Review of Factors Affecting Food Loss and Waste and Sustainable Mitigation Strategies: A Logistics Service Providers’ Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brennan, A.; Browne, S. Food waste and nutrition quality in the context of public health: A scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Neff, R.A.; Kanter, R.; Vandevijvere, S. Reducing food loss and waste while improving the public’s health. Health Aff. 2015, 34, 1821–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Luo, N.; Olsen, T.; Liu, Y. A Conceptual Framework to Analyze Food Loss and Waste within Food Supply Chains: An Operations Management Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Parashar, S.; Sood, G.; Agrawal, N. Modelling the enablers of food supply chain for reduction in carbon footprint. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ma, L.; Qin, W.; Garnett, T.; Zhang, F. Review on drivers, trends and emerging issues of the food wastage in China. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lan, S.; Tseng, M.-L.; Yang, C.; Huisingh, D. Trends in sustainable logistics in major cities in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 136381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Farooque, M.; Zhang, A.; Liu, Y. Barriers to circular food supply chains in China. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 24, 677–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Han, J.-W.; Zuo, M.; Zhu, W.-Y.; Zuo, J.-H.; Lü, E.-L.; Yang, X.-T. A comprehensive review of cold chain logistics for fresh agricultural products: Current status, challenges, and future trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 109, 536–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Martinez, M.G.; Fearne, A.; Caswell, J.A.; Henson, S. Co-regulation as a possible model for food safety governance: Opportunities for public–private partnerships. Food Policy 2007, 32, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, K.Y.; Yip, T.L. Cold-chain systems in China and value-chain analysis. In Finance and Risk Management for International Logistics and the Supply Chain; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 217–241. [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, M.; Dan, B.; Zhang, S.; Ma, S. Information sharing in an E-tailing supply chain for fresh produce with freshness-keeping effort and value-added service. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 290, 572–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. An, J.; Wang, L.; Lv, X. Research on agri-food cold chain logistics management system: Connotation, structure and operational mechanism. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2015, 8, 894–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, J.; Cao, W.; Park, M. Reliability analysis and optimization of cold chain distribution system for fresh agricultural products. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, H.; Qiu, B.; Zhang, K. A new risk assessment model for agricultural products cold chain logistics. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 1800–1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chauhan, C.; Dhir, A.; Akram, M.U.; Salo, J. Food loss and waste in food supply chains. A systematic literature review and framework development approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Luo, N.; Olsen, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, A. Reducing food loss and waste in supply chain operations. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2022, 162, 102730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Broeze, J.; Guo, X.; Axmann, H. Trade-Off Analyses of Food Loss and Waste Reduction and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Food Supply Chains. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kumar, A.; Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, P. An integrated literature review on sustainable food supply chains: Exploring research themes and future directions. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 821, 153411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Stindt, D. A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain management-How to integrate concepts and methods to address the issues of sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. A systematic review of supply chain knowledge management research: State of the art and research opportunities. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 182, 276–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ali, I.; Gölgeci, I. Where is supply chain resilience research heading? A systematic and co-occurrence analysis. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2019, 49, 793–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. VOSviewer. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/getting-started (accessed on 20 May 2023).
  38. Chopra, S. Designing the distribution network in a supply chain. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2003, 39, 123–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gunasekaran, A.; Lai, K.-h.; Cheng, T.E. Responsive supply chain: A competitive strategy in a networked economy. Omega 2008, 36, 549–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dabbene, F.; Gay, P.; Sacco, N. Optimisation of fresh-food supply chains in uncertain environments, Part I: Background and methodology. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 99, 348–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Trienekens, J.; Zuurbier, P. Quality and safety standards in the food industry, developments and challenges. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 113, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lipinski, B.; Hanson, C.; Lomax, J.; Kitinoja, L.; Waite, R.; Searchinger, T. Reducing Food Loss and Waste; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  43. van der Vorst, J.G.; van Kooten, O.; Luning, P.A. Towards a diagnostic instrument to identify improvement opportunities for quality controlled logistics in agrifood supply chain networks. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2011, 2, 94–105. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wognum, P.N.; Bremmers, H.; Trienekens, J.H.; Van Der Vorst, J.G.; Bloemhof, J.M. Systems for sustainability and transparency of food supply chains–Current status and challenges. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011, 25, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Soysal, M.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M.; Meuwissen, M.P.; van der Vorst, J.G. A review on quantitative models for sustainable food logistics management. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2012, 3, 136–155. [Google Scholar]
  46. Koberg, E.; Longoni, A. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 1084–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Brandenburg, M.; Govindan, K.; Sarkis, J.; Seuring, S. Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 233, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bettley, A.; Burnley, S. Towards sustainable operations management integrating sustainability management into operations management strategies and practices. In Handbook of Performability Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 875–904. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhong, R.; Xu, X.; Wang, L. Food supply chain management: Systems, implementations, and future research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 2085–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Van der Meulen, B.M. The structure of European food law. Laws 2013, 2, 69–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kayikci, Y.; Ozbiltekin, M.; Kazancoglu, Y. Minimizing losses at red meat supply chain with circular and central slaughterhouse model. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 33, 791–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jedermann, R.; Nicometo, M.; Uysal, I.; Lang, W. Reducing food losses by intelligent food logistics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2014, 372, 20130302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Yu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Sun, L.; Sun, S. (Eds.) Research on food safety and security of cold chain logistics. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; p. 012176. [Google Scholar]
  54. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Ertz, M. Food cold chain management: What we know and what we deserve. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021, 26, 102–135. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lee, J.C.; Daraba, A.; Voidarou, C.; Rozos, G.; Enshasy, H.A.E.; Varzakas, T. Implementation of food safety management systems along with other management tools (HAZOP, FMEA, Ishikawa, Pareto). The case study of Listeria monocytogenes and correlation with microbiological criteria. Foods 2021, 10, 2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Singh, R.K.; Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Uniyal, S. Applications of information and communication technology for sustainable growth of SMEs in India food industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 147, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nayak, R.; Waterson, P. Global food safety as a complex adaptive system: Key concepts and future prospects. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 409–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tseng, M.-L.; Ha, H.M.; Tran, T.P.T.; Bui, T.-D.; Lim, M.K.; Lin, C.-W.; Helmi Ali, M. Data-driven on sustainable food supply chain: A comparison on Halal and non-Halal food system. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2022, 39, 430–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bortolini, M.; Faccio, M.; Ferrari, E.; Gamberi, M.; Pilati, F. Fresh food sustainable distribution: Cost, delivery time and carbon footprint three-objective optimization. J. Food Eng. 2016, 174, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chan, F.T.; Wang, Z.; Goswami, A.; Singhania, A.; Tiwari, M.K. Multi-objective particle swarm optimisation based integrated production inventory routing planning for efficient perishable food logistics operations. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 5155–5174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fikar, C. A decision support system to investigate food losses in e-grocery deliveries. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 117, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Soysal, M.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M.; Haijema, R.; van der Vorst, J.G. Modeling a green inventory routing problem for perishable products with horizontal collaboration. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018, 89, 168–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liljestrand, K. Logistics solutions for reducing food waste. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2017, 47, 318–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Halloran, A.; Clement, J.; Kornum, N.; Bucatariu, C.; Magid, J. Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy 2014, 49, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cattaneo, A.; Sánchez, M.V.; Torero, M.; Vos, R. Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy 2021, 98, 101974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Wang, X. Research on Food Cold Chain Logistics System Collaboration. Carpathian J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 8, 131. [Google Scholar]
  67. Weng, X.; An, J.; Yang, H. The analysis of the development situation and trend of the city-oriented cold chain logistics system for fresh agricultural products. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2015, 3, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dania, W.A.P.; Xing, K.; Amer, Y. Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 851–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Seuring, S.; Brix-Asala, C.; Khalid, R.U. Analyzing base-of-the-pyramid projects through sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 1086–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yu, Y.; Jaenicke, E.C. Estimating food waste as household production inefficiency. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 102, 525–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Huang, H.; He, Y.; Li, D. Pricing and inventory decisions in the food supply chain with production disruption and controllable deterioration. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 280–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, X.; Zhou, K. Multi-objective cold chain logistic distribution center location based on carbon emission. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 32396–32404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Dai, J.; Che, W.; Lim, J.J.; Shou, Y. Service innovation of cold chain logistics service providers: A multiple-case study in China. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 89, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Al Theeb, N.; Smadi, H.J.; Al-Hawari, T.H.; Aljarrah, M.H. Optimization of vehicle routing with inventory allocation problems in Cold Supply Chain Logistics. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 142, 106341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhao, H.; Liu, S.; Tian, C.; Yan, G.; Wang, D. An overview of current status of cold chain in China. Int. J. Refrig. 2018, 88, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tang, J.; Zou, Y.; Xie, R.; Tu, B.; Liu, G. Compact supervisory system for cold chain logistics. Food Control 2021, 126, 108025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Badia-Melis, R.; Mc Carthy, U.; Ruiz-Garcia, L.; Garcia-Hierro, J.; Villalba, J.R. New trends in cold chain monitoring applications-A review. Food Control 2018, 86, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, G.; Hu, J.; Yang, Y.; Xia, S.; Lim, M.K. Vehicle routing problem in cold Chain logistics: A joint distribution model with carbon trading mechanisms. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 156, 104715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Esmizadeh, Y.; Bashiri, M.; Jahani, H.; Almada-Lobo, B. Cold chain management in hierarchical operational hub networks. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 147, 102202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chen, J.; Dan, B.; Shi, J. A variable neighborhood search approach for the multi-compartment vehicle routing problem with time windows considering carbon emission. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wu, J.; Haasis, H.-D. The freight village as a pathway to sustainable agricultural products logistics in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 1227–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tsamboulas, D.A.; Kapros, S. Freight village evaluation under uncertainty with public and private financing. Transp. Policy 2003, 10, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pekkaya, M.; Keleş, N. Determining criteria interaction and criteria priorities in the freight village location selection process: The experts’ perspective in Turkey. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2022, 34, 1348–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shashi, S.; Cerchione, R.; Singh, R.; Centobelli, P.; Shabani, A. Food cold chain management: From a structured literature review to a conceptual framework and research agenda. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018, 29, 792–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Magalhães, V.S.; Ferreira, L.M.D.; da Silva César, A.; Bonfim, R.M.; Silva, C. Food loss and waste in the Brazilian beef supply chain: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020, 32, 214–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hülsmann, M.; Brenner, V. Causes and Effects of Cold Chain Ruptures: Performance of Fragmented Versus Integrated Cold Chains; Jacobs University, School of Engineering and Science, Internat. Logistics, Systems Management: Bremen, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  87. Buisman, M.; Haijema, R.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. Discounting and dynamic shelf life to reduce fresh food waste at retailers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 209, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kibler, K.M.; Reinhart, D.; Hawkins, C.; Motlagh, A.M.; Wright, J. Food waste and the food-energy-water nexus: A review of food waste management alternatives. Waste Manag. 2018, 74, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Herron, C.B.; Garner, L.J.; Siddique, A.; Huang, T.-S.; Campbell, J.C.; Rao, S.; Morey, A. Building “First Expire, First Out” models to predict food losses at retail due to cold chain disruption in the last mile. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 1018807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mendes, A.; Cruz, J.; Saraiva, T.; Lima, T.M.; Gaspar, P.D. (Eds.) Logistics strategy (FIFO, FEFO or LSFO) decision support system for perishable food products. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA), Sakheer, Bahrain, 8–9 November 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 173–178. [Google Scholar]
  91. Plan, W.R.A. Reducing Food Waste through Retail Supply Chain Collaboration; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  92. Nikolicic, S.; Kilibarda, M.; Maslaric, M.; Mircetic, D.; Bojic, S. Reducing food waste in the retail supply chains by improving efficiency of logistics operations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kaipia, R.; Dukovska-Popovska, I.; Loikkanen, L. Creating sustainable fresh food supply chains through waste reduction. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013, 43, 262–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Govindan, K.; Kadziński, M.; Sivakumar, R. Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain. Omega 2017, 71, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rahbari, M.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Mahdiraji, H.A.; Dorcheh, F.R.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. A novel location-inventory-routing problem in a two-stage red meat supply chain with logistic decisions: Evidence from an emerging economy. Kybernetes 2021, 51, 1498–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yazdani, M.; Chatterjee, P.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Zolfani, S.H. Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3728–3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kieu, P.T.; Nguyen, V.T.; Nguyen, V.T.; Ho, T.P. A spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SF-AHP) and combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) algorithm in distribution center location selection: A case study in agricultural supply chain. Axioms 2021, 10, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mihajlović, J.; Rajković, P.; Petrović, G.; Ćirić, D. The selection of the logistics distribution center location based on MCDM methodology in southern and eastern region in Serbia. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2019, 2, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zanoni, S.; Zavanella, L. Chilled or frozen? Decision strategies for sustainable food supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 731–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Aravendan, M.; Panneerselvam, R. Literature review on network design problems in closed loop and reverse supply chains. Intell. Inf. Manag. 2014, 6, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mejjaouli, S.; Babiceanu, R.F. Cold supply chain logistics: System optimization for real-time rerouting transportation solutions. Comput. Ind. 2018, 95, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Titiyal, R.; Bhattacharya, S.; Thakkar, J.J. The distribution strategy selection for an e-tailer using a hybrid DANP VIKOR MCDM model. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 26, 395–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Gallo, A.; Accorsi, R.; Baruffaldi, G.; Manzini, R. Designing sustainable cold chains for long-range food distribution: Energy-effective corridors on the Silk Road Belt. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Yakavenka, V.; Mallidis, I.; Vlachos, D.; Iakovou, E.; Eleni, Z. Development of a multi-objective model for the design of sustainable supply chains: The case of perishable food products. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020, 294, 593–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sel, Ç.; Pınarbaşı, M.; Soysal, M.; Çimen, M. A green model for the catering industry under demand uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Van Der Vorst, J.G.; Tromp, S.-O.; Zee, D.-J.v.d. Simulation modelling for food supply chain redesign; integrated decision making on product quality, sustainability and logistics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2009, 47, 6611–6631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bortolini, M.; Galizia, F.G.; Mora, C.; Botti, L.; Rosano, M. Bi-objective design of fresh food supply chain networks with reusable and disposable packaging containers. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Li, Q.; Yu, P.; Wu, X. Shelf life extending packaging, inventory control and grocery retailing. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2017, 26, 1369–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Verghese, K.; Lewis, H.; Lockrey, S.; Williams, H. Packaging’s role in minimizing food loss and waste across the supply chain. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2015, 28, 603–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ghadge, A.; Kaklamanou, M.; Choudhary, S.; Bourlakis, M. Implementing environmental practices within the Greek dairy supply chain: Drivers and barriers for SMEs. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 1995–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Sajjad, A.; Eweje, G.; Tappin, D. Managerial perspectives on drivers for and barriers to sustainable supply chain management implementation: Evidence from New Zealand. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 592–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hien, D.N.; Thanh, N.V. Optimization of cold chain logistics with Fuzzy MCDM Model. Processes 2022, 10, 947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Karanam, M.; Krishnanand, L.; Manupati, V.K.; Antosz, K.; Machado, J. Identification of the critical enablers for perishable food supply chain using deterministic assessment models. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kutlu Gündoğdu, F.; Kahraman, C. A novel VIKOR method using spherical fuzzy sets and its application to warehouse site selection. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2019, 37, 1197–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ali, S.M.; Rahman, M.H.; Tumpa, T.J.; Rifat, A.A.M.; Paul, S.K. Examining price and service competition among retailers in a supply chain under potential demand disruption. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 40, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ali, S.M.; Nakade, K. Optimal ordering policies in a multi-sourcing supply chain with supply and demand disruptions-a CVaR approach. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 2017, 28, 180–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Singh, A.; Shukla, N.; Mishra, N. Social media data analytics to improve supply chain management in food industries. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018, 114, 398–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Tang, C.S. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006, 103, 451–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ali, S.M.; Moktadir, M.A.; Kabir, G.; Chakma, J.; Rumi, M.J.U.; Islam, M.T. Framework for evaluating risks in food supply chain: Implications in food wastage reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 786–800. [Google Scholar]
  121. Govindan, K. Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. de Oliveira, U.R.; Marins, F.A.S.; Rocha, H.M.; Salomon, V.A.P. The ISO 31000 standard in supply chain risk management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 616–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Khan, O.; Burnes, B. Risk and supply chain management: Creating a research agenda. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2007, 18, 197–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, P.; Barua, M.K. An integrated methodology of FTA and fuzzy AHP for risk assessment in green supply chain. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 25, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Bogataj, D.; Hudoklin, D.; Bogataj, M.; Dimovski, V.; Colnar, S. Risk mitigation in a meat supply chain with options of redirection. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Nguyen, A.H.T.; Singh, A.; Kumari, S.; Choudhary, S. Multi-agent architecture for waste minimisation in beef supply chain. Prod. Plan. Control 2023, 34, 1082–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Deng, X.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Lu, Z. Risk propagation mechanisms and risk management strategies for a sustainable perishable products supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 135, 1175–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Srivastava, S.K.; Chaudhuri, A.; Srivastava, R.K. Propagation of risks and their impact on performance in fresh food retail. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2015, 26, 568–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Amani, M.A.; Sarkodie, S.A. Mitigating spread of contamination in meat supply chain management using deep learning. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Klein, A.Z.; Da Costa, E.G.; Vieira, L.M.; Teixeira, R. The use of mobile technology in management and risk control in the supply chain: The case of a Brazilian beef chain. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. (JGIM) 2014, 22, 14–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Mohebi, E.; Marquez, L. Intelligent packaging in meat industry: An overview of existing solutions. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 3947–3964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Martins, C.; Melo, M.; Pato, M. Redesigning a food bank supply chain network in a triple bottom line context. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 214, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Kowalski, Z.; Kulczycka, J.; Makara, A.; Harazin, P. Quantification of material recovery from meat waste incineration–An approach to an updated food waste hierarchy. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 416, 126021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Teigiserova, D.A.; Hamelin, L.; Thomsen, M. Towards transparent valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: Clarifying definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 136033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Beheshti, S.; Heydari, J.; Sazvar, Z. Food waste recycling closed loop supply chain optimization through renting waste recycling facilities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 78, 103644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Jensen, J.H.; Jensen, M.H.; Kulikovskaja, V. Consumer behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the relation to food waste in households. Appetite 2017, 116, 246–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Porpino, G. Household food waste behavior: Avenues for future research. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2016, 1, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Gholami-Zanjani, S.M.; Jabalameli, M.S.; Pishvaee, M.S. A resilient-green model for multi-echelon meat supply chain planning. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 152, 107018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Rijpkema, W.A.; Rossi, R.; van der Vorst, J.G. Effective sourcing strategies for perishable product supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2014, 44, 494–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Albrecht, A.; Ibald, R.; Raab, V.; Reichstein, W.; Haarer, D.; Kreyenschmidt, J. Implementation of time temperature indicators to improve temperature monitoring and support dynamic shelf life in meat supply chains. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2020, 4, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Ndraha, N.; Vlajic, J.; Chang, C.-C.; Hsiao, H.-I. Challenges with food waste management in the food cold chains. In Food Industry Wastes; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 467–483. [Google Scholar]
  142. Thyberg, K.L.; Tonjes, D.J. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 106, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Saeed, M.A.; Kersten, W. Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Identification and classification. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kumar, A.; Choudhary, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumar, V.; Rehman Khan, S.A.; Mishra, N. Analysis of critical success factors for implementing industry 4.0 integrated circular supply chain–Moving towards sustainable operations. Prod. Plan. Control 2023, 34, 984–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Chauhan, A.; Debnath, R.M.; Singh, S.P. Modelling the drivers for sustainable agri-food waste management. Benchmarking Int. J. 2018, 25, 981–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Jo, J.; Yi, S.; Lee, E.-k. Including the reefer chain into genuine beef cold chain architecture based on blockchain technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Kler, R.; Gangurde, R.; Elmirzaev, S.; Hossain, M.S.; Vo, N.V.; Nguyen, T.V.; Kumar, P.N. Optimization of Meat and Poultry Farm Inventory Stock Using Data Analytics for Green Supply Chain Network. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2022, 2022, 8970549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Handfield, R.B.; Cousins, P.D.; Lawson, B.; Petersen, K.J. How can supply management really improve performance? A knowledge-based model of alignment capabilities. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2015, 51, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Qi, L.; Xu, M.; Fu, Z.; Mira, T.; Zhang, X. C2SLDS: A WSN-based perishable food shelf-life prediction and LSFO strategy decision support system in cold chain logistics. Food Control 2014, 38, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Matta, V.; Moberg, C. Defining the Antecedents for Adoption of RFID in the Supply Chain. Issues Inf. Syst. 2007, 8, 449–454. [Google Scholar]
  151. Nychas, G.-J.E.; Skandamis, P.N.; Tassou, C.C.; Koutsoumanis, K.P. Meat spoilage during distribution. Meat Sci. 2008, 78, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Papargyropoulou, E.; Lozano, R.; Steinberger, J.K.; Wright, N.; bin Ujang, Z. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Joshi, R.; Banwet, D.; Shankar, R.; Gandhi, J. Performance improvement of cold chain in an emerging economy. Prod. Plan. Control 2012, 23, 817–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Sharma, S.; Pai, S.S. Analysis of operating effectiveness of a cold chain model using Bayesian networks. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2015, 21, 722–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Cousins, P.D.; Menguc, B. The implications of socialization and integration in supply chain management. J. Oper. Manag. 2006, 24, 604–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Beulens, A.J.; Broens, D.-F.; Folstar, P.; Hofstede, G.J. Food safety and transparency in food chains and networks Relationships and challenges. Food Control 2005, 16, 481–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Mangla, S.K.; Sharma, Y.K.; Patil, P.P.; Yadav, G.; Xu, J. Logistics and distribution challenges to managing operations for corporate sustainability: Study on leading Indian diary organizations. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Balaji, M.; Arshinder, K. Modeling the causes of food wastage in Indian perishable food supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 114, 153–167. [Google Scholar]
  159. Kuo, J.-C.; Chen, M.-C. Developing an advanced multi-temperature joint distribution system for the food cold chain. Food Control 2010, 21, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Smigic, N.; Antic, D.; Blagojevic, B.; Tomasevic, I.; Djekic, I. The level of food safety knowledge among meat handlers. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 9–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Sander, F.; Semeijn, J.; Mahr, D. The acceptance of blockchain technology in meat traceability and transparency. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2066–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Patel, S.; Dora, M.; Hahladakis, J.N.; Iacovidou, E. Opportunities, challenges and trade-offs with decreasing avoidable food waste in the UK. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Raak, N.; Symmank, C.; Zahn, S.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Rohm, H. Processing-and product-related causes for food waste and implications for the food supply chain. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Wittstruck, D.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding the success factors of sustainable supply chain management: Empirical evidence from the electrics and electronics industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012, 19, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Paul, A.; Shukla, N.; Paul, S.K.; Trianni, A. Sustainable supply chain management and multi-criteria decision-making methods: A systematic review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 3065–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Pinto, J.; Boavida-Dias, R.; Matos, H.A.; Azevedo, J. Analysis of the food loss and waste valorisation of animal by-products from the retail sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Mota, B.; Gomes, M.I.; Carvalho, A.; Barbosa-Povoa, A.P. Towards supply chain sustainability: Economic, environmental and social design and planning. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 105, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Mohammed, A.; Wang, Q. The fuzzy multi-objective distribution planner for a green meat supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 184, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Zhang, X.; Zhao, G.; Qi, Y.; Li, B. A robust fuzzy optimization model for closed-loop supply chain networks considering sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Ko, H.J.; Evans, G.W. A genetic algorithm-based heuristic for the dynamic integrated forward/reverse logistics network for 3PLs. Comput. Oper. Res. 2007, 34, 346–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Mosallanezhad, B.; Arjomandi, M.A.; Hashemi-Amiri, O.; Gholian-Jouybari, F.; Dibaj, M.; Akrami, M.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Metaheuristic optimizers to solve multi-echelon sustainable fresh seafood supply chain network design problem: A case of shrimp products. Alex. Eng. J. 2023, 68, 491–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Accorsi, R.; Ferrari, E.; Gamberi, M.; Manzini, R.; Regattieri, A. A closed-loop traceability system to improve logistics decisions in food supply chains: A case study on dairy products. In Advances in Food Traceability Techniques and Technologies; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 337–351. [Google Scholar]
  174. Alinezhad, M.; Mahdavi, I.; Hematian, M.; Tirkolaee, E.B. A fuzzy multi-objective optimization model for sustainable closed-loop supply chain network design in food industries. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 8779–8806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Sgarbossa, F.; Russo, I. A proactive model in sustainable food supply chain: Insight from a case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 183, 596–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Zhang, Y.; Che, A.; Chu, F. Improved model and efficient method for bi-objective closed-loop food supply chain problem with returnable transport items. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 60, 1051–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Amin, S.H.; Zhang, G.; Eldali, M.N. A review of closed-loop supply chain models. J. Data Inf. Manag. 2020, 2, 279–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. MahmoumGonbadi, A.; Genovese, A.; Sgalambro, A. Closed-loop supply chain design for the transition towards a circular economy: A systematic literature review of methods, applications and current gaps. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 323, 129101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Tavana, M.; Kian, H.; Nasr, A.K.; Govindan, K.; Mina, H. A comprehensive framework for sustainable closed-loop supply chain network design. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 332, 129777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Martindale, W.; Duong, L.; Swainson, M. Testing the data platforms required for the 21st century food system using an industry ecosystem approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 724, 137871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Vlajic, J.V.; Mijailovic, R.; Bogdanova, M. Creating loops with value recovery: Empirical study of fresh food supply chains. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 522–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Liu, Z.; de Souza, T.S.; Holland, B.; Dunshea, F.; Barrow, C.; Suleria, H.A. Valorization of food waste to produce value-added products based on its bioactive compounds. Processes 2023, 11, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Mangla, S.K.; Luthra, S.; Mishra, N.; Singh, A.; Rana, N.P.; Dora, M.; Dwivedi, Y. Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country context. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 551–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Sehnem, S.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Pereira, S.C.F.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. Improving sustainable supply chains performance through operational excellence: Circular economy approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 236–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Wiskerke, J.S.; Roep, D. Constructing a sustainable pork supply chain: A case of techno-institutional innovation. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2007, 9, 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Ilbery, B.; Maye, D. Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock products in the Scottish–English borders. Environ. Plan. A 2005, 37, 823–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Mundler, P.; Laughrea, S. The contributions of short food supply chains to territorial development: A study of three Quebec territories. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 45, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Rucabado-Palomar, T.; Cuéllar-Padilla, M. Short food supply chains for local food: A difficult path. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 35, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Vittersø, G.; Torjusen, H.; Laitala, K.; Tocco, B.; Biasini, B.; Csillag, P.; de Labarre, M.D.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Maj, A.; Majewski, E. Short food supply chains and their contributions to sustainability: Participants’ views and perceptions from 12 European cases. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Blanquart, C.; Gonçalves, A.; Vandenbossche, L.; Kebir, L.; Petit, C.; Traversac, J.-B. (Eds.) The logistic leverages of short food supply chains performance in terms of sustainability. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Transport Research, Lisbonne, Portugal, 11–15 July 2010. 10p. [Google Scholar]
  191. Majewski, E.; Komerska, A.; Kwiatkowski, J.; Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Wąs, A.; Sulewski, P.; Gołaś, M.; Pogodzińska, K.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Tocco, B. Are short food supply chains more environmentally sustainable than long chains? A life cycle assessment (LCA) of the eco-efficiency of food chains in selected EU countries. Energies 2020, 13, 4853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Collison, M.; Collison, T.; Myroniuk, I.; Boyko, N.; Pellegrini, G. Transformation trends in food logistics for short food supply chains-what is new? Stud. Agric. Econ. 2019, 121, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. De Bernardi, P.; Tirabeni, L. Alternative food networks: Sustainable business models for anti-consumption food cultures. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 1776–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Loiseau, E.; Colin, M.; Alaphilippe, A.; Coste, G.; Roux, P. To what extent are short food supply chains (SFSCs) environmentally friendly? Application to French apple distribution using Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Chen, W.; Jafarzadeh, S.; Thakur, M.; Ólafsdóttir, G.; Mehta, S.; Bogason, S.; Holden, N.M. Environmental impacts of animal-based food supply chains with market characteristics. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 783, 147077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Hill, A. Whole of Meat Supply Chain Food Loss and Waste Mapping and Interventions-Phase 1–Final Report; Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA): Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  197. Bonou, A.; Colley, T.A.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Olsen, S.I.; Birkved, M. Life cycle assessment of Danish pork exports using different cooling technologies and comparison of upstream supply chain efficiencies between Denmark, China and Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Chen, Q.; Qian, J.; Yang, H.; Wu, W. Sustainable food cold chain logistics: From microenvironmental monitoring to global impact. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2022, 21, 4189–4209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Caldeira, C.; De Laurentiis, V.; Corrado, S.; van Holsteijn, F.; Sala, S. Quantification of food waste per product group along the food supply chain in the European Union: A mass flow analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Betz, A.; Buchli, J.; Göbel, C.; Müller, C. Food waste in the Swiss food service industry–Magnitude and potential for reduction. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Apaiah, R.K.; Linnemann, A.R.; Van Der Kooi, H.J. Exergy analysis: A tool to study the sustainability of food supply chains. Food Res. Int. 2006, 39, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Peters, G.M.; Rowley, H.V.; Wiedemann, S.; Tucker, R.; Short, M.D.; Schulz, M. Red meat production in Australia: Life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 1327–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Asem-Hiablie, S.; Battagliese, T.; Stackhouse-Lawson, K.R.; Alan Rotz, C. A life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of a beef system in the USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Tsakiridis, A.; O’Donoghue, C.; Hynes, S.; Kilcline, K. A comparison of environmental and economic sustainability across seafood and livestock product value chains. Mar. Policy 2020, 117, 103968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems. Water Resour. Ind. 2013, 1, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Bottani, E.; Vignali, G.; Mosna, D.; Montanari, R. Economic and environmental assessment of different reverse logistics scenarios for food waste recovery. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 20, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Omolayo, Y.; Feingold, B.J.; Neff, R.A.; Romeiko, X.X. Life cycle assessment of food loss and waste in the food supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Lipińska, M.; Tomaszewska, M.; Kołożyn-Krajewska, D. Identifying factors associated with food losses during transportation: Potentials for social purposes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. León-Bravo, V.; Caniato, F.; Caridi, M.; Johnsen, T. Collaboration for sustainability in the food supply chain: A multi-stage study in Italy. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Accorsi, R.; Baruffaldi, G.; Manzini, R. A closed-loop packaging network design model to foster infinitely reusable and recyclable containers in food industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 24, 48–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Tonn, B.; Frymier, P.D.; Stiefel, D.; Skinner, L.S.; Suraweera, N.; Tuck, R. Toward an infinitely reusable, recyclable, and renewable industrial ecosystem. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 392–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Pålsson, H.; Hellström, D. Packaging logistics in supply chain practice–current state, trade-offs and improvement potential. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2016, 19, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Mahmoudi, M.; Parviziomran, I. Reusable packaging in supply chains: A review of environmental and economic impacts, logistics system designs, and operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 228, 107730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Wikström, F.; Verghese, K.; Auras, R.; Olsson, A.; Williams, H.; Wever, R.; Grönman, K.; Kvalvåg Pettersen, M.; Møller, H.; Soukka, R. Packaging strategies that save food: A research agenda for 2030. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 532–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Goossens, Y.; Berrens, P.; Custers, K.; Van Hemelryck, S.; Kellens, K.; Geeraerd, A. How origin, packaging and seasonality determine the environmental impact of apples, magnified by food waste and losses. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 667–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. McMillin, K.W. Advancements in meat packaging. Meat Sci. 2017, 132, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Domínguez, R.; Barba, F.J.; Gómez, B.; Putnik, P.; Kovačević, D.B.; Pateiro, M.; Santos, E.M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Active packaging films with natural antioxidants to be used in meat industry: A review. Food Res. Int. 2018, 113, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Fang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Warner, R.D.; Johnson, S.K. Active and intelligent packaging in meat industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Chowdhury, E.; Morey, A. Intelligent packaging for poultry industry. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2019, 28, 791–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Realini, C.E.; Marcos, B. Active and intelligent packaging systems for a modern society. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Moustafa, H.; Youssef, A.M.; Darwish, N.A.; Abou-Kandil, A.I. Eco-friendly polymer composites for green packaging: Future vision and challenges. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 172, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Ocampo, L.A.; Villegas, Z.V.A.; Carvajal, J.-a.T.; Apas, C.-A.A. Identifying significant drivers for sustainable practices in achieving sustainable food supply chain using modified fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory approach. Int. J. Adv. Oper. Manag. 2018, 10, 51–89. [Google Scholar]
  223. Irani, Z.; Sharif, A.M. Sustainable food security futures: Perspectives on food waste and information across the food supply chain. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2016, 29, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Jeswani, H.K.; Figueroa-Torres, G.; Azapagic, A. The extent of food waste generation in the UK and its environmental impacts. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 532–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Shafiee-Jood, M.; Cai, X. Reducing food loss and waste to enhance food security and environmental sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 8432–8443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Parekh, H.; Joshi, S. Modeling the internet of things adoption barriers in food retail supply chains. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 48, 154–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Rejeb, A. Halal meat supply chain traceability based on HACCP, blockchain and internet of things. Acta Tech. Jaurinensis 2018, 11, 218–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Harvey, J.; Smith, A.; Goulding, J.; Illodo, I.B. Food sharing, redistribution, and waste reduction via mobile applications: A social network analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 88, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Mishra, N.; Singh, A. Use of twitter data for waste minimisation in beef supply chain. Ann. Oper. Res. 2018, 270, 337–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Biuki, M.; Kazemi, A.; Alinezhad, A. An integrated location-routing-inventory model for sustainable design of a perishable products supply chain network. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 120842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Alkaabneh, F.; Diabat, A.; Gao, H.O. Benders decomposition for the inventory vehicle routing problem with perishable products and environmental costs. Comput. Oper. Res. 2020, 113, 104751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Elhedhli, S.; Merrick, R. Green supply chain network design to reduce carbon emissions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2012, 17, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Daskin, M.S.; Coullard, C.R.; Shen, Z.-J.M. An inventory-location model: Formulation, solution algorithm and computational results. Ann. Oper. Res. 2002, 110, 83–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Liu, A.; Zhu, Q.; Xu, L.; Lu, Q.; Fan, Y. Sustainable supply chain management for perishable products in emerging markets: An integrated location-inventory-routing model. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 150, 102319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Diabat, A.; Dehghani, E.; Jabbarzadeh, A. Incorporating location and inventory decisions into a supply chain design problem with uncertain demands and lead times. J. Manuf. Syst. 2017, 43, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Bravo, J.J.; Vidal, C.J. Freight transportation function in supply chain optimization models: A critical review of recent trends. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 6742–6757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Javid, A.A.; Azad, N. Incorporating location, routing and inventory decisions in supply chain network design. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2010, 46, 582–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Benders, J.F. Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems. Comput. Manag. Sci. 2005, 2, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Savelsbergh, M. A branch-and-price algorithm for the generalized assignment problem. Oper. Res. 1997, 45, 831–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Talkhestani, H.R.A.; Jahromi, M.H.M.A.; Keshavarzfard, R. A Location-Inventory Model for Multi-Product Supply Chain with Perishable Products and Price-Dependent Demand. Adv. Ind. Eng. 2023, 56, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  241. Mohammadi, Z.; Barzinpour, F.; Teimoury, E. A location-inventory model for the sustainable supply chain of perishable products based on pricing and replenishment decisions: A case study. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0288915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  242. Tarantilis, C.; Kiranoudis, C. Distribution of fresh meat. J. Food Eng. 2002, 51, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Zhang, G.; Habenicht, W.; Spieß, W.E.L. Improving the structure of deep frozen and chilled food chain with tabu search procedure. J. Food Eng. 2003, 60, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Wang, Y.; Yu, L.y. (Eds.) Optimization model of refrigerated food transportation. In Proceedings of the ICSSSM12, Shanghai, China, 2–4 July 2012; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 220–224. [Google Scholar]
  245. Neves-Moreira, F.; Almada-Lobo, B.; Cordeau, J.-F.; Guimarães, L.; Jans, R. Solving a large multi-product production-routing problem with delivery time windows. Omega 2019, 86, 154–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Govindan, K.; Jafarian, A.; Khodaverdi, R.; Devika, K. Two-echelon multiple-vehicle location–routing problem with time windows for optimization of sustainable supply chain network of perishable food. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 152, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Mohammed, A.; Wang, Q. Developing a meat supply chain network design using a multi-objective possibilistic programming approach. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 690–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Moreno, S.; Pereira, J.; Yushimito, W. A hybrid K-means and integer programming method for commercial territory design: A case study in meat distribution. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020, 286, 87–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Rahbari, M.; Hajiagha, S.H.R.; Dehaghi, M.R.; Moallem, M.; Dorcheh, F.R. Modeling and solving a five-echelon location–inventory–routing problem for red meat supply chain: Case study in Iran. Kybernetes 2020, 50, 66–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Qu, S.; Zhou, Y.; Ji, Y.; Dai, Z.; Wang, Z. Robust maximum expert consensus modeling with dynamic feedback mechanism under uncertain environments. J. Ind. Manag. Optim. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Soysal, M.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M.; Van Der Vorst, J.G. Modelling food logistics networks with emission considerations: The case of an international beef supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 152, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Mohebalizadehgashti, F.; Zolfagharinia, H.; Amin, S.H. Designing a green meat supply chain network: A multi-objective approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 219, 312–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Aung, M.M.; Chang, Y.S. Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and quality perspectives. Food Control 2014, 39, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Ketzenberg, M.; Bloemhof, J.; Gaukler, G. Managing perishables with time and temperature history. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2015, 24, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Bottani, E.; Casella, G.; Nobili, M.; Tebaldi, L. An analytic model for estimating the economic and environmental impact of food cold supply chain. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Vrat, P.; Gupta, R.; Bhatnagar, A.; Pathak, D.K.; Fulzele, V. Literature review analytics (LRA) on sustainable cold-chain for perishable food products: Research trends and future directions. Opsearch 2018, 55, 601–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. De Keizer, M.; Haijema, R.; Bloemhof, J.M.; Van Der Vorst, J.G. Hybrid optimization and simulation to design a logistics network for distributing perishable products. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2015, 88, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Coelho, L.C.; Laporte, G. Optimal joint replenishment, delivery and inventory management policies for perishable products. Comput. Oper. Res. 2014, 47, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Hasani, A.; Zegordi, S.H.; Nikbakhsh, E. Robust closed-loop supply chain network design for perishable goods in agile manufacturing under uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 4649–4669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Song, B.D.; Ko, Y.D. A vehicle routing problem of both refrigerated-and general-type vehicles for perishable food products delivery. J. Food Eng. 2016, 169, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. de Keizer, M.; Akkerman, R.; Grunow, M.; Bloemhof, J.M.; Haijema, R.; van der Vorst, J.G. Logistics network design for perishable products with heterogeneous quality decay. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 262, 535–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Mohammed, A.; Govindan, K.; Zubairu, N.; Pratabaraj, J.; Abideen, A.Z. Multi-tier supply chain network design: A key towards sustainability and resilience. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 182, 109396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Tavakkoli Moghaddam, S.; Javadi, M.; Hadji Molana, S.M. A reverse logistics chain mathematical model for a sustainable production system of perishable goods based on demand optimization. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 2019, 15, 709–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Mohammed, A.; Wang, Q.; Li, X. A cost-effective decision-making algorithm for an RFID-enabled HMSC network design: A multi-objective approach. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 1782–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Alfian, G.; Syafrudin, M.; Farooq, U.; Ma’arif, M.R.; Syaekhoni, M.A.; Fitriyani, N.L.; Lee, J.; Rhee, J. Improving efficiency of RFID-based traceability system for perishable food by utilizing IoT sensors and machine learning model. Food Control 2020, 110, 107016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Verghese, K.; Lewis, H.; Lockrey, S.; Williams, H. The Role of Packaging in Minimising Food Waste in the Supply Chain of the Future: Prepared for: CHEP Australia; RMIT University Report: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  267. Singh, A.; Kumari, S.; Malekpoor, H.; Mishra, N. Big data cloud computing framework for low carbon supplier selection in the beef supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Thakur, M.; Forås, E. EPCIS based online temperature monitoring and traceability in a cold meat chain. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 117, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Kittipanya-Ngam, P.; Tan, K.H. A framework for food supply chain digitalization: Lessons from Thailand. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 31, 158–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Luo, H.; Zhu, M.; Ye, S.; Hou, H.; Chen, Y.; Bulysheva, L. An intelligent tracking system based on internet of things for the cold chain. Internet Res. 2016, 26, 435–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Rodrigues, V.S.; Demir, E.; Wang, X.; Sarkis, J. Measurement, mitigation and prevention of food waste in supply chains: An online shopping perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 93, 545–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Fung, F.; Wang, H.-S.; Menon, S. Food safety in the 21st century. Biomed. J. 2018, 41, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Siems, E.; Land, A.; Seuring, S. Dynamic capabilities in sustainable supply chain management: An inter-temporal comparison of the food and automotive industries. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 236, 108128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Gholami-Zanjani, S.M.; Klibi, W.; Jabalameli, M.S.; Pishvaee, M.S. The design of resilient food supply chain networks prone to epidemic disruptions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 233, 108001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Wang, J.; Yue, H. Food safety pre-warning system based on data mining for a sustainable food supply chain. Food Control 2017, 73, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Esmaeilian, B.; Sarkis, J.; Lewis, K.; Behdad, S. Blockchain for the future of sustainable supply chain management in Industry 4.0. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 163, 105064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. McKinna, D.; Wall, C. Commercial Application of Supply Chain Integrity and Shelf Life Systems; Technical Report; Meat and Livestock Australia Limited: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  278. Jia, L.; Evans, S. Improving food allergen management in food manufacturing: An incentive-based approach. Food Control 2021, 129, 108246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Nyarugwe, S.P.; Linnemann, A.R.; Luning, P.A. Prevailing food safety culture in companies operating in a transition economy-Does product riskiness matter? Food Control 2020, 107, 106803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Sestino, A.; Prete, M.I.; Piper, L.; Guido, G. Internet of Things and Big Data as enablers for business digitalization strategies. Technovation 2020, 98, 102173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Astill, J.; Dara, R.A.; Campbell, M.; Farber, J.M.; Fraser, E.D.; Sharif, S.; Yada, R.Y. Transparency in food supply chains: A review of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Singh, M.; Corradini, M.G. Big data and its role in mitigating food spoilage and quality deterioration along the supply chain. In Harnessing Big Data in Food Safety; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 93–112. [Google Scholar]
  283. Tiwari, S.; Wee, H.-M.; Daryanto, Y. Big data analytics in supply chain management between 2010 and 2016: Insights to industries. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 115, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Wang, G.; Gunasekaran, A.; Ngai, E.W.; Papadopoulos, T. Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management: Certain investigations for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 176, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Addo-Tenkorang, R.; Helo, P.T. Big data applications in operations/supply-chain management: A literature review. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 101, 528–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Feng, H.; Wang, X.; Duan, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, X. Applying blockchain technology to improve agri-food traceability: A review of development methods, benefits and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Sanka, A.I.; Irfan, M.; Huang, I.; Cheung, R.C. A survey of breakthrough in blockchain technology: Adoptions, applications, challenges and future research. Comput. Commun. 2021, 169, 179–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Azzi, R.; Chamoun, R.K.; Sokhn, M. The power of a blockchain-based supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 135, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Powell, W.; Foth, M.; Cao, S.; Natanelov, V. Garbage in garbage out: The precarious link between IoT and blockchain in food supply chains. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022, 25, 100261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Verboven, P.; Defraeye, T.; Datta, A.K.; Nicolai, B. Digital twins of food process operations: The next step for food process models? Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 35, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Kuffi, K.D.; Defraeye, T.; Nicolai, B.M.; De Smet, S.; Geeraerd, A.; Verboven, P. CFD modeling of industrial cooling of large beef carcasses. Int. J. Refrig. 2016, 69, 324–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Wu, W.; Beretta, C.; Cronje, P.; Hellweg, S.; Defraeye, T. Environmental trade-offs in fresh-fruit cold chains by combining virtual cold chains with life cycle assessment. Appl. Energy 2019, 254, 113586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Agalianos, K.; Ponis, S.; Aretoulaki, E.; Plakas, G.; Efthymiou, O. Discrete event simulation and digital twins: Review and challenges for logistics. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 51, 1636–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  294. Wang, Y.; Ma, X.; Liu, M.; Gong, K.; Liu, Y.; Xu, M.; Wang, Y. Cooperation and profit allocation in two-echelon logistics joint distribution network optimization. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017, 56, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Zhu, Z.; Bai, Y.; Dai, W.; Liu, D.; Hu, Y. Quality of e-commerce agricultural products and the safety of the ecological environment of the origin based on 5G Internet of Things technology. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 22, 101462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Osman, S.A.; Xu, C.; Akuful, M.; Paul, E.R. Perishable Food Supply Chain Management: Challenges and the Way Forward. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2023, 11, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Verhoef, P.C.; Lemon, K.N. Successful customer value management: Key lessons and emerging trends. Eur. Manag. J. 2013, 31, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Tseng, M.-L. Modeling sustainable production indicators with linguistic preferences. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Derqui, B.; Fayos, T.; Fernandez, V. Towards a more sustainable food supply chain: Opening up invisible waste in food service. Sustainability 2016, 8, 693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Heising, J.K.; Claassen, G.; Dekker, M. Options for reducing food waste by quality-controlled logistics using intelligent packaging along the supply chain. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2017, 34, 1672–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  301. Ravindran, R.; Jaiswal, A.K. Exploitation of food industry waste for high-value products. Trends Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Lin, C.S.K.; Pfaltzgraff, L.A.; Herrero-Davila, L.; Mubofu, E.B.; Abderrahim, S.; Clark, J.H.; Koutinas, A.A.; Kopsahelis, N.; Stamatelatou, K.; Dickson, F. Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 6, 426–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Krishnan, R.; Arshinder, K.; Agarwal, R. Robust optimization of sustainable food supply chain network considering food waste valorization and supply uncertainty. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 171, 108499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Cristóbal, J.; Castellani, V.; Manfredi, S.; Sala, S. Prioritizing and optimizing sustainable measures for food waste prevention and management. Waste Manag. 2018, 72, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Karwowska, M.; Łaba, S.; Szczepański, K. Food loss and waste in meat sector—Why the consumption stage generates the most losses? Sustainability 2021, 13, 6227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Dani, S.; Deep, A. Fragile food supply chains: Reacting to risks. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2010, 13, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Corrêa, H.L.; Xavier, L.H. Concepts, design and implementation of Reverse Logistics Systems for sustainable supply chains in Brazil. J. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. 2013, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. Pagell, M.; Shevchenko, A. Why research in sustainable supply chain management should have no future. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 50, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  309. Difrancesco, R.M.; Huchzermeier, A. Closed-loop supply chains: A guide to theory and practice. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2016, 19, 443–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Battini, D.; Bogataj, M.; Choudhary, A. Closed Loop Supply Chain (CLSC): Economics, Modelling, Management and Control; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 183, pp. 319–321. [Google Scholar]
  311. Meneghetti, A.; Monti, L. Greening the food supply chain: An optimisation model for sustainable design of refrigerated automated warehouses. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015, 53, 6567–6587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Adekomaya, O.; Jamiru, T.; Sadiku, R.; Huan, Z. Sustaining the shelf life of fresh food in cold chain–A burden on the environment. Alex. Eng. J. 2016, 55, 1359–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  313. Benn, S.; Edwards, M.; Williams, T. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  314. Chopra, S.; Meindl, P. Supply Chain Management. Strategy, Planning & Operation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  315. Li, Q.; Liu, A. Big data driven supply chain management. Procedia CIRP 2019, 81, 1089–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Nagy, G.; Salhi, S. Location-routing: Issues, models and methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 177, 649–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Kamariotou, M.; Kitsios, F.; Charatsari, C.; Lioutas, E.D.; Talias, M.A. Digital strategy decision support systems: Agrifood supply chain management in smes. Sensors 2021, 22, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  318. Trstenjak, M.; Opetuk, T.; Đukić, G.; Cajner, H. Logistics 5.0 Implementation Model Based on Decision Support Systems. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  319. Cai, L.; Li, W.; Luo, Y.; He, L. Real-time scheduling simulation optimisation of job shop in a production-logistics collaborative environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2022, 61, 1373–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  320. Stijn, E.v.; Phuaphanthong, T.; Keretho, S.; Pikart, M.; Hofman, W.; Tan, Y.-H. Implementation Framework for e-solutions for Trade Facilitation. In Accelerating Global Supply Chains with IT-Innovation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 285–317. [Google Scholar]
  321. Yavas, V.; Ozkan-Ozen, Y.D. Logistics centers in the new industrial era: A proposed framework for logistics center 4.0. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020, 135, 101864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  322. Zokaei, A.K.; Simons, D.W. Value chain analysis in consumer focus improvement: A case study of the UK red meat industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2006, 17, 141–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  323. Cox, A.; Chicksand, D.; Yang, T. The proactive alignment of sourcing with marketing and branding strategies: A food service case. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2007, 12, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  324. Jie, F.; Gengatharen, D. Australian food retail supply chain analysis. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2019, 25, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  325. Knoll, S.; Marques, C.S.S.; Liu, J.; Zhong, F.; Padula, A.D.; Barcellos, J.O.J. The Sino-Brazilian beef supply chain: Mapping and risk detection. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 164–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  326. Schilling-Vacaflor, A. Integrating human rights and the environment in supply chain regulations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  327. Knoll, S.; Padula, A.D.; dos Santos, M.C.; Pumi, G.; Zhou, S.; Zhong, F.; Barcellos, J.O.J. Information flow in the Sino-Brazilian beef trade. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2018, 21, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  328. E-Fatima, K.; Khandan, R.; Hosseinian-Far, A.; Sarwar, D.; Ahmed, H.F. Adoption and Influence of Robotic Process Automation in Beef Supply Chains. Logistics 2022, 6, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  329. Storer, M.; Hyland, P.; Ferrer, M.; Santa, R.; Griffiths, A. Strategic supply chain management factors influencing agribusiness innovation utilization. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2014, 25, 487–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  330. Mangla, S.K.; Börühan, G.; Ersoy, P.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Song, M. Impact of information hiding on circular food supply chains in business-to-business context. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 135, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  331. Faisal, M.N. A study of inhibitors to transparency in red meat supply chains in Gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2015, 21, 1299–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  332. Shanoyan, A.; Schiavi Bankuti, S.M.; Colares-Santos, L. Analysis of incentive structures at producer–processor interface of beef supply chain in Brazil. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2019, 9, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  333. Nakandala, D.; Lau, H.; Zhang, J. Cost-optimization modelling for fresh food quality and transportation. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 564–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  334. Ge, H.; Gómez, M.; Peters, C. Modeling and optimizing the beef supply chain in the Northeastern US. Agric. Econ. 2022, 53, 702–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  335. Hsiao, Y.-H.; Chen, M.-C.; Chin, C.-L. Distribution planning for perishable foods in cold chains with quality concerns: Formulation and solution procedure. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  336. Meksavang, P.; Shi, H.; Lin, S.-M.; Liu, H.-C. An extended picture fuzzy VIKOR approach for sustainable supplier management and its application in the beef industry. Symmetry 2019, 11, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  337. Taylor, D.H. Strategic considerations in the development of lean agri-food supply chains: A case study of the UK pork sector. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2006, 11, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  338. Erol, E.; Saghaian, S.H. The COVID-19 pandemic and dynamics of price adjustment in the US beef sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  339. Galuchi, T.P.D.; Rosales, F.P.; Batalha, M.O. Management of socioenvironmental factors of reputational risk in the beef supply chain in the Brazilian Amazon region. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019, 22, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  340. Silvestre, B.S.; Monteiro, M.S.; Viana, F.L.E.; de Sousa-Filho, J.M. Challenges for sustainable supply chain management: When stakeholder collaboration becomes conducive to corruption. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  341. Eriksson, M.; Strid, I.; Hansson, P.-A. Waste of organic and conventional meat and dairy products—A case study from Swedish retail. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 83, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  342. Accorsi, R.; Bortolini, M.; Gallo, A. Modeling by-products and waste management in the meat industry. In Sustainable Food Supply Chains; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 339–349. [Google Scholar]
  343. Ersoy, P.; Börühan, G.; Kumar Mangla, S.; Hormazabal, J.H.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Lafcı, Ç. Impact of information technology and knowledge sharing on circular food supply chains for green business growth. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 1875–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  344. Mahbubi, A.; Uchiyama, T. Assessing the sustainability of the Indonesian halal beef supply chain. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2020, 11, 468–481. [Google Scholar]
  345. Bragaglio, A.; Napolitano, F.; Pacelli, C.; Pirlo, G.; Sabia, E.; Serrapica, F.; Serrapica, M.; Braghieri, A. Environmental impacts of Italian beef production: A comparison between different systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4033–4043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  346. Zeidan, R.; Van Holt, T.; Whelan, T. Existence inductive theory building to study coordination failures in sustainable beef production. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 122137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  347. Santos, A.B.; Costa, M.H. Do large slaughterhouses promote sustainable intensification of cattle ranching in Amazonia and the Cerrado? Sustainability 2018, 10, 3266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  348. E-Fatima, K.; Khandan, R.; Hosseinian-Far, A.; Sarwar, D. The Adoption of Robotic Process Automation Considering Financial Aspects in Beef Supply Chains: An Approach towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  349. Huerta, A.R.; Güereca, L.P.; Lozano, M.d.l.S.R. Environmental impact of beef production in Mexico through life cycle assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  350. Cox, A.; Chicksand, D.; Palmer, M. Stairways to heaven or treadmills to oblivion? Creating sustainable strategies in red meat supply chains. Br. Food J. 2007, 109, 689–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  351. Teresa, H.; Áine, M.-W.; Olive, M.; Carol, P.; Maeve, H. Co-operation among Irish beef farmers: Current perspectives and future prospects in the context of new producer organisation (PO) legislation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  352. Kyayesimira, J.; Wangalwa, R.; Kagoro Rugunda, G.; Lejju, J.B.; Matofari, J.W.; Andama, M. Causes of losses and the economic loss estimates at post-harvest handling points along the beef value chain in Uganda. J. Agric. Ext. Rural. Dev. 2019, 11, 176–183. [Google Scholar]
  353. Ranaei, V.; Pilevar, Z.; Esfandiari, C.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Dhakal, R.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E.; Hosseini, H. Meat value chain losses in Iran. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  354. Wiedemann, S.; McGahan, E.; Murphy, C.; Yan, M.-J.; Henry, B.; Thoma, G.; Ledgard, S. Environmental impacts and resource use of Australian beef and lamb exported to the USA determined using life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  355. Martínez, C.I.P.; Poveda, A.C. Characterization of cooling equipment in the food industry: Case study of the Colombian meat, dairy, and fruit and vegetable sectors. Environ. Dev. 2022, 41, 100693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  356. Fattahi, F.; Nookabadi, A.S.; Kadivar, M. A model for measuring the performance of the meat supply chain. Br. Food J. 2013, 115, 1090–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  357. Florindo, T.; Florindo, G.d.M.; Talamini, E.; da Costa, J.; de Léis, C.; Tang, W.; Schultz, G.; Kulay, L.; Pinto, A.; Ruviaro, C.F. Application of the multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach in the identification of Carbon Footprint reduction actions in the Brazilian beef production chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 1379–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  358. Diaz, F.; Vignati, J.A.; Marchi, B.; Paoli, R.; Zanoni, S.; Romagnoli, F. Effects of energy efficiency measures in the beef cold chain: A life cycle-based study. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2021, 25, 343–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  359. Schmidt, B.V.; Moreno, M.S. Traceability optimization in the meat supply chain with economic and environmental considerations. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 169, 108271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  360. Domingues Zucchi, J.; Zeng, A.Z.; Caixeta-Filho, J.V. Optimum location for export-oriented slaughterhouses in Mato Grosso, Brazil: A dynamic mathematical model. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2011, 14, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  361. Dorcheh, F.R.; Rahbari, M. Greenhouse gas emissions optimization for distribution and vehicle routing problem in a poultry meat supply chain in two phases: A case study in Iran. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2023, 7, 1289–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  362. Javanmard, S.; Vahdani, B.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. Solving a multi-product distribution planning problem in cross docking networks: An imperialist competitive algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 70, 1709–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  363. Dai, Z.; Aqlan, F.; Zheng, X.; Gao, K. A location-inventory supply chain network model using two heuristic algorithms for perishable products with fuzzy constraints. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 119, 338–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  364. Saragih, N.I.; Bahagia, N.; Syabri, I. A heuristic method for location-inventory-routing problem in a three-echelon supply chain system. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 127, 875–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  365. Hiassat, A.; Diabat, A.; Rahwan, I. A genetic algorithm approach for location-inventory-routing problem with perishable products. J. Manuf. Syst. 2017, 42, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  366. Le, T.; Diabat, A.; Richard, J.-P.; Yih, Y. A column generation-based heuristic algorithm for an inventory routing problem with perishable goods. Optim. Lett. 2013, 7, 1481–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  367. Wang, X.; Wang, M.; Ruan, J.; Zhan, H. The multi-objective optimization for perishable food distribution route considering temporal-spatial distance. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 96, 1211–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  368. Rafie-Majd, Z.; Pasandideh, S.H.R.; Naderi, B. Modelling and solving the integrated inventory-location-routing problem in a multi-period and multi-perishable product supply chain with uncertainty: Lagrangian relaxation algorithm. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2018, 109, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  369. Singh, A.; Mishra, N.; Ali, S.I.; Shukla, N.; Shankar, R. Cloud computing technology: Reducing carbon footprint in beef supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 164, 462–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  370. Zhang, Y.; Baker, D.; Griffith, G. Product quality information in supply chains: A performance-linked conceptual framework applied to the Australian red meat industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020, 31, 697–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  371. Cao, S.; Powell, W.; Foth, M.; Natanelov, V.; Miller, T.; Dulleck, U. Strengthening consumer trust in beef supply chain traceability with a blockchain-based human-machine reconcile mechanism. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 180, 105886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  372. Kassahun, A.; Hartog, R.J.; Tekinerdogan, B. Realizing chain-wide transparency in meat supply chains based on global standards and a reference architecture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 123, 275–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  373. Ribeiro, P.C.C.; Scavarda, A.J.; Batalha, M.O. The application of RFID in brazilian harvest facilities: Two case studies. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2011, 3, 1–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  374. Cao, S.; Foth, M.; Powell, W.; Miller, T.; Li, M. A blockchain-based multisignature approach for supply chain governance: A use case from the Australian beef industry. Blockchain Res. Appl. 2022, 3, 100091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  375. Wu, J.-Y.; Hsiao, H.-I. Food quality and safety risk diagnosis in the food cold chain through failure mode and effect analysis. Food Control 2021, 120, 107501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a,b) Production volume shares. (c) Loss and waste of food product shares (USD billion) [3].
Figure 1. (a,b) Production volume shares. (c) Loss and waste of food product shares (USD billion) [3].
Sustainability 16 06986 g001
Figure 2. Flow chart showing the methodology adopted for this study.
Figure 2. Flow chart showing the methodology adopted for this study.
Sustainability 16 06986 g002
Figure 3. Representation of identified themes.
Figure 3. Representation of identified themes.
Sustainability 16 06986 g003
Figure 4. Representation of the chronology of the themes.
Figure 4. Representation of the chronology of the themes.
Sustainability 16 06986 g004
Figure 5. Presentation of theme densities.
Figure 5. Presentation of theme densities.
Sustainability 16 06986 g005
Figure 6. Overview of themes and the subjects associated with each of given themes.
Figure 6. Overview of themes and the subjects associated with each of given themes.
Sustainability 16 06986 g006
Figure 7. Annual publication growth and trend corresponding to the management theme.
Figure 7. Annual publication growth and trend corresponding to the management theme.
Sustainability 16 06986 g007
Figure 8. Annual publication growth and trend corresponding to the sustainability theme.
Figure 8. Annual publication growth and trend corresponding to the sustainability theme.
Sustainability 16 06986 g008
Figure 9. Annual publication growth and trend corresponding to the ND theme.
Figure 9. Annual publication growth and trend corresponding to the ND theme.
Sustainability 16 06986 g009
Figure 10. Annual publication growth and trend corresponding to the IT theme.
Figure 10. Annual publication growth and trend corresponding to the IT theme.
Sustainability 16 06986 g010
Figure 11. SC decision-making problems and interactions.
Figure 11. SC decision-making problems and interactions.
Sustainability 16 06986 g011
Figure 12. Two-dimensional presentation of the research conceptual framework obtained from our research.
Figure 12. Two-dimensional presentation of the research conceptual framework obtained from our research.
Sustainability 16 06986 g012
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Davoudi, S.; Stasinopoulos, P.; Shiwakoti, N. Two Decades of Advancements in Cold Supply Chain Logistics for Reducing Food Waste: A Review with Focus on the Meat Industry. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166986

AMA Style

Davoudi S, Stasinopoulos P, Shiwakoti N. Two Decades of Advancements in Cold Supply Chain Logistics for Reducing Food Waste: A Review with Focus on the Meat Industry. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):6986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166986

Chicago/Turabian Style

Davoudi, Sina, Peter Stasinopoulos, and Nirajan Shiwakoti. 2024. "Two Decades of Advancements in Cold Supply Chain Logistics for Reducing Food Waste: A Review with Focus on the Meat Industry" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 6986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166986

APA Style

Davoudi, S., Stasinopoulos, P., & Shiwakoti, N. (2024). Two Decades of Advancements in Cold Supply Chain Logistics for Reducing Food Waste: A Review with Focus on the Meat Industry. Sustainability, 16(16), 6986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166986

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop