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

net/publication/332222369

The power of social enterprises in encouraging food sustainability transitions

in consumerism towards food waste reduction in the UK, Denmark, and the
Netherlands: concept, framewo...

Thesis · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 59

1 author:

Nantaporn Thirapongphaiboon
Goldsmiths, University of London
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

The power of social enterprises in encouraging food sustainability transitions in consumerism towards food waste reduction in the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands:
concept, framework, and applicable practices for social entrepreneurs. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nantaporn Thirapongphaiboon on 04 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Goldsmiths, University of London
Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship
MA Social Entrepreneurship
IC71136A MA SE Dissertation
Student Number: 33538628

TITLE OF DISSERTATION

The power of social enterprises in encouraging food sustainability transitions in

consumerism towards food waste reduction in the UK, Denmark, and the
Netherlands: concept, framework, and applicable practices for social
entrepreneurs.

Remarks:
1. This paper is submitted by in partial requirement for the degree of MA in Social Entrepreneurship,
Goldsmiths, University of London 2017-2018.
2. The content should not be disclosed to a third party without the consent of the author.
3. This paper contains 63 pages including this page.

1
Abstract
Since the United Nations had the announcement about Sustainable Development Goals in 2015
that called for the actions from everyone in the economic system to ‘end poverty, protect the
planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity’ by 2030, social enterprise sector
has been becoming the center of the attention and playing the bigger role to achieve the global
goals. This is because social enterprise is generally known as the business that aims to achieve
social and environmental impacts. Among the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, the goal
number 12 is currently being highlighted to be achieved as it called the food related businesses
to ensure the sustainable production and consumption together. Global food loss and waste are
the most serious issues within the food supply chain as they directly and extremely impact on
our society, environment and economy. There were several solutions done by the national
leaders through the policies or the innovative technologies that can support in food waste
reduction. However, the problems are still not disappeared since the two main factors are not
widely concerned and changed which are the food system and the behaviour of consumers who
have a great influence on the demand and supply level. These situations created the desire of
many social entrepreneurs in the UK and Europe to start many creative businesses for tackling
food waste in the past few years, which they all are in the right track and become the inspiration
for other social entrepreneurs in the world. However, there were not many researches had
written about how social enterprises can contribute to the sustainable development, especially
in the food waste reduction context.

This dissertation investigates how social enterprises could contribute to the food sustainability
transitions by working on their business activities and encourage consumer behavioural
change. It reviews several literatures on the role of social enterprise in achieving food
sustainability, the international frameworks for the food waste prevention and management and
the social marketing framework that is suitable for social enterprises to use for engaging
consumers to change behaviour to reduce food waste. It also conducts a cross-case analysis of
five case studies in the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands based on the primary and secondary
data and provides the findings that leads to the introduction of new practices for social
enterprises to create new business activities that prevent food waste together with the applicable
ideas to be the references for future social entrepreneurs or practitioners.

2
Table of Contents
Title Page 1
Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
Preface and Acknowledgements 4
Chapter 1 Introduction 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review 7
2.1 The role of social enterprises in food sustainability transitions 7
2.2 A framework for the prevention and management of food surplus and waste 12
2.3 The application of social marketing particularly the integrated MOAB Framework for
consumers food waste behavioural change 16
Chapter 3 Methodology 24
Chapter 4 Case studies analysis 26
4.1 Overview of the five food waste related social enterprises 26
4.2 Observations and findings 31
Chapter 5 Discussions 38
5.1 How social enterprises value food surplus 38
5.2 Alternative practices within food waste hierarchy for social enterprise 49
5.3 All activities are valuable to change people behaviour towards food waste reduction even
though it takes time to achieve 40
Chapter 6 Conclusion 42
Appendices 44
Appendix 1: 17 Sustainable Development Goals 44
Appendix 2: Pearce’s three system of the economy diagram 45
Appendix 3: Food waste hierarchy frameworks applied in different regions/ countries 46
Appendix 4: The Devised EU Waste Framework Directive 2008 47
Appendix 5: Food surplus and waste framework 47
Appendix 6: Semi-structure interview sample questions with the social enterprises’
representative 48
Appendix 7: List of primary data sources 50
Appendix 8: Summary of data collection 52
References 55

3
Preface and Acknowledgements
This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in Social Entrepreneurship at
Goldsmiths University of London. This work is original, independent and unpublished work.

I, as the author of this paper would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Richard Hull for
being my supervisor and his continuous support for this research. Besides my supervisor, I also
would like to express my appreciation to all the people who work in the social enterprise sector
and involved in this research. Without their dedication to work for solving the global food
problems and passionately participation with all inputs, I would not have so much inspiration
to continue my journey, and the research could not have been successfully conducted.

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents and classmates for providing
me continuous encouragement throughout my year of study.

Nantaporn Thirapongphaiboon

4
1. Introduction
This dissertation pursues to explore how the food social enterprises can become the powerful
actors within the supply chain to help achieving food sustainability, particularly by combating
food waste. It aims to identify the level of contribution of social enterprise on the global food
waste issues and analyse how the business activities can influence consumers to change
behaviour, which the concepts and ideas derived from five case studies can be useful for the
future practitioners.

Global food loss and waste are currently the major global issue, according to FAO (2013) one-
third of food produced for human consumption globally are being wasted while there are
enormous number of hungers out there. These issues are mainly caused by the food
globalisation as it came into the major part of the ongoing economic development but
negatively impact on the entire food supply chain, food security, and consuming culture (Inglis
and Gimlin 2013). For example, farmers are stuck in the overproduction cycle where there is a
high demand on convenience and lower prices from both retailers and consumers, consumers
have lower ability to deal with their own food and the supermarkets overstock products to
constantly keep their shelves full. And this is how producers and consumers got locked in the
patterns (Born and Purcell 2013). With regards to the global problems social enterprises are
seen to become the key actors to help solving the issues and achieving sustainable development
as their main objectives are providing positive social and environmental impacts (British
Council and SEUK 2015). In this dissertation, the concept of food waste hierarchy is used to
support social enterprises to review their level of contribution to reduce food waste, as it is the
international widely used guideline to prevent and manage food wasted appropriately (WRAP
n.d.). Moreover, since there are still a lot of consumers unaware about the food waste issue and
highly demand for visually perfect foods that cause a lot of fresh produces to be wasted even
before reaching the markets (Steel 2013), so consumers are the main focus for social enterprises
to work closely to create social capital for food waste reduction by changing their attitudes and
behaviours. It’s believed that when individuals have the higher motivation, adequate ability,
and opportunity in hands at the same time, there is a higher chance of behaviours to be changed
(Willmott and Parkinson 2017).

There are a lot of literatures and researches study the application of the food waste hierarchy
with food businesses such as manufacturers and supermarkets, also the use of social marketing
framework for changing behaviours to support the social and environmental impacts. However,

5
none of the studies analysed frameworks in the context of social enterprises that work to reduce
food waste and help changing people behaviour. This dissertation, therefore, uses these
frameworks to explore the potential application and provides foundation concepts for the future
researchers and practitioners to apply

This paper will be structured as follows:

Firstly, the literature review provides the understanding about the three main concepts which
are the role of social enterprises in food sustainability transition that leads to the application of
food loss and waste framework for social enterprise, and then the analysis of the use of the
integrated MOAB behavioural change framework for encouraging consumers to reduce food
waste.

Secondly, the five food waste social enterprises will be introduced where three are based in the
UK and the remaining are based in Denmark and the Netherlands respectively. Then cross-case
analysis will be conducted with the two frameworks introduced in the literature review, which
the primary and secondary resources are derived from the research.

Lastly, the observations and findings from the case studies will lead to the proposed practices
for the future social enterprises to prevent food waste and the applicable strategies to encourage
consumers and other actors in the food supply chain to collaboratively stop food waste.

6
2. Literature Review
This chapter consists of three main parts as I will discuss about the contribution of social
enterprises in food sustainability development through their value chain; explore the definitions
and the concepts of food surplus, loss and waste with the first framework – a food waste
hierarchy for analysing the contribution level of the selected social enterprises in achieving
food waste minimisation; and apply the social marketing concept with the second framework
– the integrated MOAB (Motivation, Opportunity, Ability, and Behaviour) framework for
examining and analysing the potential of social enterprises in encouraging consumers
behavioural change towards food waste reduction in the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands in
the next chapter.

2.1 The role of social enterprises in food sustainability transitions

The concepts of the sustainable development and SDGs

As the countries around the world are continue developing towards better economic growth
and society development, there has been the major concerns on the limitation of environmental
resources and the societal inequalities which are challenging for serving the needs of future
population. It was beginning in 1987 when the UN’s World Commission on Environment and
Development published the ‘Our Common Future’ report to pursue the global sustainable
economic development that shares the common focus on avoiding natural resources
degradation. The report provides the most common used definition of the sustainable
development that it is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43). It changed the
perceptions of the development and the environment that the unrenewable resources must be
used at it most efficiency, the waste and pollution generation must be at the least, and no
permanent environmental damage must be done through the human activities (Elliott 1994).
This traditional concept of the sustainable development mainly emphasized on the stability of
the economic development and the environment, however the conclusion in The Post-2015
Development Agenda stated that it “should fully integrate economic, social and environmental
dimensions” to achieve sustainable development (UNEP 2015). Later in the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, it also calls for the global commitment to achieve sustainable
development with the three dimensions “in a balanced and integrated manner”, by providing
the strategic framework of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to follow (See appendix

7
1) (UNESCAP 2015, p. 7). Sustainable Development Goals therefore, has the well-established
qualitative and quantitative objectives on the global challenges, which called for the universal
collaboration across all nations to take action “for people, planet and prosperity” from 2015
and to be achieved by 2030 (UNSDSN 2015, p. 6). The examples of significant objectives are
including tackling world’s hunger, practicing sustainable consumption and production and
promoting social inclusion (UN Global Compact and KPMG 2016).

The position of social enterprise in the global economy

In order to better understand the relationship between social enterprises and the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), the role of social enterprise in the economy will be explained first.
Then definitions and characteristics of social enterprises in the different countries will be
explored to find the commonality for this dissertation study, beginning from the UK, Denmark,
to the Netherlands as the last.

According to Pearce’s three system of the economy diagram that uses to explain the three
systems of the economy, social enterprises are located within the social economy and hybridize
between the private sector and the voluntary sector (See appendix 2) (Pearce 2003, p. 25).
Social economy is simply defined as the place in the economy where the social organations
that are able to achieve their social and environmental goals primarily through trading activities
(Pearce 2003). It clearly shows that social enterprises are the key actors in creating social value
where the public and private sectors cannot deliver and when other non-profit organisations
within the third sector cannot be sustained by themselves through the income mix (Ridley-Duff
and Bull 2016). However, Leadbeater (1997, p. 10) applied the cross-sector models to argue
that social enterprises interconnect all three sectors of the economy, which are the public sector,
private sector, and the third sector to bring out the social innovation to the economy. Ridley-
Duff and Bull (2016, p. 78) then developed an updated typology of social enterprise from the
cross-sector theories, which shows the ideal type of economy where social enterprises are
located, known as ‘social and solidarity economy’. It is because this particular space provides
broader understanding of the origins of social enterprises’ activities from the three sectors and
perfectly explains ‘the hybridisation of reciprocity, redistribution, and market to maximise
human and environmental well-being’. Social enterprises are hence undeniably seen as the
intermediary to connect all the stakeholders within the economy and bring social and
environmental problems to the solutions through the reinvestment of their profit generation.

8
Moving on to the definition of social enterprise. Universally, there is no specific terms of social
enterprise as its operations and the structures could be varied by the different economies and
the cultural contexts. In the UK, it is defined by the UK Government (BIS 2011, p. 2) that it is

“a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for
that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to
maximise profit for shareholders and owners".

Nevertheless, the common way to define whether a business is categorised as a social enterprise
or not is to consider its characteristics. According to Social Enterprise UK (2012), the
enterprise that falls into the term of social enterprise normally establishes with the clear social
and/ or environmental purposes; generate most of its income from commercial activities;
reinvest profits to create positive impacts; be independent from the state; govern under the
democrary; and be accountable and transparent.

In Denmark, the definition of social enterprise was given by The Committee of Social
Enterprises in 2013 that

“Social enterprises are privately held and through their business and profits, have the
purpose of promoting specific social objectives” (European Union 2014, p. 2).

SED, the association that supports social entrepreneurs in Denmark also set the characteristics
to identify social enterprise that it must has social purpose, operates social and commercial
activities, gains resource mainly from trading activities and may receive subsidies from
government or supports from the third sector, and reinvests profit to the venture or the
secondary social organisations that pursue the similar social and environmental goals (Bach
2016).

While in the Netherlands, the definition of social enterprise was adopted from the European
Commission which states that social enterprise is the organisation within the social economy
between private sector and third sector (European Commission n.d.). The characteristics of
social enterprise in the Netherlands must have social and environmental missions as the main
purposes, be independent from the public organisation, generate profits from trading activities
to sustain its venture and increase the positive impact, have the fair governance, and be
transparent (Social Enterprise NL n.d.).

From the definitions of social enterprise using in the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands
mentioned above, it can be concluded that these three countries share the common perspectives

9
that the social enterprise must generate profits through commercial activities to achieve
positive social and/or environmental goals rather than distribute profits to the shareholders,
which means the majority of income should be reinvested to the enterprise or the good cause
related organisations, while no strict legal forms are applied.

The potential contribution of social enterprises to the Sustainable Development Goals

The British Council and SEUK (2015, p. 4) demonstrated in their collaborated report ‘Think
Global Trade Social’ that social enterprises globally

“can play in driving sustainable and inclusive development, tackling inequality, and helping
to address some of the biggest challenges targeted by the UN’s Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs).”

Sustainable Development Goals is the agreement among the global governments on the
sustainable development agenda to be achieved in 2030, which the commercial businesses were
called to show the contribution to sustainable development by using innovation and creativity
through their business activities with the guidance from The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI
2015). Littlewood and Holt (2018), also suggest that social enterprises can significantly
contribute to the sustainable development goals as well as the positive impacts generation to
society and environment throughout the activities along the value chain. Unlike general
businesses and nonprofit organisations where economic and social values are created
separately, social enterprises disrupt the way in creating and delivering values along the process
of doing business as they can create both values at the same time (Elkington and Hartigan 2009,
p. 174) The value chain of social enterprises is specifically known as the ‘impact value chain’,
which also uses as an important tool for the social and environmental impact assessment to
understand the relationships between inputs, operations, outputs, and outcomes and to achieve
the ultimate goals (GSVC n.d.). Impact value chain can be very useful for social enterprises to
evaluate whether they are achieving sustainable development or not, by benchmarking their
social impact indicators with the SDG global indicators that are related to the causes they are
currently solving.

After the Sustainable Development Goals were announced in 2015, there have been a lot of
massive movements within the global private sectors to align their strategies and values with
the goals and targets, while consumers markets became more conscious about sustainability

10
and put it as the important deciding factor (LexisNexis Legal & Professional 2017). It’s not
only the voluntary sector that concerns about social and environmental impacts anymore, as
SDGs bring huge opportunities to do business in the new ways. It’s estimated that there will be
US$12 trillion worth opportunities for businesses doing in four economic systems by 2030,
which are food and agriculture, cities, energy and materials, and health and well-being. These
new businesses are very important in leading the world to achieve SDGs as they could
contribute around 60 percent of the actual economy (BSDC 2017).

Moreover, to support the idea that social enterprises are the crucial actors in the global economy
to achieve sustainable development, the strong recommendations given by Business and
Sustainable Commission must be taken in to the consideration as it mentions the significant
characteristics of social enterprises to be adopted by normal businesses.

“To capture these opportunities in full, businesses need to pursue social and environmental
sustainability as avidly as they pursue market share and shareholder value. If a critical mass
of companies joins us in doing this now, together we will become an unstoppable force. If
they don’t, the costs and uncertainty of unsustainable development could swell until there is
no viable world in which to do business” (BSDC 2017, p. 6).

Additionally, from the research report ‘Better Business Better World’ by Business and
Sustainable Development Commission (BSDC 2017, p. 7), shows that there are 60 market
‘hotspots’ to capture within the four economic systems, which ‘reducing food waste in value
chain’ comes as the top potential market among the other 14 markets of the food and agriculture
system. This hotspot is the main focus in this dissertation which studies about how social
enterprises can help achieving the SDGs particularly on food waste reduction. It’s also the
global highlighted theme matching with SDG 12 that focuses on the sustainable production and
consumption (UN Global Compact and KPMG 2016), which requires everyone to reduce the
ecological footprint by changing the way we produce and consume natural resources and
products to be more responsible (UNDP n.d.).

The application of SDGs goal 12 particularly 12.3

“Every year, the world loses or wastes about a third of the food it produces. To feed
the world sustainably, producers need to grow more food while reducing negative
environmental impacts such as soil, water and nutrient loss, greenhouse gas

11
 emissions, and degradation ecosystems. Consumers must be encouraged to shift to
nutritious and safe diets with a lower environmental footprint” (FAO 2015, p. 3).

The statement above effortlessly emphasizes how the food sustainability is crucial for all the
nations to pay attention. The growth of world’s population is moving to the opposite direction
of the total food available to meet human basic needs. Food insecurity and malnutrition are
undeniably related to inefficient food production and supply chain management since the
economic losses cost about $940 billion per year from food loss and waste (Leach and Swannell
2017). Therefore, by reducing the amount of food loss and waste, it can become a ‘triple win’
as it would help all the stakeholders in the supply chain from the farmers to consumers save
their spending, while having more food available for everyone and producing less pollution to
the environment (Hanson 2017, p. 1). Social enterprises can become the disruptive actors
within the global food supply chain to make the efficient flow of resources and manage them
for social causes, which the examples of outstanding social enterprises in the UK and Europe
will be illustrated in the later chapter.

Social enterprises that are tackling food loss and waste problems mostly establish the business
models to be aligned with the SDG 12, which they operate to “ensure sustainable consumption
and production patterns” (Lipinski et al. 2017, p. 1) and focus on the third target that states

SDG 12.3: “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels
and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses”
(UN 2015, pp. 24–25).
Even though social enterprises have different social missions and goals, but by adopting the
specific sustainable development goal and target under the goal, this clearly shows that social
enterprises have power to contribute for the sustainable development in the measurable
manners. When it comes to the global food issues, social enterprises are believed to be in the
middle of the supply chain to connect and support all the actors to deliver more social impacts,
as well as achieve food sustainability together.

2.2. A framework for the prevention and management of food surplus and waste

There are plenty of ways to reduce food loss and waste in the supply chain, which in the context
of social enterprises, they might have different theory of changes and activities to achieve the
common goals. This section introduces the universal framework used as the guideline for any
organisations to practice food waste reduction more effectively and efficiently and will be used

12
to examine what level of the hierarchy each social enterprise case study is currently
implementing. To fully understand the framework for the application, the definitions of food
loss, food waste, and food surplus are introduced first and following by the literatures about
the concepts of food waste hierarchy.

The definitions of food loss, food waste and food surplus

Food loss and waste can be occurred at all the stages of the supply chain from the producer to
the end consumers in the different context and situation. In the developing countries food loss
and waste mostly occur during the inefficient activities along the upstream supply chain such
as crops harvesting, processing, and logistics management. While in the developed countries,
food loss and waste are largely accounted from downstream supply chain where the power are
in the hands of retailers and consumers (Lipinski et al. 2013). To address this global food issue
effectively, the good understanding on the definition and differentiation of the terms food loss
and waste is needed. There is a wide range of literature associating with food loss and waste,
which the definitions given by the previous works were partly similar and distinct from each
other. Nevertheless, the most significant factor that use to identify food loss and waste is the
stage of supply chain where the unwanted food appears.

The definition of ‘food’ was given by FAO (1981) that they are ‘edible’ materials which are
accepted and consumers by the majority of people, any unintended materials for human
consumption are not food such as peels, seeds, bones, and etc. With this definition, food loss
was primary meant as food that was disrupted and prevented for consumption, which can be
the degradation in quality, unavailability, and inedibility. In the later studies the definitions of
food loss and waste were clearly differentiated by the locations of the supply chain where they
occur. Food losses mean the decrease in the quantity and the quality of edible food intentionally
for human consumption, which occur at the postharvest and the production stages in the food
supply chain before reaching the retailers and foodservice businesses. While food waste means
food losses which occurs at the retailing and consumption stages, also significantly associate
with the behavioural failures (Parfitt et al. 2010, Gustavsson et al. 2011). It was better
illustrated by FAO (2013, pp. 8–9) that

“food losses are mainly caused by inefficiencies in the food supply chains, such as poor
infrastructure and logistics, lack of technology, insufficient skills, knowledge and
management capacity of supply chain actors, and lack of access to markets and possibly the
unexpected natural disasters”.

13
While food waste caused by the inconsiderate behaviours as

“food was kept beyond its expiry date or left to spoil. Often this is because food has spoiled
but it can be for other reasons such as oversupply due to markets, or individual consumer
shopping/eating habits”.

Oversupply food becomes food waste as there is no enough demand in the market to cover such
a large volume of supply where these foods cannot be transferred to other market where the
needs and number of hungers are massively high.

Hence, the term ‘food surplus’ is interestingly added to the study as it means “food produced
beyond our nutritional needs, and waste is a product of food surplus” (Papargyropoulou et al.
2014, p. 112). Moreover, since the definitions of food loss and waste to be adopted in this study
is not included the unintended materials for consumption as mentioned earlier, I view the
concepts of food loss and food surplus as the same because food is still edible and waiting for
the right destinations to be consumed, which also can be occurred at any stages of the food
supply chain. Therefore, I will use the term ‘food surplus’ instead of ‘food loss’ in the context
of the ‘becoming the resources’ for social enterprises in the case studies. In addition, according
to the definition of food waste given by The Agricultural and Rural Commission of the
European Parliament in 2011, it also defines as

“the whole of the discarded products of the food supply chain which, for economic or
aesthetic reasons, or for closeness to the expiry date, despite still being edible and therefore
potentially intended for human consumption, in the absence of a possible alternative use, are
eliminated and disposed of, producing negative effects from the environmental point of view,
economic costs and missed revenue for companies” (Segrè et al. 2014, p. 10).

This statement emphasizes the importance of the effective food surplus management for the
food waste prevention, thus, the definitions of food loss and waste given by FAO (2013) are
the most relevant to be adopted in this dissertation together with the concept of food surplus.

Food waste hierarchy, a framework for food waste prevention and management

To effectively prevent and manage food loss and waste problems, food waste hierarchy
framework was introduced and applied with the national law in many places (see appendix 3)
(WRAP n.d., ECA 2016, SEPA 2016, EPA 2017). The hierarchy was originally known as ‘The
Revised EU Waste Framework Directive 2008’, (see appendix 4) which provides the basic
concepts and the guideline to manage waste by ranking from the five most to least favourable

14
options that would negatively affect the environment and human health. The most priority
option is prevention, followed by preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery, and disposal
as the last option (European Commission 2016). In the UK, waste hierarchy was applied by
WRAP to deal with food waste problems and called as ‘Food and drink material hierarchy’
(see appendix 3) (WRAP n.d.). It also states that the most desirable practice is to avoid food
and edible materials to be wasted at the beginning for food supply chain, as to be aligned with
the original waste hierarchy that primarily aims to achieve the best environmental impacts.
Nevertheless, WRAP adds the suggestion to the second-best option of the hierarchy that “If
surplus cannot be prevented, then redistribution to people and then animal feed is the next best
option” to create a good impact on the social well-being and the quality of life (EFRA
Committee 2017, p. 7). The later steps of the WRAP’s food waste hierarchy are to recycle food
waste by sending to the anaerobic digestion and composting, bring food waste to undergo the
energy recovery, and the worst action is to dispose food waste to landfill (EFRA Committee
2017). The similar food waste hierarchy (see figure 1) was also developed by Papargyropoulou
et al. (2014) after they proposed a thorough food surplus and waste framework (see appendix
5) that clearly identifies and prioritises the most appropriate options to prevent and manage
food waste.

Figure 1: The Food Waste Hierarchy by Papargyropoulou et al. (2014, p. 113)

Their framework explains that both food surplus and food waste are avoidable, which create
more opportunities to prevent food from being disposed at the final stage. Moreover, their food

15
waste hierarchy perfectly takes the three pillars of sustainability (environment, economic, and
social) into the consideration as they suggest that

“the first step towards a more sustainable resolution of the food waste issue is to adopt a
sustainable production and consumption approach and tackle food surplus and waste
throughout the global food supply chain” (Papargyropoulou et al. 2014, p. 114).

However, after reviewing all the options of the food waste hierarchy from different sources
(WRAP n.d., ECA 2016, SEPA 2016, EPA 2017), none of the studies suggests the way to
prevent food surplus and waste by re-valuing or adding value to the unwanted food materials
to become edible and preferable to the market again. At this point, I have got a question on the
responsibilities of each actor within the food supply chain, especially the retailers and
consumers about the reason why food surplus and waste problems are seen to be the
responsibility of people who are affected by food poverty and animals, but not everyone who
is directly associated in the food supply chain at the first place. Hence, the food waste hierarchy
developed by Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) is then used as the first framework in this
dissertation to examine how and at which level each selected social enterprise operates to
reduce food surplus and waste, while sustaining its economic and social values at the same
time. Importantly, with regards to the question, I also see the need for the further study on how
social enterprise encourages the consumers behavioural changes as it is also necessary to
measure the effectiveness of being the disruptive actor in the food supply chain to help
achieving food sustainability. Therefore, the concept of social marketing and the second
framework for this study are then introduced in the next section to generate the more useful
insights for the readers.

2.3 The application of social marketing particularly the integrated MOAB Framework
for consumers food waste behavioural change

It is very important for social organisations and governments to scale and achieve their positive
impacts by encouraging their target stakeholders to behave positively to improve society and
environment, which requires them to implement the effective lifestyle changing and new habits
forming programmes (Willmott and Parkinson 2017). Since the Sustainable Development
Goals were set to be achieved by 2030 and the food sustainability concept is being focused to
help reducing the food insecurity and poverty as mentioned earlier, one of the major long-term
issues related to harmful bahaviours that everyone in the global economic systems must pay

16
attention on is the unsustainable consumption. To effectively deliver the concept of sustainable
consumption and production, influencing consumer environmental behaviour with the good
understanding of social and cultural drives is a noteworthy practice to narrow down the gap
between consumer awareness, willingness to perform and the actual contribution (DEFRA
2006). Hence, the concepts of social marketing and the integrated MOAB framework –
Motivation, Opportunity, Ability, and Behaviour will be introduced in this section and adapted
in the study to help understanding and analysing how each social enterprise case works to
encourage consumer behavioural changes towards food sustainability, especially in food waste
reduction.

The importance of consumers’ contribution and behaviour to reduce food waste

In developed countries, the amount of food waste occurs the most at the final stage of food
supply chain; from retail to post consumption, which accounts for over 40% of total food losses
and waste (Gustavsson et al. 2011). Food waste problems occur at the final stage of food supply
chain are crucially related to the consumer behavioral issues (Parfitt et al. 2010, FAO 2017),
as consumers produce the massive amounts of food waste than other actors in the food supply
chain with around 25% of already purchased food is being wasted at home and 15% of edible
food is thrown away by the retailers due to the product quality are not accepted by consumers
(Oostindjer 2014). The significant consumer negative food waste behaviours are ranging from
inadequate planning for grocery shopping, over-purchasing, misunderstanding the food labels,
lack of knowhow or time to use food before the expiry date, and wasting edible food (FAO
2017). Therefore, it is important to target at consumers to change their behaviours as they have
potential to significantly reduce food waste (Oostindjer 2014).

In 2014, food waste reduction was recognised in the European political agendas, when COSUS
(COsumers in a SUStainable food supply chain) research project conducted by EU SUSFOOD
ERA-Net Programme had the aims to raise awareness of food waste and implement the
strategies to increase the consumers acceptance of suboptimal foods (Rohm et al. 2017). The
research also illustrates that even though there have been lots of solutions to reduce food waste
such as smart packaging or other innovations to extend product shelf-life, but consumers still
take control and have all power to decide which food will be bought, consumed, discarded, and
wasted, which make these alternative solutions hardly become successful (Rohm et al. 2017).
Moreover, the reason why COSUS project mainly focused on the food waste caused by the

17
deviation of suboptimal foods consumption is because they are undesirable to consumers when
compare with other foods available in the market and thus, being rejected. Aschemann-Witzel
et al. (2015, pp. 6458–6459) clearly defines suboptimal foods that cover all the possible
imperfect characteristics as

“foods that consumers perceive as relatively undesirable as compared to otherwise similar

foods because they either: (1) are close to, at or beyond the best-before date; or (2) deviate
(visually or in other sensory perception) from what is regarded as optimal (usually equal to
what is perceived as “normal”). This can be in the “buy/do not buy” choice situation in the
store or in the “consume/do not consume” choice situation in the household”.

It’s so unfortunate that these suboptimal foods are in fact still perfectly suitable for human
consumption with normal taste and quality, even though they are visually flawed such as having
odd shapes, discolours or being close to expiry date (Rohm et al. 2017). Nonetheless,
consumers attitudes and behaviours around food waste are strongly influenced by the food
retail sector. If the retailers take the big responsibility in product development, marketing,
packaging design and other communication strategies to support food waste reduction among
consumers, the greater outcomes will definitely occur (DEFRA 2006, EU Committee 2014).
In this dissertation, each food social enterprise case also acts normally as the retailer, restaurant,
or even the online market place where consumers can directly interact and exchange
information with them. Therefore, the meaning of suboptimal foods mentioned above is
appropriate to applied with all the social enterprise case studies, as they try to make good
impacts by creatively producing great products and services from the suboptimal foods as well
as making profits from certain groups of consumers to sustain their businesses. Furthermore,
as consumers have different food related lifestyle and choices, it’s also useful to apply this
definition to examine how each social enterprise works to understand its consumer food waste
behaviours and encourage consumers to engage in food waste reduction.

The concept of social marketing

It’s undeniable that to change someone behaviour for a better is challenging and difficult to
maintain, especially for the social organisations or businesses that work to create positive
societal and environmental changes with people. Although there are a lot of commercial
marketing strategies that are useful for increasing awareness, changing people’s perception or
attitudes, and encouraging people to take action, but they never lead to the behavioural change

18
for the benefit of people themselves and the society as a whole (Hopwood and Merritt 2011).
This is where ‘Social marketing’ became interestingly useful as it is

“the design, implementation, and control of programs calculated to influence the acceptability
of social ideas and involving considerations of product planning, pricing, communication,
distribution, and marketing research” (Kotler and Zaltman 1971, p. 5).

In other words, it simply means that the application of marketing concepts and techniques to
design the more effective activities to present and communicate the efforts for social action
(Kotler and Zaltman 1971). Additionally, as social marketing is a people centric approach, it
helps social marketers to better understand consumers behaviour, identify specific behavioural
issues and achieve the sustainable behavioral change to the targeted behaviours (Merritt et al.
2011), also improve products and services development that serve people’s motivations and
needs well (Hopwood and Merritt 2011).

Social marketing approach have been adopted by various behavioural change programmes to
promote pro-environmental behaviour (Binney et al. 2006). I my view, I recognise food waste
reduction as one category of the pro-environmental behaviour, which it is normally not a
physically complex task to perform. However, it can be impacted by many interrelated internal
and external factors such as the actual behaviours, choices, and social influences (Parkinson et
al. 2016), which make it becomes complex behaviours. Moreover, in order to optimise the use
social marketing approach, Andreasen (1994) suggested that it’s very important to understand
the complex behaviours that cause complex social issues. This suggestion is also being used to
support the selection of social marketing model for this dissertation to study the actual practices
of each social enterprise case that does not implement marketing just to gain benefits for itself,
but mainly promote the positive behaviour of consumers to achieve social and environmental
goals. One of the social marketing models that has been well developed to be appropriately use
for behavioural changes is MOA framework (Binney et al. 2006), which I also select to use as
the second framework of this dissertation to examine and analyse the works of all food social
enterprises that encourage consumers to reduce food waste.

19
The integrated MOAB Framework, a tool for changing behaviour

Consumer lifestyles have been becoming increasingly unpredictable due to the changes in the
economic and society patterns over time. And as consumers are at the most significant position
in the food supply chain to reduce food waste in the developed countries, food waste prevention
and reduction are seen to be challenging to achieve (EU Committee 2014). Generally, each
consumer involves with food differently as they have wide range of choices available to choose.
The consumers food related choices can be formed up by the internal factors such as their
attitudes and motivations, and the external factors such as social influence and information
accessibility (Rohm et al. 2017). These show that to solve the social and environmental
problems caused by consumers unsustainable lifestyles, their attitudes and bahaviours must be
change towards more sustainable direction. In their study ‘Understanding of consumer
behaviour as a prerequisite for environmental protection’, Ölander and Thogersen (1995)
suggested the framework to understand three key determinants that influence individual’s
behaviour and lifestlye, which are Motivation, Opportunities, and Abilities (MOA framework).
Their research explains that human behaviours are predictable when the “moderators of the
relationship between attitude and behaviour and ability concept, operationalised so as to
contain both a habit and a task knowledge element, and the concept of facilitating conditions
or the opportunity to perform behaviours” (Ölander and Thogersen 1995, p. 360). According
to the more recent study, Parkinson et al. (2016) extended the MOA framework by including
the behavioural characteristics to become MOAB framework, as they found that motivation,
opportunity and ability are interdependent to each other, changing overtime and can have
multiple interactions for the more complex behaviours, which make the behaviours hard to
maintain. The behavioural characteristics are the actual behaviours that are difficult to modify
or unmodifiable and influence the complexity such as the need to perform to gain benefits,
including other people in the decision making or taking action, and the length of time required
until the benefits are gained (Parkinson et al. 2016). Hence, Parkinson et al. (2016) suggested
that the more interactions among each variable over time, the more possibility to change
individuals behaviours successfully. Later, Willmott and Parkinson (2017) adopted Parkinson
et al. (2016) MOAB framework in their research to study the interrelated effects of the
motivation, ability, and opportunity on behaviour and to identify which specific elements of
the activities highly impact on the behavioral outcomes. They transform the MOAB framework
to be the ‘Integrated MOAB Framework’ (see figure 2), which I will use it as the study model

20
in this dissertation to explore how each social enterprise works to enable and increase the
influence of motivation, ability, and ability on consumer food waste reduction behaviours.

Figure 2: The integrated MOAB Framework by Willmott and Parkinson (2017, p. 293)

Additionally, it’s also important to understand the definitions of motivation, ability, and
opportunity in the context of this social marketing framework, since it will be useful for
analysing the effectiveness of the programmes or activities implemented by each social
enterprise case.

The first element is motivation – a personal ‘goal-directed arousal’ or intention to behave in

the certain ways, which includes the readiness, willingness, interest, and desire to engage with
the information or activities (MacInnis et al. 1991, p. 34). Interestingly, Binney et al. (2006)
mentioned that there are two dimensions of motivation that are important for the pro-
environmental behaviour research, which are intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Intrinsic
motivation means “doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable”, while
extrinsic motivation refers to “doing something because it leads to a separable outcome”
(Ryan and Deci 2000, p. 55). These definitions clearly imply that the intrinsic motivation is
more important and preferable for a long term behavioural change rather than the extrinsic
motivation, since the desire to obtain external incentives to complete the task is highly
associated with the extrinsic motivation (Binney et al. 2006). In the food waste reduction
context, the consumers intrinsic motivation can be the ethical reasons, such as the concerns
about hunger in other part the world and the negative environmental impact that make
consumers try to avoid wasting food by themselves (Aschemann-Witzel 2015). While in the
context of extrinsic motivation, even though monetary incentives or other rewards are

21
commonly use in the execution, but they are unable to sustain the behaviours that have been
changed, and the continuous offer is required to maintain the targeted behaviours (Ölander and
Thogersen 1995, Binney et al. 2006). Nevertheless, the motivation alone cannot lead the
individuals to the certain preferred behaviours as it heavily depends on personal abilities and
the external opportunities to perform (Binney et al. 2006, Parkinson et al. 2016).

The second element is ability, which refers to “individual skill or proficiency at solving
problems and may include breaking a well-formed or addictive habit or countering the
arguments of peers” (Rothschild 1999, p. 32). MacInnis et al. (1991) advised that personal past
experiences, skills, and knowledge have been strongly linked with individual’s ability, where
self-efficacy is also an important complementary element with ability as it is the level of
confidence to control and perform behaviours (Willmott and Parkinson 2017). Since the high
willingness or motivation to perform new behaviours does not guarantee the result of
performance to be high in quality, increasing the ability level is one of the goals for changes.
Within the food waste context, Aschemann-Witzel (2015) clearly amplified that consumers
have different level of capability and skills to efficiently organise their food purchasing,
storage, and prepareation to avoid, reuse or reduce food waste in their daily life. Therefore, in
order to achieve the individual’s ability improvement, there are two things to focus on which
are improving the actual knowledge and making sure that the perceived knowledge and actual
knowledge are aligned (Binney et al. 2006). Moreover, Binney et al. (2006) also concluded in
their study that, when the intrinsic motivation works correlatedly with an enough level of
ability, the behaviours can be significantly predicted. For example, when the individual
strongly believe that a certain behaviour is ‘the right thing to do’, they will develop their own
determination in learning new skills, searching for information, and overcoming any barriers
that avoid them to adopt their believed behaviours (Binney et al. 2006, p. 293).

The last element is opportunity, which is “the external or environmental factors that provide
the mechanisms to make a behavior possible” (Willmott and Parkinson 2017, p. 292). The
external or environmental factors can be social support, geographical location, infrastructure,
laws and politics, or altogether as the needs change over time (Parkinson et al. 2016, Willmott
and Parkinson 2017). While lacking of opportunity is when the individual desires to do
something but is unable to do so because there is no adequate environmental mechanisms
available (Rothschild 1999, Parkinson et al. 2016). Thus, it can be said that consumers’
motivation and ability are strongly influenced by the external environment around them. There
are several opportunity factors associated with consumers food related behaviours, for

22
example, consumers might choose certain kind of food depending on the product availability
or accessibility and how they are presented with the appearances and prices; consumers’
decision are based on social norms on edible food and food choice; and consumers are
influenced by the economic situation, technology, and regulation such as food labelling
(Aschemann-Witzel 2015). Furthermore, Ölander and Thogersen (1995) perceived opportunity
as the precondition of behaviour as people see opportunity differently, such as the right time
and place, system, cost, and design of particular products or services that lead them to perform
behaviours. Therefore, without the opportunity or the external mechanisms that they perceive
to be suitable for their conditions, consumers would not be able to perform the new positive
behaviours as planned.

For this dissertation, I will use the integrated MOAB framework by Willmott and Parkinson
(2017) as the second framework to examine and analyse the potential of the activities executed
by each social enterprise case in encouraging consumers to reduce food waste, particularly by
looking at how each social enterprise enables each determinant – motivation, ability, and
opportunity to interrelatedly and continuously influence consumers.

23
3. Methodology
Since I will explore and analyse two main components of the selected five food social
enterprises from the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands which are,

1. the specific level within food waste hierarchy framework where their business operates
to understand how they value surplus food and how they become a disruptive actor in
the food supply chain to achieve food sustainability, also;
2. the ways they encourage consumers to engage in food waste behavioural change to
expand food sustainability impact by continuously and interrelatedly enabling
motivation, ability, and opportunity variables of the integrated MOAB framework,
which both frameworks are described in the previous chapter.

Therefore, the study of this dissertation will be conducted with the multiple-case design and
presented the data with a cross-case analysis (Yin 2014). The reason of doing the research
methods mentioned earlier is because all five case studies have a completely different business
model and activities, but still targeting on the common goal to combat food waste and aiming
to raise awareness among consumers about the issue. Which this also means there is the need
to study each case in its completeness and analyse with multiple methods in different angles
(Thomas 2016). To provide readers an overall picture prior to the next chapter, I use the table
below to show the summary of five social enterprises.

Social Key products/ services Year of Main

Enterprise establishment Location
1 Toast Ale Crafted beer made from surplus bread 2016 UK
2 Odd Box Wonky vegetables and fruits delivery box 2016 UK
to home and office
3 Too Good To Online platform that allows food stores to 2016 UK
Go sell daily fresh surplus food
4 We Food Food surplus supermarket 2016 Denmark
5 Instock Restaurant that serves three course meals 2014 Netherlands
made from surplus food

The data collection method includes mix sources of evidence, which become the
complementary data for each other (Yin 2014). The primary methods using in this study are
participant observation through volunteering and direct observation by visiting, semi-structure
interviews (see appendix 6 for the sample questions) with one founder – Bart Roetert; a head
chef – Lucas Jeffries; four marketing related persons – David Ryan, Maria Bell, Djaja Van Den
Berg and Anoushka Grover; two volunteers – John Bagge and Beth Hanlon, whilst the

24
information from some of them were given via email and online call (see appendix 7 of the
primary data sources). The secondary sources were collected from company’s official
information, published articles, websites, videos, news and other media coverage of the social
enterprises. I believe the two analysis of five case studies will provide future food waste social
entrepreneurs or campaigners a very useful understanding on the business models aiming for
tackling food waste and the applicable strategies to encourage consumers changing behaviour
towards food waste reduction.

25
4. Case studies analysis
In this chapter, the five food waste related social enterprises are introduced first with the
business overview. And then follow by the analysis of the observations and findings on the
business models that show the particular level of food waste hierarchy each social enterprise is
working and their practices that encourage consumers to engage in food waste behavioural
changes through the integrated MOAB framework as introduced in the previous chapter.

4.1 Overview of the five food waste related social enterprises

4.1.1 Toast Ale
Toast Ale is the UK’s award-winning craft beer brand that brews beer with fresh surplus bread
that would otherwise go to waste. It was founded in 2016 by Tristram Stuart, who is a global
leader against food waste, an author, and the founder of international food waste charity
Feedback. Toast Ale was inspired by the Brussels Beer Project in Belgium, when Tristram
visited and found the innovative brewing technique that would effectively tackle global food
waste issues by turning surplus food into delicious solution (Gosling 2016). It focuses on using
surplus bread as the main ingredient because bread is one of the most wasted food items in the
UK. About 44% of bread produced for consumption is wasted and even half of this amount has
never reached to the end consumers, for example the sandwich manufacturers discard the
ending slices of every single loaf as they are the unwanted parts for making sandwiches, or the
bakeries and retailers throw away day-old bread daily just to make the day-fresh bread to meet
consumers’ expectations (Toast Ale n.d.). The mission of Toast Ale is to end food waste with
the four key principles to achieve, which are brewing fantastic taste beer, tackling bread waste
by using surplus bread, raising awareness about food waste, and donating 100% of profits to
Feedback charity which works to solve food waste problems at the systematic level (Wilson
2017). To achieve the mission, Toast Ale incredibly uses a slice of surplus bread in each bottle
(Smithers 2016) with approximately 750,000 slices of bread were successfully upcycled to date
(Toast Ale 2018a). In addition, Toast Ale does business differently from other UK beer
companies since it is the first beer company that become a certified B-Corp. It joins a global
movement in redefining success of business as ‘a force for good’, by having positive impacts
on employees, suppliers, community and the environment (Toast Ale 2018b). It shares the
basis of the replication practice to the international brewers and start-ups to scale its mission
and impacts even larger and faster. Its unique business model that allows other local breweries
to use and adapt with the original recipes with their local surplus bread as a way to cut off

26
supply chain (Wilson 2017), which only two years since it launched it successfully expanded
to Iceland, South Africa, Brazil and the USA (The Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017). With
the its fast growing, Rob Wilson, the chief Toaster says in the next five years Toast team would
love to see Toast Ale as the world dominant of beer industry. He also adds that Toast Ale’s
open source recipes has already been downloaded 35,000 times, which is a great sign to see
bakers, brewers, and consumers ending food waste collectively (Sustainable workspace 2018).
Lastly, the achievement of Toast Ale is unquestionably because of its way to communicate
global issues with consumers in the fun way with its remembering persuasion quote “If you
want to change the world, you have to throw a better party than those destroying it” (Wilson
2017).

4.1.2 Odd Box

Oddbox is the only social enterprise based in London that offers wonky vegetables and fruits
box delivery to home and office, which was launched in 2016. The idea of Oddbox came up
when two co-founders, Deepak Ravindran and Emilie Vanpoperinghe, had a holiday in
Portugal and tried misshapen tomatoes sold by the local market, that taste surprisingly amazing
(Sheffield 2017). They started questioning about the food system and the cosmetic food
standards set by the major retailers back in the UK that cause the massive amount of food waste
since those not looking right edible produces are being rejected (Oddbox Team 2018b). In the
UK, around 90,000 tonnes of produce are going straight to the landfill before being displayed
on the shelves, which about 30-40% even never left the farms (Sheffield 2017). The co-
founders then realised that even they could not change how the retails have been doing, but
they can contribute to the food waste solution by understanding and helping the small and
medium local farmers with the new market destination and reasonable price, especially for the
odd produces (Stewart 2017). These show the determined aims of Oddbox that it doesn’t only
focusing on tackling food waste but it’s trying hard ‘to normalise the consumption of wonky
produce’ as well as reducing plastic waste from packaging (Oddbox Team 2018a). In just over
two years, Oddbox really made a difference by rescuing over 150 tonnes of produces that
otherwise would go to the landfill from 26 British growers, which translated into more than
25,000 home boxes and 4,000 office boxes had been delivered (Oddbox Team 2018b). Apart
from having wonky vegetables and fruits delivery boxes scheme, Oddbox is also supporting
charities that work to combat food waste and food poverty as well by donating about 10% of
surplus produce to City Harvest and The People’s Fridge Brixton for further redistribution
(Oddbox n.d.). With the well thoughts and the dedications that Oddbox team has on the

27
operations, the company’s growth is exponentially increased up to 650% from 2017 to 2018
which there are about 2,500 people still on the waiting list to become consumers since Oddbox
originally only available in South London area. Hence, Oddbox sees the huge opportunity to
expand its business and impacts according to the demand, which it hopes to save 500,000
tonnes of wonky vegetables and fruits of the UK and EU within 2022 (Newton 2018). All in
all, Oddbox is one of the brilliant social enterprise examples showing the commitment towards
social and environmental responsibilities with the economic viable business model that also
using smart technology to scale.

4.1.3 Too Good To Go

Too Good To Go is an international tech-social enterprise that provides food stores an online
platform to sell their surplus food with a cheaper price every day to avoid food being wasted.
The food stores can simply list all the excess food items on the platform at the discounted
prices, while consumers can use the mobile application to find the nearby restaurants or cafés
that have left-over food available for collection at the selected time (Garfield 2016). It was first
launched in Copenhagen, Denmark were the headquarter is, and entered to the UK in 2016.
Currently, Too Good To Go is available in 8 countries around Europe and expecting to expand
more in the near future (Too Good To Go n.d.).
The idea of Too Good To Go came up by Chris Wilson and Jamie Crummie who were upset
with the level of edible food waste by UK restaurants, which is approximately 600,000 tonnes
each year and were finding the way to address it (Millington 2016). They started as a demo
website before got in touch with Danish guys who share the same passion to tackle food waste
in Scandenevian , which they all eventually got on board together (Wallner 2017). Too Good
to Go aims to become a solution to solve food waste problems within the hospitality industry,
with the mission to ‘place the lost value back onto food’ that was about to be thrown away
(Garfield 2016). This means it tries to convey the important message to consumers worldwide
that ‘food produced’ equal to ‘food consumed’ (Too Good To Go n.d.). The co-founders also
hope that their online platform or the mobile application would bring food waste topic to the
mainstream and change consumers perceptions around how they usually consume and what
they consume (Millington 2016). To date, it can be said that their dream is getting there since
Too Good To Go already had over 3 million people using the application and over 2.5 million
meals have been recued within less than two years (Too Good To Go n.d.). The key success
factor that make Too Good Too Go grows really fast is that it has successfully created the ‘win-
win’ situation for both food stores and consumers. Restaurants and cafés can save money from

28
the food waste disposal while making more money and attracting new consumers to the stores,
whereas consumers can get good food at the lower price than usual (Millington 2016). In
addition, Too Good To Go also emphasises the power of consumers in driving changes as it
sees the potential of consumers in putting pressure on the large food businesses around the
product offers, procedures and sourcing methods (Wallner 2017). The more consumers join the
movements the more responsibilities food businesses need to take. Too Good To Go, thus,
believes in the impact of consumer attitudinal and behavioural changes that would create a
better food system in the future.

4.1.4 We Food
In 2016, Wefood was established in Denmark as the first food surplus supermarket in the world
by DanChurchAid, a charity fight for hungers in the disadvantaged countries. It aims to reduce
the amount of food waste in Denmark and also bring profits to support the charity’s projects
such as providing social protection schemes and promoting agro-ecological production
(DanChurchAid n.d.). Wefood is a part of Danish Government initiative that aims to tackle
food waste problem, since over 70,000 tonnes of food are being wasted in Denmark every year.
Surprisingly, after only the first 6 months since it was opened, Wefood received around 40
tonnes of surplus food to the store in Copenhagen and opened the second chain in the same
year (Rodionova 2016). Most of the surplus foods sold at its supermarket chains are those can
no longer sell due to the incorrect labels, defects of packaging, or best before dates overdue.
All the goods sold at Wefood is different each day depending on the donations. Everything is
still edible and safe, but perceived as lower in value by the supplier who donate to Wefood
(DanChurchAid n.d.). The main supplier of Wefood is Føtex, one of the largest supermarket
chains in Denmark which usually donate day-old bread and other products, while receiving
fresh produces from importers (Payton 2016). The public’s positive perception on edible food
waste was began in 2014 when the Denmark’s national law allowed the retailers to sell products
that passed best before or expired date as long as the manufacturers declare that goods will still
consumable after the date shown on the packaging (France 2016). Furthermore, Wefood also
focus on changing people attitudes towards food waste to create a wider impact through
community, mainly by making strong engagement with volunteer staffs and consumers. It is
very interesting that even though the standard of selling price at Wefood stores is cheaper than
normal supermarkets by 30-50%, but it doesn’t attract only lower income consumers as it has
become the first grocery destination for students and consumers who also want to support a
good cause and the charity (Yuan 2017). It can be said that Wefood’s model is remarkably

29
simple yet believed to be scalable to other nations that want to solve local food waste problem
and initiate the food policy as well.

4.1.5 Instock – Turns food surplus into delicious meals

Instock is the first of its kind restaurant in the Netherlands that transforms residual foods from
supermarkets and suppliers into delicious meals. Instock was founded in 2014 by the three
pioneers who used to worked at Albert Heijn, one of the largest supermarket chains in the
Netherlands (Whybrow 2018). The idea of establishing Instock restaurant was began when Bart
Roetert felt frustrated about the amount of surplus food being wasted at Albert Heijn and
wanted to do something with these edible food, so he teamed up his colleagues Freke van
Nimwegen and Selma Seddik who have the same vision to join the company’s business
competition, which they won it (Pullman 2018). Instock is a social enterprise in a form of self-
sustaining foundation as it reinvest its profits back to the new projects fighting food waste
(Kranendonk 2015). Its main mission is ‘to reduce food waste and create awareness of the
issue’ in a fun way, with the a very positive goal ‘to make people value food more’ (Instock
n.d.).Within the first three years, Instock successfully opened three restaurants located in
Amsterdam, Utrecht, and The Hague, where the surplus foods are mainly donated by 168
Albert Heijn stores and supplied by local food distributors (Whybrow 2018). The eco-mined
and creative chefs of Instock achieves to use 80% out of 100% of different surplus food as the
ingredients of three course menu serving every day (Instock n.d.). Other than delicious food
served at the restaurants, it also produces many innovative products from food surplus and
make them available for consumers at the stores such as potato beers, bread-based beers, and
granola from spent grains, as well as a food waste cook book (Whybrow 2018). Interestingly,
individual consumers are not the only type of Instock’s consumers since it also has an online
shop that offers wide range of surplus foods for catering businesses and chefs to choose as their
ingredients and use to help reducing food waste together. Moreover, Instock also see the
importance of people’s knowledge around food waste, especially children, so it provides many
powerful resources and plan to schools to support the teaching about a basic food system, while
offering cookery workshop for adults (Pullman 2018). These are not all, Instock also has a
strong relationship with the Dutch foodbank network (Voedselbank) as they always exchange
surplus foods whenever one or other has surplus of food surplus at hands, and Instock
encourages consumers with the option to donate €12.50 to food bank, which would then turn
into the gift card for food bank users to redeem at any chains of Instock restaurants (Whybrow
2018). All the things Instock does simply and clearly show that Instock makes a big

30
contribution on food waste reduction by working closely with both retailers and consumers as
surplus foods are seen to be rescued by consumers who dine in the restaurants.

4.2 Observations and findings

This section provides the data getting from my observations, interviews and some from reliable
secondary sources to show how each social enterprise position itself in food waste hierarchy
through its mission and activities, then compare how the different business models and
activities of each social enterprise enable the three important determinants of the integrated
MOAB framework to achieve consumers behavioural change, which are motivation, ability,
and opportunity (see appendix 8 for the data collection summary).

4.2.1 The position of food social enterprises in food waste hierarchy

Even though five social enterprises have totally different business models, products and
services, and activities, but they all share the common mission to reduce food waste and create
powerful message on the global issue to create wide awareness as far as possible. All the
selected cases show the success combination of the existing business ideas, creativity, and even
the innovative technology to make the impacts happen. Some of them create amazing products
from residual foods such as Toast Ale makes bread beer and Instock makes potato beer and
spent grains granola, also has its own restaurant that serve delicious food as well. Some of them
use technology to create incredible online platform such as Too Good To Go which allow
smartphone users to buy fresh leftover food from the restaurants and cafés or Oddbox which
help farmers to sell wonky vegetables and fruits delivery online. While Wefood, set up as the
first supermarket that sell expired or overdue best before food products.
Since I adopt the definition of food from FAO (1981) that it is the edible material that accepted
to be consumable by the majority of people, the concept of food surplus from Papargyropoulou
et al. (2014) also applies here as it is food that still fits for human consumption but is being
moved out from the supply chain due to the oversupply and imperfect characteristics.
Therefore, it’s interesting to look at how each social enterprise views unwanted surplus food
they receive from the earlier stage of food supply chain before exploring their position in the
food waste hierarchy.
All five social enterprises have pretty much the same view that food produced for human
consumption shouldn’t be wasted and all imperfect foods are perfectly normal to consume.
Bart, Co-founder from Instock and David, Customer Relationship Manager from Toast Ale
both emphasised that good and appropriate destinations must be founded for the surplus foods

31
in the first place before reaching their hands to do something out of them, for example giving
surplus foods directly to foodbanks, shelters, or charity, so people can consume them.
However, the amount of surplus food is enormously over the capacity that foodbank or charity
can handle, then it’s where Toast Ale and Instock disrupt the supply chain and prevent surplus
food going to landfill by ‘repurposing’ it into new products. While Maria, Marketing Manager
from Oddbox talked about the different approach to stop food going to waste since the farm
level by trying to make produces that ‘don’t look right’ get accepted and eaten by the public as
much as possible to create pressure on retail level to reconsider the aesthetic grading criteria.
Anoushka, Marketing Coordinator from Too Good To Go and John, Volunteer from Wefood
have the similar thoughts that although their company mainly receive whatever food left from
the food businesses but surplus food for them still has the good quality and normal to be given
a second chance. John made this clearer by saying that the companies and stores are too quick
to label food as not good enough to sell and consume when 95% of it could be absolutely fine.
There is so much food that is still ok to be purchased by those who can afford to and therefore
Wefood use that to put towards other good causes helping those who are not able to. Moreover,
Bart and Maria also mention the same thing that food surplus and waste problem is ‘everyone’s
responsibility’ to operate and deal with it, also to create impactful work across social and
environment levels. Maria also adds that it is not a problem to solve by individual but all
industries even the hospitals, schools, and wholesaler waste a lot of food, we need to do it
collectively.
By looking at how they view food surplus, all the five social enterprises are operating in the
‘prevention level’ of food waste hierarchy but they all do it differently from each other, which
can be categorised into three practices of prevention:

1. ‘repurposing’ – Instock and Toast Ale;

2. ‘revaluing’ – Oddbox and Wefood;
3. ‘finding new destination’ – Instock, Oddbox, Too Good To Go, and Wefood

The above summary of which practices are being adopted by social enterprises show that some
of most of them combine different practices together to enhance the impacts. Moreover, some
of them are also working on the ‘reuse level’ as they redistribute surplus food to those people
who are in need or can’t afford food as well, which are Instock, Oddbox, and Wefood. While
Toast Ale comes to ‘recycle level’ when it sends leftover spent grains from beer brewing to be
animal feeds. In addition, it’s interesting that different people who does different role in the
same company might have a unique perspective on which level of food waste hierarchy the

32
company currently operates. For example, when I talked to the head chef of Instock, Lucas
Jeffries, he said that Instock is more doing at the recovery and disposal levels. He gave the
reasons that prevention for him is only can be done through creating awareness. Since surplus
foods Instock received have gone through the food system already, so he sees Instock reuse
and recover those surplus foods to make delicious meals and great products and then dispose
them by giving it to others who need them.

4.2.2 The strategies to enable motivation, ability, and opportunity for effective food waste
behavioural change

After the operational levels of each social enterprise within the food waste hierarchy are clearly
identified by its business model, and since in the literatures Rohm et al. (2017) concluded that
consumers still has all the power to take control over food decision anyway, so I will focus on
the actual and practical activities of social enterprises in details in this section to analyse how
they empower the motivation, ability and opportunity of consumers to reduce food waste
together. However, before moving to the analysis mentioned earlier, it’s essential to learn how
the five social enterprises work to understand their consumers’ characteristics and behaviours
which allow them to come with the ideas to interact with consumers and change the behaviours.

All five social enterprises attract similar types of early consumers who are environmentally and
ethically conscious, but basically target on everybody in the market as they want to spread the
messages and impact to all groups. Social enterprises that use technology in the products and
services like Oddbox and Too Good To Go target younger consumers who are familiar with
the use of online platform and mobile application. Students and young professionals are the
major consumers for all social enterprises since they become more interested in sustainable
lifestyle and due to the lower purchasing power, they can happily afford a lot of good quality
surplus foods at lower price. Gender is also interesting in consumer categorization as David
said for Toast Ale, when beer is tied with environmental cause, its consumer group is more
unique than other beer brands since it’s overwhelmed by female consumers. He believes this
would help Toast Ale spreads the message about global food waste to the wider group not just
male consumers, as it aims to make a beer that is very enjoyable for everyone.

While all social enterprises know very well who their potential consumers are, it’s still
challenging for them to understand, change and maintain consumer’s attitudes and behaviours.
Bart told me his example that when he tried to raise awareness about Instock and food waste

33
issue in the Southern part of Netherlands with the food truck, it was very difficult to explain
and get acceptance since people thought that Instock uses all the expired products to cook
foods. This example also represents the common ways that all social enterprises do to learn
about their consumers which is make a direct conversation with them at the events or wherever
suitable for a talk. Beth, another Volunteer at Wefood said he has many chances to give
information about the food waste supermarket to new visitors every day when they why the
supermarket is here. David also said he was surprised by the number of people who never
acknowledged about bread and food waste issues when he talked and gave some samples at the
festival, so when he told the stories he could see the exciting reactions and get instant feedback.
Nevertheless, online channels are still very useful and cost-effective tools for all social
enterprises to know more about their consumers, especially for Oddbox and Too Good To Go
as they don’t have less chance to physically connect with consumers.

Motivation
From the literature motivation is seen to be the most important determinant for someone to
change behaviour since it’s internally generated and it means that individual has interest,
willingness, readiness, to do something. From my observations and interviews, all social
enterprises have done well in motivating people to be interested in food waste problems and
want to join the movement. Beginning with Toast Ale, David said apart from the product itself,
it has a great supporter like Tristram Stuart who is both a founder and global food waste
campaigner to impactfully communicate about food waste and the celebrity endorsement from
Jamie Oliver, who could make the website clashed when the re-advertisement appears. But
mainly Toast Ale motivates people the most when the team communicate and give samples to
people at the event as they receive message directly. For Oddbox, it’s currently working
towards the concept of ‘affordable sustainability’ to educate and create awareness on how
tackling food waste would save the planet and money at the same time. I also joined a mini
friendly wonky strawberry protest as a volunteer with Oddbox in July 2018 to raise awareness
about strawberry waste in Wimbledon, London which I found it was really get people’s
attention and curious about what we do when all the volunteers chanted “I don’t know what
I’ve been told wonky strawberries don’t get sold. Nothing wrong with how they taste so let’s
go try and end food waste” together while distributing wonky strawberries along the street.
While To Good To Go motivates our consumers by making sure consumers are informed about
the damaging environmental impact of food waste and how they can easily do their bit to help

34
reduce it mainly through the blogs and social media. The last two social enterprises, Wefood
and Instock as their business operate within supermarket and restaurant forms respectively,
they motivate people by creating the welcoming atmosphere for shopping or beautiful places
for dining. Both Wefood and Instock work well in not setting their position as the social
supermarket or restaurant but they are normal places for everyone. Moreover, the volunteers
of Wefood are also the key actors to spread the awareness in the community and invite more
people to join the movement, while Instock also looks for ways to make public familiar with
food waste by organising movie nights. In addition, when I visited Instock as a customer and
ordered three course menus, I could see how the chef team dedicatedly designs the menu from
surplus food and the service team enthusiastically explains what are in the plates, which can be
the way to show what food we can make if we have surplus.

Ability
Ability is associated with the adequate skills and knowledge to perform behaviour, which each
social enterprise works to increase the ability of consumers in the different ways in supporting
their motivation. The first social enterprise that has the widest range of activities is Instock.
Djaja, the Community Manager of Instock said that the company often organise workshops
where people get a chance to learn more about a lot of preservation techniques Instock uses,
which not only results into a unique flavour, but also expands the shelf life of the products. It
also publishes its own cookbook, which explains the idea and concept behind Instock, also
includes easy recipes to prevent food waste at home that appear on the blogs and video on
Instock’s social media as well. Moreover, Instock tries to involve in the local community as
well by providing an education program for primary schools. The second one is Oddbox, it
normally provides education and recipes to minimise food waste at home within the box, does
weekly #freshforlonger tips across social channels and advises how to use and store vegetables
in the newsletter. For Too Good To Go, as it is an application, it’s working hard to get more
eateries and restaurants on the platform to ensure that there's plenty of variety for people to
continue to be engaged with the app. Even though it has never done a workshop but when it
had a Food Waste Protest Picnic at Hyde Park in June 2018, it invited users to try some rescued
food and learn a little more about food waste. The next one is Wefood, Beth said that he has
done a couple of community events since he joined, the events were more based around
educating people on the mission to reduce food waste and suggesting recipes from the foods,
while volunteers were giving inspiration as well. The last and unique social enterprise is Toast

35
Ale, since it not only targets to increase the ability of individual consumers but also other
breweries as it provides replicable bread beer recipes online. It sometimes organises Toast Talk
to educate people about food waste and communicate through social media to get in touch as
well.

Opportunity
The last determinant is opportunity or the external environment which will be the most
effective when an individual has already got both motivation and ability to behave. It can be
said that all five social enterprises are offering their products and services as the opportunities
for consumers since there were less availability and lower accessibilities in the past. Nowadays
smartphone become a must gadget for everyday use, Too Good To Go and Oddbox come at
the right time as have their online website or application available for people to access and
contribute to save food surplus anytime and anywhere as long as there is the internet access.
When more and more farmers and restaurants joining the platforms, consumers also have more
opportunity to choose and help reduce food waste from different sources, which Anouska
believes that this would change the behavioral patterns through technology. At Instock, besides
its physical facilities for dining, it also has its own food rescue center where it also creates an
online website targeting at other food businesses to make bulk orders, which it also provides
free delivery. Another great example from Instock that was recently happened earlier August
2018 is that it received 6 million surplus snack tomatoes that were threatened because the sun
had affected their shape and skin. Instock team then posted a message on the social media
saying that everyone could pick up tomatoes for free at all three restaurants that weekend which
it turned out to be a great success and all of the tomatoes found a new home instantly. While
Wefood sets the supermarket position to be the first destination for everyone before going to
the normal supermarkets, it creates the new habit and culture that consumers think they should
go check out good and cheap products at Wefood first. Sometimes when there is too much
surplus perishable food at the supermarkets and the team diagnose that those foods wouldn’t
be sold in time, they will just simply announce on the social media or with the local
communities that they will give away foods and want people to come for collection. Last but
not least, for Toast Ale, David told me that it was the good moment and big move for Toast
Ale to be selected on the large supermarket shelves like Tesco and Waitrose as the quality and
taste of its beer meet the standard. By getting a brand placing next to other well-known brands,
it would multiply the chance to educate people about food waste and be chosen by consumers,

36
which mean more surplus breads are rescued. Furthermore, it also provides the replicable bread
beer recipes that being downloaded internationally large amount of time.

4.2.3 Additional findings

Influences on other players in food supply chain
Continuing from the case of Toast Ale, it also gives the ideas of pairing its beers with
restaurants’ menu if they want to make the sustainability theme, which make more restaurants
and pub become more sustainable by planning the way to collaborate with Toast Ale. It
encourages the local sandwich manufacturers or bakery shops and breweries to work together
and brew their own unique beers that represent their local taste since it’s doesn’t export beers
to other places, and this is how Toast Ale USA started. Moreover, it’s starting to brew new
beers with surplus bread from Tesco as they successfully done with EAT the UK’s sandwich
chains to create impacts with the new model on the different levels. Whereas, Instock, Oddbox,
and Wefood mainly influence on the supermarkets’ policy and standard, such as ordering and
stocking less products, adjusting the quality requirements, setting up a wonky produces section,
and discounting the price first before giving products to others. However, for Too Good To
Go, there is still not much evidence to see how it influences food stores to reduce food waste,
still, it’s a good sign to see more number of restaurants are joining as they want the better
surplus food destination rather than going straight to the bin.

37
5. Discussions

The literature review and cross-case analysis study of five social enterprises offers a lot of
useful understandings around doing business with food waste reduction goal and achieving
food sustainability with all the actors in food supply chain, since food waste is an issue that not
many social enterprises worldwide have been doing. There are three main points to be
discussed in this chapter as below.

5.1 How social enterprises value food surplus

According to the literature review where I view the concept of food loss as the same as food
surplus, since both share the same characteristic that food is something edible and fit for
consumption (FAO 1981) and adopt the term food surplus in this dissertation, food surplus is
the most significant problem in the food supply chain as it will eventually become food waste
since there is no demand for it. Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015) clearly provided the
characteristics of food surplus that it either has imperfect appearances or undesired conditions
for consumption, which mostly it is judged by consumers. This is where many food waste
innovation businesses see the value and opportunity of these edible good food to return into
the human consumption cycle. From the analysis of five social enterprises cases, none of them
view surplus food as the food that has lower quality or value, they see it as ‘normal food’ that
everyone should enjoy. The most outstanding example that shows the clear picture of how
social enterprise value surplus food is Oddbox, since they rescue wonky produces at the
primary stage of food supply chain and doesn’t process those produces into new products. It
also shows the natural look and pure value as the produces came to consumers, its services
allow consumers to give them a chance and experience the quality of imperfect food by
themselves. While Instock and Toast Ale, use surplus food to be their ingredients or resources
for making new products, they both work hard to use their products to be the powerful messages
to consumers about food waste that surplus food is actually incredibly delicious just like those
that might look better. Even though Instock and Toast Ale also see their rescued surplus as
normal food, but they don’t sell it directly like Oddbox because of the different sources. People
tend to be harder to accept surplus foods from supermarkets or the factories, as they have
negative perception on the quality and safety. However, surplus food at Wefood and Too Good
To Go is even beyond what public would expect to consume, as Wefood sells overdue best
before date food products and Too Good To Go sells leftover ready to eat food from the

38
restaurants that still perfectly safe and edible. Unfortunately, although all the five social
enterprises give much value for the surplus food, but when talking about the economic value,
surplus food still has lower value than normal food as none of the case studies set up the price
at the market standard. This shows that more works on raising awareness, changing consumers
attitudes and behaviours need to be done to create new social perception towards surplus food.

5.2 Alternative practices within food waste hierarchy for social enterprise

There are a lot of food loss and waste frameworks created by different international
organisations to use widely in the world, but for this this dissertation the one proposed by
Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) is adopted since it clearly explains the differentiation of food
surplus and waste, also the most complete guidelines for the prevention and management (see
appendix 5). However, after I experienced and talked with all the five social enterprises, I see
the opportunity to adjust the framework and the food waste hierarchy (figure 1) that would be
more suitable for the food waste social enterprises or any businesses that aim to bring
innovation to tackle food waste. From the findings, there are three new categories for the
practice within the prevention level, which are repurposing, revaluing, and finding new
destinations. Originally, the practices at the prevention level in the literature only refer to
prevent the generation of both avoidable or unavoidable food waste at the first place, which
emphasizing on pushing the limits on crops harvesting and production. Nevertheless, there are
still enormously amount of food waste caused by food surplus everywhere in the world, which
most of the social enterprise cases mentioned that it’s already over the capacity of food bank
or charity and they think that it’s everyone responsibility to stop this issue not just simply pass
the problem to disadvantage people. Therefore, I would like to propose three new practices for
social enterprises to prevent food waste as mentioned above, while the concept of each practice
is provided below:
• Repurposing – using surplus foods as the resources or raw materials for producing new
food products that fit for human consumption
• Revaluing – bringing back the value of surplus foods that are not accepted by the public
or failed to meet the standards by providing knowledge to people and demonstrating
that they are perfectly edible
• Finding new destination – Creating new economic viable markets for surplus foods by
making sure that they are still in the human consumption cycle

39
5.3 All activities are valuable to change people behaviour towards food waste reduction
even though it takes time to achieve
Since each social enterprise case has got different business model, product and services, so it
attracts different types consumers from each other. However, their consumers share the
common characteristics that they concern about ethical and environmental issues. In this
dissertation, I adopt the integrated MOAB framework by Willmott and Parkinson (2017) to
explore and analyse how each social enterprise works to enhance consumers’ motivation,
ability, and opportunity to encourage them to reduce food waste, which all determinants must
be continuously interconnected to make behavioural changes possible. The first element is
motivation, which Ryan and Deci (2000) emphasised that when individuals have already got
intrinsic motivation, it would be easier for that them to change and maintain behaviour if then
have enough ability and supportive external mechanisms to do so. In other words, it means
people tend to change their behaviour for a long-term when people have a desire and enjoy
doing something without getting any incentives, while knowing how to do it and being in the
right environment. All social enterprises are focusing on raising awareness about food waste
as much as they can to make people interest and want to engage in solving the issues. Some of
them even make the products and services look just like the those can be found in the typical
markets to make them feel no differences between surplus food and normal food. For the
ability, the second important element that the level varyingly depends on individual past
experiences and knowledge. All the cases provide consumers knowledge about how to reduce
food waste in daily life through different channels. Which Instock is the most significant case
that provides various programmes to educate and directly interact with people at different ages,
for example workshops and cookbook that target on female consumers and food waste school
lessons that target on primary school students. The last element is opportunity, external
environment that support people to perform behaviour easier. All the cases focus on improving
their products and services development as well as the availability and accessibility, as the
main factors to allow consumers reduce food waste through purchasing their products or using
services. For example, Toast Ale has tried hard to enter and have the spot on the supermarket’s
shelves, Too Good To Go aims to have more food stores that want to reduce food waste by
using platforms, and Oddbox works to expand the delivery coverage to get more consumers
helping with the huge amount of wonky vegetables. The cases show that changing people
behaviour is challenging, especially the consumers behavioural changes without any specific
circumstances to creating force. Since each social enterprise is not powered by any authority
so it doesn’t have power to change the policy or the existing problematic system. Still, social

40
enterprises can act as the disruptive intermediary connecting between the producers, retailers,
and consumers in a positive way, but it might take longer time and more collaboration to
achieve. Hence, what social enterprises can do is taking the benefits of understanding the
integrated MOAB framework, with each element to develop their own strategic activities that
would enables motivation, ability and opportunity at the same time for the best outcomes.

41
6. Conclusion
This dissertation has provided the revision on the how social enterprises can help in achieving
sustainable development particularly on the food waste reduction under the food sustainability
practice by using food waste hierarchy as a guideline. Then focused on the changes that could
make through changing consumer behaviours and suggested the concept of social marketing to
be used with social enterprises’ activities since social enterprises do business differently from
the commercial business. As I see the need of changing consumers behaviour in order to create
effective social and environmental impact, therefore the integrated MOAB framework was
used to analyse how each social enterprise increase consumers’ motivation, ability, and
opportunity to reduce food waste.
The data findings from all five social enterprises with the implication of food waste hierarchy
were important for identifying which level their business operates to tackle food waste, and all
of them operate at least in the prevention level before moving further down to the later level.
The food surplus and waste framework by (Papargyropoulou et al. 2014) also gave a complete
idea of the ways to prevent and manage food waste, which I gave my conclusion that even
though all social enterprises are working to prevent food waste, but they act differently on the
practices. Therefore, the three new categories of practice for prevention are proposed to be used
with the existing food surplus and waste framework and food waste hierarchy which are
repurposing, revaluing, and finding new destination. It’s believed that the future social
entrepreneurs or the campaigner against food waste will get benefits from adapting these
practices to plan their activities that create larger impacts as well as the feasible business
models.
Although the selected case studies are from different countries which are the UK, Denmark,
and Netherlands where the cultures and policies have the different levels of influence on the
nation’s food waste problems, but when any organisation wants to make changes at people
level, it’s suggested to understand people’ actual motivation and ability before evaluating what
the potential external mechanisms are already available and what orgnasations can create to
support the changes. This why the integrated MOAB framework, one of the most effective
social marketing approaches is adopted in this study to show that this framework can be applied
universally in any situations and places. All case studies prove that social enterprises working
to fight food waste have the consistent yet wide range activities that can enable consumer’s
motivation, ability, and opportunity to interconnectedly interact over time in persuading
behavioural changes. Therefore, this framework is also suitable to be used with any social

42
organisation that aims to be financially sustainable while creating long-term positive impacts
through the power of people at the same time, since the typical commercial marketing alone
doesn’t intend to ask people around business to change behaviours collectively to benefit
society as a whole.
Finally, since food loss and waste are currently the highlighted global issue and there are
growing in a large number of businesses established for these causes only in the last few years,
there is still lack of the empirical studies and inadequate literature on the work of social
enterprises in this field. This paper only provides the concepts and applicable frameworks of
food waste hierarchy and consumers behavioural changes to use within social enterprise
context along with several case studies for future reference. The further research and
exploration with other food waste social enterprises internationally are required to examine the
questions raised and the application of proposed concepts in this study such as the three new
practices for social enterprise to use its business to stop food waste (repurposing, revaluing,
and finding new destinations), and the integrated MOAB framework with the future
experimental study on actual consumer behaviours. I hope that the findings and discussion in
this paper could bring future food waste social entrepreneurs the insights and ideas for the
business model and operational development to achieve food sustainability collaboratively
with all the actors in food supply chain.

43
Appendices
Appendix 1: 17 Sustainable Development Goals

44
Appendix 2: Pearce’s three system of the economy diagram

45
Appendix 3: Food waste hierarchy frameworks applied in different regions/ countries
Food and drink materials hierarchy applied by WRAP

Food waste hierarchy applied in EU by ECA

Food waste hierarchy in Scotland applied by SEPA

Food recovery hierarchy in the USA applied by EPA

46
Appendix 4: The Devised EU Waste Framework Directive 2008

Appendix 5: Food surplus and waste framework

47
Appendix 6: Semi-structure interview sample questions with the social enterprises’
representative

Questions for a person who works in the company

1. What’s your personal goal with the company?

2. What is your opinion when most of the practices to reduce edible food waste is to feed poor people/
and animals rather than everyone?
3. What kind of food surplus/ waste does the company use for creating products/ services?
4. Who are your target consumers and what characteristics do they have in common?
5. How do you work to understand your consumer behaviour? (e.g. observation, do you talk to them
a lot? do you ask them for feedback and what they think about the company?)
It’s believed that to be able to solve social and environmental problems, it’s crucial to support behavioural
change of the public. There are 3 variables that mainly influence individuals to change their habits which
are motivation, ability, and opportunity.

6. How does the company motivate consumers to become conscious and want to reduce food waste?
(through your marketing strategy or activities e.g. workshops/ events/ collaborate with volunteers)
7. How does the company improve consumers ability to reduce food waste? (e.g. educate,
communicate, create cookbook etc.)
8. How does the company create more opportunity for consumers to help them reduce food waste in
daily life? (through your product or services)
9. How do you keep in touch with your consumers and try to maintain the behaviour?
10. Do you think the company highly impact on the people behavioural change to reduce food waste?
11. Do you think the company needs any other external support for encouraging people to reduce food
waste together (such as government support, social norms, cuture, and etc.)?
12. Do you think the company influences the supermarkets and other players in food supply chain to
reduce food waste too? Could you give some examples, please?

48
Questions for volunteer

1. What is your personal goal with the company?

2. What is your opinion when most of the practices to reduce edible food waste is to feed poor
people/ and animals rather than everyone?
3. From your observations, who are the customers of the company? (can be age range or
occupations/ income)
4. Do the consumers you meet at the store they already aware about food waste problems?
5. Do you think the way people live, culture, and society support everyone to care about
environment in their daily life?
6. From your experiences, do you have a chance to talk with consumers about food waste issues?
How do they response?
7. So far, does the company organise any activities to invite local people to join food waste
reduction movements? (e.g. workshops/ food rescue/ cooking class/ etc.)
8. As a volunteer of the company, how do you spread this idea of reducing food waste to your friend
and family? And how do you influence them to reduce food waste too?
9. Do you think by having a company in the local area make it more convenient for everyone to
access more food? And make people understand more that food surplus is still perfectly edible?
10. Have you ever been to rescue food from supermarkets with the team? Have you ever talked to the
staff from supermarket? What do they talk about food waste? Do you think the team make them
aware about the amount of food they waste and try to waste less in the future?

49
Appendix 7: List of primary data sources

A. Semi-structure interviews with the representative of social enterprises

1. Toast Ale

a. Name of interviewee: David Ryan, Consumer Relationships Manager

Date of interview: 30 August 2018
Communication means: Face-to-face interview
Contact information of the interviewee: david@toastale.com

2. Oddbox

a. Name of interviewee: Maria Bell, Marketing Manager

Date of interview: 25 August 2018
Communication means: Email
Contact information of the interviewee: maria@oddbox.co.uk

3. Too Good To Go

a. Name of interviewee: Anoushka Grover, Marketing Coordinator

Date of interview: 23 August 2018
Communication means: Email
Contact information of the interviewee: agrover@toogoodtogo.co.uk

4. Wefood

a. Name of interviewee: John Bagge, Volunteer

Date of interview: 18 August 2018
Communication means: Interview through Skype call
Contact information of the interviewee: johnbagge@outlook.com

b. Name of interviewee: Beth Hanlon, Volunteer

Date of interview: 18 August 2018
Communication means: Email
Contact information of the interviewee: bethhanlon8@gmail.com

5. Instock

a. Name of interviewee: Bart Roetert, Co-founders

Date of interview: 15 August 2018
Communication means: Online call through Whatsapp
Contact information of the interviewee: bart@instock.nl

b. Name of interviewee: Lucas Jeffries, Head Chef

Date of interview: 9 August 2018

50
 Communication means: Face-to-face interview
Contact information of the interviewee: lucas@instock.nl

c. Name of interviewee: Djaja van den Berg, Community Manager

Date of interview: 23 August 2018
Communication means: Email
Contact information of the interviewee: djaja@instock.nl

B. Direct observation through visiting

a. Date: 9 August 2018 - Visited for dinner at Instock, Amsterdam

C. Participant observations through volunteering

a. Date: 6 July 2018

Event: Oddbox-Wimbledon: Wonky Strawberrry Protest and Distribution
Participate as a volunteer

51
Appendix 8: Summary of data collection

52
53
54
References
Andreasen, A.R., 1994. Social Marketing: Its Definition and Domain. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 13 (1), 108–114.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., et al., 2015. Consumer-Related Food Waste: Causes and Potential for
Action. Sustainability, 7 (6), 6457–6477.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., 2015. COSUS project presenting first results: an overview of
consumers and food waste [online], COSUS.
Available from: https://cosus.nmbu.no/sites/default/files/pdfattachments/short_summary_
cosus_wp1_final_1.pdf [Accessed 4 Aug 2018].
Bach, P., 2016. Social Enterprises in Denmark 2016 [online]. Available from: http://xn--
sociale-entreprenrer-rcc.dk/assets/files/Studyvisit-22-11-2016-PerBach.pdf [Accessed 21
Jul 2018].
Binney, W., Hall, J., and Oppenheim, P., 2006. The nature and influence of motivation within
the MOA framework: implications for social marketing. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing [online], 11 (4), 289–301.
Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/nvsm.280 [Accessed 18
Jul 2018].
BIS, 2011. A guide to legal forms for social enterprise [online].
Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uplo
ads/attachment_data/file/31677/11-1400-guide-legal-forms-for-social-enterprise.pdf
[Accessed 20 Jul 2018].
Born, B. and Purcell, M., 2013. Food Systems and the Local Trap. In: D. Inglis and D.L.
Gimlin, eds. The globalization of food. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 117–138.
British Council and SEUK, 2015. Think global trade social: How business with a social
purpose can deliver more sustainable development. [online].
Available from: https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/seuk_british_council_thi
nk_global_report.pdf.
BSDC, 2017. Better business better world executive summary: The report of the Business &
Sustainable Development Commission [online].
Available from: http://report.businesscommission.org/uploads/Executive-Summary.pdf
[Accessed 23 Aug 2018].
DanChurchAid, n.d. Wefood: Denmark's first-ever surplus food supermarket [online].
Available from: https://www.danchurchaid.org/join-us/wefood [Accessed 7 Aug 2018].

55
DEFRA, 2006. Food Industry Sustainability Strategy [online].
Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uplo
ads/attachment_data/file/69283/pb11649-fiss2006-060411.pdf [Accessed 4 Aug 2018].
ECA, 2016. Combating Food Waste: an opportunity for the EU to improve the resource-
efficiency of the food supply chain [online].
Available from: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_34/SR_FOOD_
WASTE_EN.pdf [Accessed 29 Jul 2018].
EFRA Committee, 2017. Food waste in England: Eighth Report of Session 2016–17 [online].
Available from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmenvfru/429/
429.pdf [Accessed 30 Jul 2018].
Elkington, J. and Hartigan, P., 2009. The power of unreasonable people: How social
entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business
Press.
Elliott, J.A., 1994. An introduction to sustainable development: The developing world.
London: Routledge.
EPA, 2017. Sustainable Management of Food: Food Recovery Hierarchy [online].
Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-
hierarchy [Accessed 29 Jul 2018].
EU Committee, 2014. Counting the Cost of Food Waste: EU Food Waste Prevention. Report
of Session 2013–14. London: The Stationery Office Limited.
European Commission, n.d. Social Enterprises [online].
Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/enterprises_en
[Accessed 21 Jul 2018].
European Commission, 2016. Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive)
[online]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/ [Accessed 29
Jul 2018].
European Union, 2014. A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe: Country
Report: Denmark [online].
Available from: ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=12987&langId=en [Accessed 20
Jul 2018].
FAO, 1981. Food loss prevention in perishable crops. Rome: Food and agriculture
organization of the United nations (FAO).

56
FAO, 2013. Food wastage footprint: Impacts on naral resources: Impacts on natural
resources: summary report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
FAO, 2015. FAO and the17 Sustainable Development Goals [online].
Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4997e.pdf [Accessed 24 Jul 2018].
FAO, 2017. The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges // The future of food
and agriculture: Trends and challenges. Rome: FAO.
France, A., 2016. Danish supermarket selling expired food opens second branch [online].
Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/27/food-waste-
denmark-buy-expired-produce-copenhagen-wefood [Accessed 6 Aug 2018].
Garfield, L., 2016. This new 'Seamless for food waste' lets you buy restaurants' surplus for
around $3 [online]. Available from: http://uk.businessinsider.com/food-waste-app-too-
good-to-go-3-2016-8 [Accessed 9 Aug 2018].
Gosling, F., 2016. Toast Ale Brew: London breweery turns bread into beer to tackle food
waste [online]. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-
drink/news/toast-ale-brew-london-brewery-turns-bread-into-beer-to-tackle-food-waste-
a6837421.html [Accessed 10 Aug 2018].
GRI, 2015. The SDG compass helps companies take action on new UN goals [online].
Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-
center/Pages/The-SDG-Compass-Helps-Companies-Take-Action-on-New-UN-Goals-
.aspx [Accessed 21 Jul 2018].
GSVC, n.d. Social Impact Assessment: Glossary and References [online].
Available from: http://gsvc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Social-Impact-Assessment-
Glossary.pdf [Accessed 25 Jun 2018].
Gustavsson, J., et al., 2011. Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and
prevention. Rome: Food and agriculture organization of the United nations (FAO).
Hanson, C., 2017. Guidance on interpreting Sustainable development goal target 12.3.
[online]. Available from: https://champs123blog.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/champions-
12-3-guidance-on-interpreting-sdg-target-12-3.pdf [Accessed 24 Jul 2018].
Hopwood, T. and Merritt, R., 2011. Big Pocket Guide to using social marketing for
behaviour change [online].
Available from: http://www.thensmc.com/sites/default/files/Big_pocket_guide_2011.pdf
[Accessed 3 Aug 2018].

57
Inglis, D. and Gimlin, D.L., 2013. Food Globalizations: Ironies and Ambivalences of Food,
Cuisine, and Globality. In: D. Inglis and D.L. Gimlin, eds. The globalization of food.
London: Bloomsbury Academic, 3–42.
Instock, n.d. Q&A Frequently asked questions [online].
Available from: https://www.instock.nl/en/qa-frequently-asked-questions-about-instock/
[Accessed 10 Aug 2018].
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G., 1971. Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change.
Journal of Marketing, 35 (3), 3.
Kranendonk, S., 2015. INSTOCK AMSTERDAM - are you ready to rescue some food?
[online].
Available from: http://www.nudgesustainabilityhub.com/initiatives/2015/10/27/instock-
amsterdam-are-you-ready-to-rescue-some-food [Accessed 12 Aug 2018].
Leach, B. and Swannell, R., 2017. Food loss and waste: A key issure for our generation
[online]. Available from: https://www.the-ies.org/analysis/food-loss-and-waste-key-issue
[Accessed 24 Jul 2018].
Leadbeater, C., 1997. The rise of the social entrepreneur. London: Demos.
LexisNexis Legal & Professional, 2017. SDGs: An opportunity for business [online].
Available from: https://sdgresources.relx.com/news-features/sdgs-opportunity-business
[Accessed 23 Jul 2018].
Lipinski, B., et al., 2013. Reducing food loss and waste. Washington, DC: World Resources
Institute.
Lipinski, B., et al., 2017. SDG TARGET 12.3 ON FOOD LOSS AND WASTE: 2017
PROGRESS REPORT: An annual update on behalf of Champions 12.3 [online].
Available from: https://champions123.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/champions-123-
sdg-target-123-2017-progress-report.pdf [Accessed 24 Jul 2018].
Littlewood, D. and Holt, D., 2018. How social enterprises can contribute to the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) – A conceptual framework. In: N. Apostolopoulos, et al.,
eds. Entrepreneurship and the Sustainable Development Goals. Bingley: Emerald,
Chapter 2.
MacInnis, D.J., Moorman, C., and Jaworski, B.J., 1991. Enhancing and Measuring
Consumers' Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads.
Journal of Marketing, 55 (4), 32.

58
Merritt, R., Truss, A., and Hopwood, T., 2011. Social marketing can help achieve sustainable
behaviour change [online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/blog/social-marketing-behaviour-change [Accessed 3 Aug 2018].
Millington, A., 2016. These are the meals you can buy on the app that offers restaurants
leftovers for under £4 [online]. Available from: http://uk.businessinsider.com/too-good-
to-go-sells-restaurant-food-destined-for-the-bin-2016-10 [Accessed 9 Aug 2018].
Newton, M., 2018. Oddbox launches crowdfunding campaign to fuel wonky veg revolution
[online]. Available from: https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3035579/oddbox-
launches-crowdfunding-campaign-to-fuel-wonky-veg-revolution [Accessed 8 Aug 2018].
Oddbox, n.d. Why we do it [online]. Available from: https://www.oddbox.co.uk/why/
[Accessed 9 Aug 2018].
Oddbox Team, 2018a. 10 Reasons To Join Oddbox in our Wonky Veg Revolution [online].
Available from: https://blog.oddbox.co.uk/10-reasons-to-join-oddbox-in-our-wonky-veg-
revolution-dc927c0c97ed [Accessed 6 Aug 2018].
Oddbox Team, 2018b. Get To Know Oddbox: 6 Questions For Our Founders [online].
Available from: https://blog.oddbox.co.uk/get-to-know-oddbox-6-questions-for-our-
founders-6a6fce8adec1 [Accessed 7 Aug 2018].
Ölander, F. and Thogersen, J., 1995. Understanding of consumer behaviour as a prerequisite
for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy [online], 18 (4), 345–385.
Available from: https://gold.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/
198421038?accountid=11149 [Accessed 4 Aug 2018].
Oostindjer, M., 2014. COnsumers in a SUStainable food supply chain: Project description
[online]. Available from: https://cosus.nmbu.no/description [Accessed 10 Aug 2018].
Papargyropoulou, E., et al., 2014. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the
management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–
115.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., and Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains:
quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 365 (1554), 3065–3081.
Parkinson, J., Schuster, L., and Russell-Bennett, R., 2016. Insights into the complexity of
behaviours: the MOAB framework. Journal of Social Marketing, 6 (4), 412–427.
Payton, M., 2016. Denmark opens first food waste supermarket selling surplus produce
[online]. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-

59
 food-waste-supermarket-we-food-copenhagen-surplus-produce-a6890621.html [Accessed
9 Aug 2018].
Pearce, J., 2003. Social enterprise in anytown. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Pullman, N., 2018. The Restaurant Chain With Nothing But Food Waste On The Menu: One-
third of all food produced is lost or wasted [online].
Available from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dutch-restaurant-food-
waste_us_5b17c085e4b0599bc6ded401 [Accessed 13 Aug 2018].
Ridley-Duff, R. and Bull, M., 2016. Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice.
Los Angeles: SAGE.
Rodionova, Z., 2016. World's first food waste supermarket so popular it has to open second
branch after 9 months [online].
Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/food-waste-
supermarket-wefood-denmark-so-popular-opens-second-branch-a7445146.html
[Accessed 9 Aug 2018].
Rohm, H., et al., 2017. Consumers in a Sustainable Food Supply Chain (COSUS):
Understanding Consumer Behavior to Encourage Food Waste Reduction. Foods (Basel,
Switzerland), 6 (12).
Rothschild, M.L., 1999. Carrots, Sticks, and Promises: A Conceptual Framework for the
Management of Public Health and Social Issue Behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 63 (4),
24.
Ryan and Deci, 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New
Directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25 (1), 54–67.
Segrè, A., et al., 2014. Background paper on the economics of food loss and waste [online],
FAO. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-at143e.pdf [Accessed 28 Jul 2018].
SEPA, 2016. SEPA Guidance: Food waste management in Scotland [online].
Available from: https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/219841/wst-g-049-food-waste-
management-in-scotland.pdf [Accessed 29 Jul 2018].
Sheffield, H., 2017. Oddbox: the food waste startup delivering wonky fruit and vegetable
boxes [online].
Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/indyventure/food-waste-
oddbox-wonky-fruit-veg-supermarkets-a7889321.html [Accessed 9 Aug 2018].
Smithers, R., 2016. Raise a Toast and help tackle the problem of food waste [online].
Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/22/toast-ale-beer-
surplus-bread-feedback-food-waste [Accessed 10 Aug 2018].

60
Social Enterprise NL, n.d. Definition of Social Enterprise [online].
Available from: https://www.social-enterprise.nl/sociaal-ondernemen/definitie/.
Social Enterprise UK, 2012. What make social enterprises a social enterprise? [online].
Available from: https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=96f
544c0-eb5c-404a-92a2-e040e49148f9 [Accessed 18 Jul 2018].
Steel, C., 2013. Hungry city: How food shapes our lives / Carolyn Steel. London: Vintage
Digital.
Stewart, V., 2017. Why you should follow Oddbox - the wonky fruit and veg box scheme on
Instagram [online].
Available from: https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/foodanddrink/why-you-should-
follow-oddbox-the-wonky-fruit-and-veg-box-scheme-on-instagram-a3617551.html
[Accessed 9 Aug 2018].
Sustainable workspace, 2018. Founder's podcast#1: Rob Wilson | Toast Ale [online].
Available from: https://www.sustainableworkspaces.co.uk/blog/2018/7/12/toast-ale-
launching-better-party-campaign [Accessed 12 Aug 2018].
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017. Toast Ale: Brewing beer from surplus bread
[online]. Available from: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/case-
studies/brewing-beer-from-surplus-bread [Accessed 12 Aug 2018].
Thomas, G., 2016. How to do your case study. London: SAGE.
Toast Ale, n.d. Surplus Story [online]. Available from: https://www.toastale.com/surplus-
story/ [Accessed 11 Aug 2018].
Toast Ale, 2018a. Toast Ale [online]. Available from: https://www.toastale.com/ [Accessed
10 Aug 2018].
Toast Ale, 2018b. Toast's a certified B Corp [online].
Available from: https://www.toastale.com/toasts-certified-b-corp/ [Accessed 11 Aug
2018].
Too Good To Go, n.d. We're Too Good To Go [online].
Available from: https://toogoodtogo.co.uk/about-us [Accessed 10 Aug 2018].
UN, 2015. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for Sustainable development
A/RES/70/1 [online].
Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20
Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf [Accessed 20 Jul 2018].
UN Global Compact and KPMG, 2016. SDG industry matrix: Food, beverage and consumer
goods [online].

61
 Available from: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/development/SDGMa
trix-ConsumerGoods.pdf [Accessed 18 Jul 2018].
UNDP, n.d. Goal 12: Responsible consumption and production [online].
Available from: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-
goals/goal-12-responsible-consumption-and-production.html [Accessed 24 Jul 2018].
UNEP, 2015. The three dimensions of sustainable development: Is an integrated approach
beyond our reach? [online]. Available from: http://web.unep.org/ourplanet/march-
2015/unep-work/three-dimensions-sustainable-development [Accessed 18 Jul 2018].
UNESCAP, 2015. Integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development: A framework
and tools [online].
Available from: https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Integrating%20the%20three%
20dimensions%20of%20sustainable%20development%20A%20framework.pdf
[Accessed 18 Jul 2018].
UNSDSN, 2015. Getting started with the sustainable development goals: A guide for
stakeholders [online]. Available from: http://unsdsn.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/151211-getting-started-guide-FINAL-PDF-.pdf [Accessed 18
Jul 2018].
Wallner, S., 2017. Too Good To Go: "We're Trying To Highlight That Food Is Food"
[online]. Available from: https://magazine.startus.cc/too-good-to-go-highlight-food-food/
[Accessed 9 Aug 2018].
WCED, 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whybrow, M., 2018. From waste to table: Instock’s Dutch mission [online].
Available from: https://smartercommunities.media/waste-table-instocks-dutch-mission/
[Accessed 12 Aug 2018].
Willmott, T. and Parkinson, J., 2017. Motivation, opportunity, and ability: Understanding
new habits and changes adopted for weight management. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 41 (3), 291–298.
Wilson, R., 2017. Ending food waste one beer at a time.
Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz8m1yDE0ms [Accessed 12 Aug
2018].
WRAP, n.d. Why take action: legal/ policy case [online], WRAP.
Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/why-take-action-legalpolicy-case
[Accessed 29 Jul 2018].
Yin, R.K., 2014. Case study research: Design and methods. London: SAGE.

62
 Yuan, L., 2017. This food waste supermarket aims to be your "first stop" for groceries
[online]. Available from: https://thisismold.com/space/retail/wefood-surplus-food-
supermarket-denmark#.W4qXoOhKjD5 [Accessed 9 Aug 2018].

63

View publication stats