From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains: Achieving Sustainable Change 303072672X, 9783030726720

Citation preview

From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains Achieving Sustainable Change Stella Despoudi Uthayasankar Sivarajah Manoj Dora

From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains

Stella Despoudi • Uthayasankar Sivarajah Manoj Dora

From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains Achieving Sustainable Change

Stella Despoudi Aston Business School Aston University Birmingham, UK

Uthayasankar Sivarajah School of Management University of Bradford Bradford, UK

Department of Business Administration University of Western Macedonia Grevena, Greece Manoj Dora Brunel Business School Brunel University London Uxbridge, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-72672-0    ISBN 978-3-030-72673-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover pattern © John Rawsterne/patternhead.co This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book provides an in-depth analysis of the current topics in relation to Circular Agricultural Supply Chains (ASCs). Practical insights to the topic are provided through the discussion of relevant examples were circular economy practices have been applied. ASCs are facing significant challenges and their future sustainability is questioned. The most common sustainability issues are related to food loss, food safety, food insecurity and accessibility, increased demand for food, decreasing natural resources, raw materials scarcity, and global food crisis. Circular economy is seen as the new buzzword of sustainability but with a focus on recycling and reusing materials and resources. Implementation of CE practices implementation in the agricultural supply chains is quite new, but more informal CE practice have been used for years by ASC entities. There is an urgent need to innovate even more in order to be able to increase the ASC sustainability. This book introduces the concept of CE and its emergence with a particular focus on ASCs. The move from linear to circular supply chains and circular agricultural supply chains is delineated. The three most common practices of CE i.e. reduce, reuse, and recycle are explained in line with relevant examples. In order to understand in-depth, the CE concept its different drivers, enablers and barriers need to be ascertained. CE seems to bring significant advantages to ASC entities such as collaborative advantage and improvements in sustainability performance. However, ASC companies

v

vi 

PREFACE

aiming to implement CE need to also understand the relative opportunities and challenges that may come with CE implementation. Research about circular economy in ASCs is still in this infancy and there are numerous research opportunities some of which are discussed in the end of this book. I would like to thank the co-authors of this book for contributing and sharing their ideas for making this book possible. Birmingham, UK

Stella Despoudi

Contents

1 Introduction to This Book 1 2 Definition of Agricultural Supply Chains and Sustainability Issues 3 2.1 Definition of Agricultural Supply Chain (ASC) 3 2.2 Definition of Sustainability in ASC 4 2.3 Sustainability Issues and Waste in Agricultural Supply Chains 6 2.4 Summary11 References12 3 From Linear to Circular Supply Chains15 3.1 Definition of Circular Economy15 3.2 Drivers of Circular Economy17 3.3 Practices of Circular Economy20 Reduction Practice 20 Reuse Practice 21 Recycle Practice 21 3.4 Priority of Circular Economy Practices22 3.5 Summary23 References23

vii

viii 

Contents

4 Circular Supply Chains25 4.1 Definition of Circular Supply Chains25 4.2 Definition of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains27 4.3 From Linear to Circular Agricultural Supply Chains27 4.4 Benefits of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains29 4.5 Summary32 References32 5 Drivers, Enablers and Barriers of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains33 5.1 Drivers of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains33 Human Activities 34 Public Health 35 Knowledge About Circular Economy 35 Economic Activities 36 Customer Awareness and Brand Image 36 Leadership 37 Government Support and Legislation 37 5.2 Enablers and Barriers of Circular Economy in Agricultural Supply Chains38 Enablers of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains 38 Regulatory Enablers 39 Internal Enablers 40 Financial Enablers 40 Sectorial Enablers 41 5.3 Barriers of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains41 Cultural Barriers 41 Market Barriers 42 Regulatory Barriers 43 Technical Barriers 44 Financial Barriers 44 Technological Barriers 45 Sectorial Barriers 45 5.4 Summary46 References46

 Contents 

ix

6 Practices of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains47 6.1 The Importance of the Circular Economy Practices in the Circular ASC47 6.2 Circular Economy Practices in Circular Agricultural Supply Chains50 Reduction Practice 50 Reuse Practice 51 Recycle Practice 52 Waste Utilisation/Recovery of Waste 54 6.3 Examples of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains56 Case 1: Use of Olive Residue in Turkey 57 Case 2: Wine from Banana Waste 57 Case 3: Circular Food System in a Meat-Packing Plant in Chicago 57 Case 4: Closing the Loop on Single-Use Food Packaging 58 Case 3: Collaborating to Change Local Food Systems 60 6.4 Summary61 References61 7 The Circular Economy Advantage and Implications on Sustainability Performance: Collaborative Advantage and Impact of CE Implementation63 7.1 Collaborative Advantage and Circular Economy63 7.2 Sustainability Performance and Circular Economy64 Definition of Sustainability Performance 64 Sustainability Performance and Circular Economy 65 7.3 Summary66 References66 8 Opportunities and Challenges of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains67 8.1 Opportunities of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains67 8.2 Challenges of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains70 8.3 Summary71 References73

x 

Contents

9 Conclusion and Way Forward75 References77 Index87

About the Authors

Stella Despoudi  is Lecturer in Supply Chain and Operations Management at Aston University, UK and Adjunct Lecturer in the same area at University of Western Macedonia, Greece. She has extensive experience in agricultural supply chain management and her research focuses in the areas of food sustainability, circular economy, resilience, and the Industry 4.0. She has published research papers in the area of food supply chain management in internationally recognised operations, supply chain management, and engineering journals such as International Journal of Production Research, Production Planning and Control, Annals of Operations Research, and Journal of Information Management. She has served as Guest Editor for a Special Issue in the International Journal of Production Research (IJPR). She has been the lead investigator in research projects related to Food Supply Chain Management. Some examples are: ‘Sustainability, Resilience, and the Impact of Industry 4.0 in Agricultural Supply Chains’, and ‘Circular Agricultural Supply Chains’. Uthayasankar  Sivarajah is the Head of School of Management and Professor of Technology Management and Circular Economy at the School of Management, University of Bradford, UK. He is also the Head of Business Analytics, Circular Economy and Supply Chain (BACES) Research Centre at the School of Management. He is actively engaged in research and teaching in the field of circular economy and responsible use of technology. He has a successful track record of managing over £3 million worth of large-scale R&D and consultancy projects funded by national, international funding bodies and commercial organisations. xi

xii 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Some of the notable funders have been the European Commission (FP7, H2020, Marie Curie), Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF), Innovate UK/DEFRA and British Council focusing on projects addressing business and societal challenges surrounding themes such as Blockchain use in Financial Services, Smart Waste and Cities, Energy efficient data centres, Social innovation and Participatory Budgeting. Manoj  Dora  is the Director of Collaborative Projects and Outreach at Brunel Business School. Manoj’s areas of specialisation are Sustainable Value Chain and Quality Management, with a focus on Lean Six Sigma in the agro-food sector. He has several years of experience in teaching, research and consultancy, worldwide. He is the founder of the “Circular Food Forum” which brings together academic, industries and policy makers to facilitate dialogue and take forward research agenda. He has been involved in many capacity building initiatives focusing on the circular economy, humanitarian operations, industry 4.0 and food supply chain in Europe, Africa, South America and Asia.

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3

FL recovery hierarchy. (EPA 2011) Drivers of circular economy. (Source: Authors) Practices of circular economy A typical circular supply chain. (Source: Batista et al. 2018) Drivers of circular economy in the ASC Enablers of circular economy in ASCs Barriers of circular economy in ASCS Circular economy system and its principles Circular economy example of olive residue. (Source: Authors) Reusing process for wine from banana waste. (Source: Authors)

10 19 22 27 34 39 42 56 57 58

xiii

List of Tables

Table 8.1 Table 8.2

Circular supply chain opportunities Circular supply chain challenges

69 72

xv

CHAPTER 1

Introduction to This Book

Abstract  The introduction chapter presents the aim of this book and provides summaries of each chapters’ contents. Keywords  Circular economy • Agricultural supply chain

This book aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the concept of circular economy in the context of agricultural supply chains, explain the need transition to circular economy, the need for circularity in this sector as well the principles of circular economy. Implications on sustainability performance and collaborative advantage are delineated. The opportunities and challenges of circular agricultural supply chains are discussed too. In the end future research directions are provided. Chapter 1 i.e. the current chapter introduces the reader to the topics are that are covered in this book. Chapter 2 presents the definition of agricultural supply chains, defines sustainability in the agricultural supply chain, and discusses the main issues and waste in agricultural supply chains such as food loss, food safety, food insecurity, increased demand for food, decreasing natural resources, climatic change, and global food crisis. Chapter 3 starts with the definition of circular economy and then the drivers of circular economy are explained. After that the practices of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7_1

1

2 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

circular economy are discussed which include the reduce, reuse and recycle principles along with the priorities of the circular economy practices. Chapter 4 defines the circular supply chains and the circular agricultural supply chains along with a discussion of the transition from linear to circular agricultural supply chains. This chapters concludes with the benefits of the circularity for agricultural supply chain entities. Chapter 5 focuses a discussion of the drivers, enablers and barriers of circular agricultural supply chains. In terms of the drivers, different factors are examined which are: human activities, public health, knowledge, economic drivers, government support and regulations, customer awareness, leadership, and business status. Certain enablers were identified as being cultural, regulatory, internal, financial, and sectoral enablers, while barriers as being cultural, market, regulatory, technical, financial, technological, and sectorial. Chapter 6 delineates the practices of circular economy in the agricultural supply chain context. The chapter starts with discussion about the importance of circular economy practices in this particular context. Then the principles of circular economy are discussed along with case examples with applications of circular economy principles in the agricultural supply chain context. Chapter 7 explains the relationship between circular economy, collaborative advantage and sustainability performance. Chapter 8 presents the opportunities of circular agricultural supply chains some of which are reduced costs, differentiation, economic growth, reduced usage of materials, reduced emissions, and creation of new job opportunities. Chapter 9 is the last chapter of this book. The chapter starts with an overview of the key aspects of the book and then future research avenues are provided.

CHAPTER 2

Definition of Agricultural Supply Chains and Sustainability Issues

Abstract  This chapter starts with an introduction of the agricultural supply chains and then the definition of sustainability in agricultural supply chains is presented. The chapter aims to introduce the reader to the key issues that agricultural supply chains are facing in relation to food loss, food safety, food insecurity, increased demand for food, decreasing natural resources, climatic change, and global food crisis. Keywords  Agricultural supply chain • Sustainable food • Agricultural issues • Food loss • Food waste • Natural resource scarcity • Food crisis

2.1   Definition of Agricultural Supply Chain (ASC) The concept of Agricultural Supply Chain (ASC) refers to the activities from production to distribution that bring agricultural or horticultural products from the farm to the table (Aramyan and Van Gogh 2014). Agricultural Supply Chains (ASCs) are comprised of different entities which are the producers, the distributors, the processors, the retailers, and the consumers. ASCs can be categorised in two types. The first one is the ASC of fresh agricultural products, while the second one is the ASC for non-perishable agricultural products (Defra 2006). The fresh products ASC is the supply chain of highly perishable crops such as fresh fruits and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7_2

3

4 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

vegetables and their shelf-life can be measured in days. The ASC of non-­ perishable ASC products includes products that can be stored for longer periods of time such as grains, potatoes, and nuts. The ASC products are differentiated from other supply chains products are they have some special characteristics which are related to their limited shelf-life, price variability, importance of quality and dependence on weather conditions. Those characteristics make the management of the ASC more complex.

2.2   Definition of Sustainability in ASC The most commonly accepted definition of sustainability is that of the Brundtland commission: “. . . development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987, p. 8). According to Elkington (1994) sustainability includes three different components: the natural environment, the society, and the profitability which are interrelated (Elkington 1994). By balancing the social and the environmental elements within an organisation, long-term profitability can be achieved (Dao et  al. 2011). Therefore, for a particular organisation this means that people, planet and profit need to be considered as a whole in order to achieve sustainability. There are different definitions about how to enable sustainable food production and what exactly this involves. Sustain (2015) defines sustainable food as the food that is produced, processed and traded in ways that: • Contribute to thriving local economies and sustainable livelihoods; • Protect the diversity of both plants and animals, and avoid damaging natural resources and contributing to climate change; • Avoid damaging or wasting natural resources or contributing to climate change; • Provide social benefits, such as good quality food, safe and healthy products, and educational opportunities. Beer and Lemmer (2011) stated that environmental sustainability is not enough; food produced must be politically, economically, and socially sustainable. Thus, from a SC perspective, sustainable food production involves adoption of sustainability practices and consideration of other operating environment factors across the supply chain, from production to consumption. SustainAbility (2011) defines a sustainable ASC as a

2  DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS AND SUSTAINABILITY… 

5

reliable, resilient and transparent, which produces food within ecological limits, empowers food producers, and ensures accessible and nutritious food for all. A sustainable ASC must meet the words need for food and also avoid adverse environmental impacts (Despoudi 2021). In the HM government report the ‘Food 2030’ (2010) is stated that sustainable food is food that is produced, processed and distributed to feed a growing global population in ways which use global natural resources sustainably, enable the continuing provision of the benefits and services, ensure a healthy natural environment provides, promote high standards of animal and welfare, protect food safety, and make significant contribution to rural communities. In the UK’s Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, the Government set out the following key principles for a sustainable FSC (Defra 2006, p. 9): • Produce safe, healthy products in response to market demands, and ensure that all consumers have access to nutritious food, and to accurate information about food products; • Support the viability and diversity of rural and urban economies and communities; • Enable viable livelihoods to be made from sustainable land management, both through the market and through payments for public benefits; • Respect and operate within the biological limits of natural resources (especially soil, water and biodiversity); • Achieve consistently high standards of environmental performance by reducing energy consumption, minimising resource inputs, and using renewable energy wherever possible; • Ensure a safe and hygienic working environment and a high social welfare and training for all employees involved in the food chain; Achieve consistently high standards of animal health and welfare; and • Sustain the resource available for growing food and supplying other public benefits over time, except where alternative land uses are essential to meet other needs of society.

From all above it could be concluded that ASC sustainability is about having the resources and the capabilities in the supply chain to create sustainable food consistently for now and for the future by balancing all three sustainability elements (i.e. people, planet, profit).

6 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

2.3   Sustainability Issues and Waste in Agricultural Supply Chains In the past 20 years, interest in the notion of ASC management has been growing rapidly in both academia and business world. Behind this are the rapid changes in the global economic environment, the increasing variety of products, the increasing demand for delivery deadlines, the shorter product life cycle and the increasing expectations of consumers for products and services (Stadtler 2015). At the same time, with the continuous development of e-commerce, globalization and offshoring of production, the complexity and related risks of ASC management also increase (Gereffi and Lee 2012). In the early view of ASC management, the scope of ASC management was only discussed within the enterprise, and then it gradually derived to the relationship and cooperation between the enterprise and the upstream and downstream supply chain entities (Simatupang and Sridharan 2005). Today, ASC management has become a more comprehensive concept. It covers all the processes from raw material suppliers to end customers. All the links that have an impact on cost and satisfying end customer needs are included in the scope of discussion by ASC management (Mentzer et al. 2001). At the same time, due to the increasing global environmental issues, it also puts forward new priorities and higher requirements for modern supply chain management (Fahimnia et al. 2015). Since the industrial revolution in the eighteenth century, human society has undergone tremendous changes with the development of science and technology. In this process, the production technology is progressing rapidly, the scale of production is expanding constantly, and the production efficiency is advancing rapidly. However, the progress of society and science and technology not only brings great economic benefits to people, but also has a tremendous impact on the environment and the society. People blindly pursue economic benefits, thus excessive exploitation of natural resources, not only lead to regional environmental pollution, but also make some global environmental problems such as global warming, biodiversity reduction and marine pollution. Today’s ASC is facing many pressures due to issues related to fewer natural resources available, limited agricultural land available, population growth, world’s food insecurity, climate change, dietary changes, governance of the ASC system, and food waste or food losses (Despoudi 2020). The major natural resources i.e. food, energy and water are becoming

2  DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS AND SUSTAINABILITY… 

7

scarce (Despoudi 2019). The future scarcity of the natural resources indicates that they need to be preserved and should not intentionally be wasted. The agricultural land is also limited; new ways to grow crops need to be found in places that until now was not possible to farm (Vidal 2012). The world population has been predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050 and this will require a 70% increase in food production (FAO 2011). Producing enough food, appropriately distributing it, and minimizing its wastage are some of the challenges that the food industry is facing related to the rising population (Foresight 2011). According to FAO (2011) food insecurity can be defined as a situation that exists when people do not have consistent and everyday physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food based on their dietary preferences and needs. Thus, the world’s food insecurity issue is becoming a major concern. The rising population, the fewer natural resources available, the possible future insufficient acceleration of technology, and the high levels of food waste rise major concerns about world’s food insecurity. However, the issue of food insecurity and the limited natural resources is not a new one. Malthus (1798) in his ‘Essay on the Principle of World Population’ talked about the restriction of population growth due to the limited available resources for food production. According to Malthus the amount of food produced is determined by the availability of natural resources and technology used to reclaim them. From time to time there is significant increase in food availability, but this increase cannot be followed by the increase in population’s growth. Meadows et al. (1972) produced different scenarios to examine world’s population increase, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion; the authors stated that if the latter trends continue to grow the nature’s limits will soon be reached and the whole earth system will collapse. Both Malthus (1798) and Meadows et al. (1972) highlighted that in a world with finite natural resources food production is not possible to meet an increasing populations’ future needs for food. Criticisms of Malthus’ ‘limits to growth model’ stated that this model failed to capture effectively the acceleration of technology until now (Engels 1843). Acceleration of technology managed to increase crop yield and create new types of crops (e.g. genetic modified crops). However, the pace of population growth, climate change, income distribution imbalances and the change of consumption patterns are moving faster than technological advancements (Foresight 2011). This means that in the future technological advances may not be able to keep up with the population growth and the deterioration of the

8 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

natural environment. Therefore, the issue of future scarcity of natural resources relatively to population increase has been predicted and discussed many years ago. Technology seems to act as a balancing factor of the two aforementioned issues; however, it is not certain for how long technology will keep the balance between the two. Climatic change and future scarcity of natural resources put limits to growth in agriculture and food production, which means that a 70% increase in food production to feed nine billion people is impossible to be achieved (Hodges et al. 2010). Climatic change also has and will continue to have in the future severe negative consequences to the FSC. Weather changes in the form of extreme weather events, the rise of global temperature and the increase of greenhouse gas emissions are the main causes of climate change that will impact significantly the ASC.  According to Bennett’s Law increasing wealth pushes people in consumption of higher calories food such as fats, protein, and sugar (Godfray et al. 2010). Those dietary changes affect significantly the ASC as high caloric diets require more natural resources to be spent. The governance of the global ASC at both national and international levels is another challenge that the ASC is facing (Despoudi et al. 2020). The globalisation of the markets led to changes in power imbalance in the ASC and this creates governance issues in the sector. More precisely, producers are the less powerful in the ASC, while big retailers have dominated the sector (Delloite 2013). Another major challenge that the ASC is facing is Food Losses (FL). It has been estimated that between 25% and 50% of food produced is lost or wasted along the supply chain and does not reach consumers, depending on its position in the supply chain (Lundqvist et al. 2008). Reducing FL can increase grain supply, food availability and food security without wasting other resources such as land, labour, water and inputs. According to Gustavsson et  al. (2011), food is lost or wasted throughout the supply chain, from the initial agricultural production down to the final household consumption. This means that there are significant amounts of lost food throughout the ASC. The majority of food is lost from the producers to retailers point in the supply chain (Gustavsson et al. 2011). There is a need for development of a sustainable and fair ASC (Driscoll 2012). Smallholder farmers despite producing more than 70% world’s food, they represent more than half of the world’s hungriest people (Gidney 2012). With the waste of resources and the increasingly serious environmental pollution,

2  DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS AND SUSTAINABILITY… 

9

consumers have also begun to pay more attention to the environmental protection behind products and services (Biswas and Roy 2015). This means that companies need to meet the growing environmental needs of consumers, so companies also need to make the supply chain greener, which can also enable them to have more competitive advantages in the market competition (Coskun et al. 2016). Food provisioning in a resource constrained world must be done in a sustainable way in order to achieve food security for all the people in the world (Premanandh 2011). Preserving inputs in the ASC (e.g. raw materials) and using them as efficiently as possible can increase food security for now and for the future. FL found to inhibit both food security and ASC sustainability (Foresight 2011). Hence, reducing FL would improve the ASCs sustainability, increase food availability, and would possibly increase word’s food security (Despoudi 2016). The need for FL reduction is not a new issue. The World Food Conference in 1974 decided to reduce FL up to 50% by 1985 and a special action program for the prevention of FL was established with a technological focus (storage, on-farm). After that there is no recorded progress on FL reduction until 2008 when Lundqvist et al. have called for action to reduce FL from producers to consumers by 50%. In the past few years FL has been considered as an emerging issue in ASCs that needs to be addressed immediately (Lyons and Azanizawati 2014). Different FL reduction and FL management organisations have been established some of which are WRAP UK, Food Waste, Reduction Alliance (FWRA), and Love Food Hate Waste. An important way to increase food supply and decrease the environmental consequences of current food production is to reduce FL (Otles et al. 2014). In the Foresight (2011) it is stated that FL is a significant problem for economic, environmental and food security reasons. Although FL arises at every stage of the ASC, the causes of FL vary considerably depending on the stage of the ASC. Almost the 50% of food produced is wasted along the supply chain and does not reach consumers. FL is waste of resources used in production (e.g. land, water, energy, and crops), loss of economic value, and environmental damage (Foresight 2011). Effective waste management will benefit all ASC members. EPA (2011) proposed a FL recovery hierarchy (Fig. 2.1). EPA suggests that reducing the amount of PHFL generated is the most important issue. Those that follow are: (a) feeding the hungry people, (b) feeding animals, (c) industrial uses of PHFL, (d) composting, and (e) landfill incineration.

10 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Source Reduction Feed Hungry People Feed Animals Industrial Uses Composting Landfill/ Incineration

Fig. 2.1  FL recovery hierarchy. (EPA 2011)

FL reduction needs to be achieved as the implications of increasing FL levels are significant. Since reducing FL levels from happening is seen as a priority, different ways that could prevent it should be examined. In the context of those issues, ASC entities need to make their supply chains sustainable, whether from the perspective of government mandatory supervision, or to meet the needs of consumers, or for the sustainable development of companies. As an industry closely related to people’s daily lives, food industry has huge direct or indirect impact on the environment. Moreover, as an important part of the global economy, the food supply chain is also closely related to the consumption of natural resources and the emission of pollution (Halkier 2001). According to Vermeulen, Campbell and Ingram’s research in 2012, the food system accounts for 19–29% of the world’s total human-made greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the research also shows that activities related to food packaging, transportation and waste disposal account for 5–10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and this figure is expected to continue to rise (Vermeulen et al. 2012). On the other hand, food safety is an important topic of global concern, and also the top priority of the food industry. This means that for food companies, under the important premise of ensuring

2  DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS AND SUSTAINABILITY… 

11

food safety, they also need to solve the challenges from the environment, so that their supply chain need to have as little impact on the environment as possible (Ala-Harja and Helo 2014). As a result, an environmentally friendly and sustainable ASC is particularly important for the food industry. Due to all the aforementioned issues in ASCs, new concepts about ASC management have emerged including green supply chain management, sustainable supply chain management, closed-loop supply chain, reverse logistics and the most recent one circular supply chain management. These concepts provide companies with environmentally friendly supply chain development models from different perspectives, enabling them to re-­ examine their supply chain strategies (Masi et al. 2017). Circular economy (CE), as a relatively new concept and philosophy, emphasizes the sustainable use of resources, materials and energy of a company in order to minimize its impact on the environment (Ghisellini et  al. 2016). The CE business model proposes a new economic model according to which resources could reused, reduced, and recycled to enable a circulation process. Applying the concept of CE to ASC management will contribute greatly to the sustainable development of the supply chain (Batista et al. 2018a). The application of CE in the ASC will provide companies with a new supply chain sustainable development plan that focuses on resource preservation, reuse of materials, and reduction of non-environmentally friendly ones. The application of CE in the ASC is about incorporating the principles of CE in all the aspects of the supply chain i.e. selection of raw materials, product design, transportation, warehousing, recycling and disposal, etc. (Geissdoerfer et al. 2018). This means that stakeholders in a circular supply chain need to be considered from the original raw material supplier to the end customer.

2.4   Summary This chapter started with an introduction of the agricultural supply chains and then the definition of sustainability in agricultural supply chains was presented. The chapter aimed to introduce the reader to the key issues that agricultural supply chains are facing in relation to food loss, food safety, food insecurity, increased demand for food, decreasing natural resources, climatic change, and global food crisis.

12 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

References Ala-Harja, H., & Helo, P. (2014). Green supply chain decisions—Case-based performance analysis from the food industry. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 69, 97–107. Aramyan L. H., & Van Gogh J. B. (2014). Reducing postharvest food losses in developing economies by using a network of excellence as an intervention tool. Presented in the IFAMA 2014 and CCA food and agribusiness world forum ‘people feed the world’ in Cape Town, South Africa, June. http://www.ifama.org/files/ conf/papers/988.pdf Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Smart, P., & Maull, R. (2018a). In search of a circular supply chain archetype—A content-analysis-based literature review. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 438–451. Beer, S., & Lemmer, C. (2011). A critical review of ‘green’ procurement: Life cycle analysis of food products within the supply chain. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(3), 229–244. Biswas, A., & Roy, M. (2015). Leveraging factors for sustained green consumption behavior based on consumption value perceptions: testing the structural model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 95, 332–340. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future. In Report of the world commission on environment and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coskun, S. et al. (2016). A model proposal for green supply chain network design based on consumer segmentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 110, 149–157. Dao, V., Langella, I., & Carbo, J. (2011). From green to sustainability: Information technology and integrated sustainability framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20, 63–79. Defra. (2006). Food industry sustainability strategy. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ publications/files/pb11649-­fiss2006-­060411.pdf Delloite. (2013). The food value chain: A challenge for the next century. http:// www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/ ConsumerBusiness/2015-­Deloitte-­Ireland-­Food_Value_Chain.pdf Despoudi, S. (2016). An investigation of the collaboration—Postharvest food loss relationship and the effect of the environmental turbulence factors. Loughborough University. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-­j spui/bitstream/2134/ 21785/1/Thesis-­2016-­Despoudi.pdf Despoudi, S. (2019). Optimised food supply chains to reduce food losses, chapter 13 in the book. In C. Galanakis (Ed.), Saving food: Production, supply chain, food waste and food consumption. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Despoudi, S. (2020). Green food supply chain. In C.  Galanakis (Ed.), Food industry and the environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­ 816449-­5.00002-­3. Despoudi, S. (2021). Challenges in reducing food losses at producers’ level: The case of Greek agricultural supply chain producers. Industrial

2  DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS AND SUSTAINABILITY… 

13

Marketing Management, 93, 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman. 2020.09.022. Despoudi, S., Papaioannou, G., & Dani, S. (2020). Producers responding to environmental turbulence in the Greek agricultural supply chain: Does buyer type matter? Production Planning and Control. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953728 7.2020.1796138. Driscoll, M. (2012). How can we build a sustainable farming system for all? http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-­b usiness/blog/farming-­ system-­principles-­based-­sustainable Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation. California Management Review, 36(Winter), 90–100. Engels F. (1843 [1956]). Outlines of a critique of political economy. In F. Engels (Ed.), On Marx’s capital. Moscow: Progress Publishers. EPA. (2011). Generators of food waste. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/ materials/organics/food/fd-­gener.htm#food-­hier Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101–114. FAO. (2011). Global food losses and waste. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_ upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf Foresight. (2011). Foresight project on global food and farming futures. In Synthesis report C7: Reducing waste. London: The Government Office for Science. Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S.  N., de Carvalho, M.  M., & Evans, S. (2018). Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 712–721. Gereffi, G., & Lee, J. (2012). Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(3), 24–32. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. Gidney, M. (2012). Why a fair supply chain is key to achieving a sustainable food system. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/fairtrade-partnerzone/fair-supply-chain-sustainable-food-system Godfray, H. C., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Nisbett, N., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Toulmin, C., & Whiteley, R. (2010). The future of global food system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 2769–2777. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Otterdijk, R., & Meyberg, A. (2011). Global food losses and waste. http://www.fao.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf

14 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Halkier, B. (2001). Risk and food: Environmental concerns and consumer practices. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 36(8), 801–812. Hodges, R., Buzby, J. C., & Benett, B. (2010). Postharvest losses and waste in developed and less developed countries: Opportunities to improve resource use. Journal of Agricultural Science. Cambridge University. Lundqvist, J., de Fraiture, C., & Molden, D. (2008). Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain, SIWI Policy Brief Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), Stockholm, Sweden. Lyons, A. C., & Azanizawati, M. (2014). An examination of multi-tier supply chain strategy alignment in the food industry. International Journal of Production Research, 52(7), 1911–1925. Malthus, T. (1798). An essay on the principle of population. http://129.237.201.53/ books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf Masi, D., Day, S., & Godsell, J. (2017). Supply chain configurations in the circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 9(9), 1602. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books. Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2), 1–25. Otles, S., Despoudi, S., Bucatariu, C., & Kartal, C. (2014). Food waste production and sustainability in the food industry, chapter 1, in the book. In C. Galanakis (Ed.), Food waste recovery: Processing technologies and Techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Premanandh, J. (2011). Factors affecting food security and contribution of modern technologies in food sustainability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 91(15), 2707–2714. Simatupang, T. M., & Sridharan, R. (2005). The collaboration index: a measure for supply chain collaboration. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Stadtler, H. et al. (2015). Supply chain management and advanced planning: concepts, models, software, and case studies. Springer. Sustain. (2015). Sustainable food. http://www.sustainweb.org/publications/ the_sustain_guide_to_good_food/ SustainAbility. (2011). Appetite for change. http://www.sustainability.com/ library/appetite-­for-­change#.Tzzj5Vy15WU Vermeulen, S., Campbell, B., & Ingram, J. (2012). Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 195–222. Vidal, J. (2012). The future of food. Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/ global-­development/2012/jan/22/future-­of-­food-­john-­vidal

CHAPTER 3

From Linear to Circular Supply Chains

Abstract  This chapter starts with the definition of circular economy and then the drivers of circular economy are explained. After that the principles of circular economy are discussed which include the reduce, reuse and recycle principles along with the priorities of the circular economy principles. Keywords  Circular economy • Drivers of circular economy • Principles of circular economy

3.1   Definition of Circular Economy The early thought of circular economy can be tracked back to ‘the spaceship theory’ mentioned by Boulding in ‘Economics of the coming spaceship earth’ in 1966. Boulding (1966) stated that in an isolated and closed spacecraft, due to limited resources, if resources are not recycled, it will eventually go to destruction, the same is true of the earth. After Boulding put forward this theory, people began to realize the importance of sustainable development to human beings (Govindan and Hasanagic 2018). Then, in 1989, Pearce and Turner formally and systematically put forward the concept of circular economy and explained the transition from traditional linear economy to circular economy (Ghisellini et  al. 2016). However, since the different proposed antecedents and scopes, different literature give different answers to the definition of circular economy. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7_3

15

16 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Geng et al. (2012) stated that circular economy is an economic development mode that minimizes material, energy and environmental damage without restricting economic growth and social and technological progress. Hobson defined circular economy as a regenerative industrial system, which aims to eliminate waste and be regenerate mainly through better design of material, system and business model. Murray et  al. (2017) claimed that circular economy is an economic model that achieves ecosystem optimization through rational design and management of resources, procurement, production and recycling processes. Although there is no comprehensive and commonly accepted definition of circular economy at present, some common goals are revealed in relevant literature (Masi et al. 2017). First of all, most of the definitions of circular economy in the literature mention that circular economy is used to replace the traditional linear economy, and through intentional design and management to make the economic model restorative (Mendoza et al. 2017). Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) pointed out that because the traditional linear economy did not consider the impact of natural resources and human resources, such as social capital, the use of circular economy to replace the linear economy can make resources reflect not only economic value but also environmental and social value. Secondly, relevant literature also points out that circular economy is to minimize the waste and damage of natural resources and environment caused by economic development (Murray et al. 2017). Thirdly, circular economy aims to improve economic, social and environmental values rather than pursuing economic values alone (Andrews 2015). Last but not least, at the macro level, circular economy system is more resilient because they rely less on external resources (Webster 2013). In addition to the points mentioned by Masi, Day, and Godsell (2017) also summarized a common point of most circular economy definitions: closed flow of materials and the use of materials in multiple stages. As a result, the above five points explain the goal of circular economy, and this also gives a clearer framework and direction for this book’s discussion. Although there is no comprehensive definition of circular economy at present, considering the characteristics of supply chain, this book follows Murray et al.’s definition: circular economy is an economic model that achieves ecosystem optimization through rational design and management of resources, procurement, production and recycling processes.

3  FROM LINEAR TO CIRCULAR SUPPLY CHAINS 

17

3.2   Drivers of Circular Economy When the companies encounter challenges related to sustainability and profitability, are usually forced to develop a more sustainable business model by internal and external factors or else called drivers. The traditional linear production system creates wastes in the material and energy flows through processes of extracting and producing-­consuming-­dumping materials and resources. Consequently, the mismatching between the economic development and consequent environmental effects will lead to unsustainable economic performance. Both organisations and governments are seeking a framework to boost a mutual beneficial relationship compatible with companies’ benefits (input cost reduction), social benefits, environmental predictability and sustainability. The linear supply chain model weakens organisations’ competitive advantages as there are hidden risks, such as the resource-related risks where manufacturing industry faces fierce competition in accessing critical resources especially those with high price volatility level. Therefore, the aforementioned factors could act as motivations that are driven by different stakeholders internally and externally to encourage the CE implementation and business transformation. Most of the externally motivating factors are related to governments and policymakers which are pushing the transition towards CE in in order to enable closing the material loop. The CE transformation could benefit societies as it provides growth opportunities and creation of new jobs (Govindan and Hasanagic 2018). Environmental disruptions (e.g. emissions pollutants, solid waste generation and landfill waste) and resource scarcity concerns are pushing international organisations and force manufacturing companies to reduce their impact on the environment by maximizing their positive environmental impact through the promotion and implementation of CE. The companies are also forced to abide by the regulations of waste management in order to prevent the regulative penalties. For example, most EU governments legislate their taxation systems on the basis of whether the resources used are renewable or not (Stahel 2013). The external drivers of CE for companies are that the rebalance of environment and economy system, risk mitigation of resource scarcity, improvement of industrial eco-system and symbiosis system, enhancement of material efficiency, creation of jobs and sustainable social development (Govindan and Hasanagic 2018), governmental support in relation to preferential policy, and industrial trends toward innovation and sustainability.

18 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

One of the internal to the organisation drivers of CE is innovation (Pomponi and Moncaster 2017). For example, international organisations, EU and UN see CE as a strategic framework for innovation. While, non-governmental organisations such as World Economic Forum (WEF) consider the CE transformation as a driver of innovation and sustainability. Testa, Boiral and Iraldo pointed out that the economic benefits are the most usual drivers for companies in applying environmental practices in their business operations. This is because the CE transformation provides new opportunities to companies. Companies need to find a way to gain economic benefits profitably and sustainably by creating a new value stream through development of by-­products and utilisation of wastes. Kumar et al. found that, the organisations which perform poorly in CE principles seem to have decreased economic performance. Contrarily, organisations which implement CE supply chain principles seem to have increase economic performance. Therefore, the economic drivers seem to be the most effective at attracting organizations in implementing more CE principles. In the manufacturing sector, the competitiveness of companies is directly affected by the relative resource availability and price volatility. Therefore, companies adopt CE to reduce the risks and at the same time remain sustainable through managing discarded products as resources (Batista et al. 2018a). The speed of wastes generation and resource depletion are slowed down. Companies have various of motivations to upgrade their technological capacity such as reduction of costs through material recovery technology. Thus, the transformation of CE is also driven by technological factors. There are also drivers which are attributed as both internal and external drivers of CE implementation to organisations. Historically, Georgesçu-­ Roegen’s criticised the fundamental drawbacks of linear economic system in regard of resource scarcity. Pearce and Turner advocated that, the application of CE principles is associated with the industrial eco-­system and industrial symbiosis production system, which will not only improve efficiency of natural eco-system but also it will boost material efficiency. In the age of twenty-first century, the concept of CE has been penetrated completely the field of supply chain, including extension of product life cycle and material efficiency, cradle to cradle principles, closed-loop supply chain (Pomponi and Moncaster 2017). Nowadays, the industrial pressures also lead companies towards implementing CE. Such pressures come from two perspectives. First, Jakhar et al. pointed out that, the fierce competition causes companies to pay more attention on material efficiency and

3  FROM LINEAR TO CIRCULAR SUPPLY CHAINS 

19

customer satisfaction. CE implementation is a way to maximise the value of products. The products, components and materials can be reused, reassembled, and remanufactured as far as possible. By doing so, the customers will have multiple choices and production efficiency will be increased. Therefore, the supply chain is more sustainable and competitive than the linear supply chain. Second, the environmental certifications (e.g. ISO 14001) are regarded as essential requirements to enter the most of markets and industries (Mesa et al. 2018). Therefore, companies implementing CE activities will be able to satisfy the requirements of diverse industries and markets. CE is also seen as an effort to the rebalance the environmental and economic system, and help in achieving the sustainable development goals. The economic drivers of CE are considered as important factors that will drive businesses towards the CE. Evidently, the economic benefits of CE are indirect and more complex to achieve than the environmental benefits. However, the achievement of economic benefits requires a multifaceted approach to design business models, supply chain models and products through the total involvement and commitment of all relevant stakeholders. Resource availability is fundamental for business to earn economic benefits. In turn, price volatility can impact on economic benefits directly. Meanwhile, governments may also restrict industrial activities in order to prevent environmental disruptions. Therefore, all the drivers are interrelated and initiated by different stakeholders that force companies to design a CE framework by considering more broader stakeholders. As seen in Fig. 3.1 there are many factors drive organisations towards CE implementation. Each of the factors are interrelated. Drivers -Governmental pressure -Regulations -Industrial pressure -Societal pressure -Environmental pressure -Risk management -Resource scarcity -Material efficiency -Innovation

Circular economy implementation

Fig. 3.1  Drivers of circular economy. (Source: Authors)

20 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

There are three stakeholders who all possess different motivations to push the transformation of CE.  The governmental bodies and societies aim to protect the planet earth that they are living in order to deal with the environmental wastes and resource scarcity. Thus, the governments set policies, and provide incentives and costly infrastructure to push CE initiatives amongst companies. Bilaterally, the companies are concerned with about their performance related to sustainability, profitability and competitiveness. Coincidentally, the CE provides the blueprint for both parties, it transforms business models, and supply chain models to become more sustainable, competitive, and collaborative. CE enables companies to reduce the risks of resource scarcity and associated price volatility. Moreover, the material efficiency can be increased, which leads to the reduction of raw material inputs and reduces environmental impacts. Through the implementation of CE, businesses could achieve customised solutions which will enhance the competitiveness of their businesses by providing diverse products in low operational wastes. The identified drivers of CE will also vary depending on the industry, context, and supply chain entity.

3.3   Practices of Circular Economy When referring to the CE principles it refers to the 3R practices which refer to reduction, reuse and recycle (Geng and Doberstein 2008). As the core practices in the implementation of circular economy, 3R principles have been widely discussed in many studies (Yuan et al. 2008). Reduction Practice Reduction refers to the reduction of resource consumption and waste generation through better design or management at the production and consumption stage (Ying and Li-jun 2012). Lieder and Rashid also pointed out that the purpose of the reduction principle is to improve from the source of production stage, so as to reduce materials and energy entering the production and consumption stage. Therefore, the reduction principle is aimed at requiring businesses to start considering material and energy savings and waste reduction at the input end, rather than making great efforts on recycling or waste disposal stage after the waste is generated. For enterprises, there are many measures to implement reduction principle. Using environmentally friendly raw materials, environmentally friendly

3  FROM LINEAR TO CIRCULAR SUPPLY CHAINS 

21

production methods, simpler packaging design and more compact and lightweight product design are all effective ways for enterprises to implement reduction principle. Companies can also apply the principle of reduction by improving their ecological efficiency (Ghisellini et  al. 2016), although ecological efficiency also plays a positive role in the other two principles. Reuse Practice Reuse practice refers to the reuse of product or product packaging in an initial form as many times as possible and in various forms, so as to prevent it from becoming waste too early (Ghisellini et  al. 2016). At the same time, Ying and Li-jun (2012) also pointed out that extending the service life of products as far as possible is also a requirement of the reuse principle. The implementation of the reuse principle means that companies can save a lot of resources, labour and energy to manufacture new products or components and packaging of products (Castellani et al. 2014). However, the principle of reuse also puts forward a higher requirement for companies. Prendeville et al. pointed out that the company not only needs to be able to design products with longer service life, but also needs to consider how to encourage consumers to recycle and reuse products or packaging. Therefore, it also shows that the principle of reuse not only puts forward certain requirements for enterprises, but also depends on the attitude and participation of consumers. Ghisellini, Cialani and Ulgiati (2016) stated that in the process of implementing reuse principle, all stakeholders need to participate, including consumers’ recycling and reuse of products and packaging. At company level is important that the reuse process is enabled through proper guidelines on the packaging of the product or on the company’s website. Recycle Practice Recycle practice refers to the recycling of materials, and packaging as much as possible through the reprocessing of wastes, so that they can be converted into useful resources and reduce the generation of non-recyclable garbage (Ying and Li-jun 2012). There are also two ways of recycling wastes: primary recycling and secondary recycling. Henshaw, Han and Owens mentioned that primary recycling refers to recycling and processing waste to form new products or packages identical to the original (such

22 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Reduce

Reuse

Recycle

Fig. 3.2  Practices of circular economy

as using scrap steel to produce new steel), while secondary recycling refers to using waste as raw materials for other products with different properties without considering the original properties of waste. The principle of recycling can be used to control the end of the waste generation, so that the waste can be re-entered into the production or consumption stage, which also reduces the possible environmental pollution (Fig. 3.2).

3.4   Priority of Circular Economy Practices After reviewing the 3R practices of circular economy, it can be found that the 3R practices control waste and pollution from three aspects: source, process and terminal, so as to greatly reduce the impact of product production and consumption on the environment. However, the importance of the three is not parallel, they have a certain priority. Liu et al. pointed out that because the recycling of waste is only a measure and means, and the reduction of the materials and energy invested in economic activities and the waste generated has the real significance of controlling pollution from the source, so the reduction has a higher priority than the other two principles. In the Law on Circular Economy and Waste Management promulgated and implemented in Germany in 1996, it is also clearly stipulated that the order of waste treatment should be to avoid generation-reuse-recycling disposal. Similarly, China’ s Circular Economy Promotion Law promulgated in 2008 also mentions “priority to reduce”. In addition, Ghisellini, Cialani and Ulgiati (2016) also mentioned that it is easy for people to simply think that circular economy is only recycling, thus ignoring the other two principles. However, due to the complexity of materials, abuse and natural factors, the recycling principle is the most unsustainable of the three principles in terms of resource efficiency and profitability (Stahel 2013). At the same time, Ghisellini, Cialani and

3  FROM LINEAR TO CIRCULAR SUPPLY CHAINS 

23

Ulgiati (2016) also claimed that some materials because of their own chemical characteristics, their recycling process is very complex, its process will also produce new pollution, some materials cannot even be recycled. Therefore, in the process of applying CE, a company should first consider the principle of reduction to reduce pollution. Then for the waste that cannot be avoided, they should consider reuse principle. Lastly, for the waste that cannot be reused, the company should consider recycling to make it become the raw material of other products. In recent years, due to the continuous development of sustainable innovation, many scholars put forward the concept of 6R, that is, reduction, reuse, recycle, redesign, recover and remanufacture (Govindan and Hasanagic 2018). These principles have a more targeted effect on different levels and regions, and have a certain rationality, but as the core of circular economy, 3R practices still have a certain fundamentality and universality, so it cannot be replaced (Ghisellini et al. 2016; Stahel 2013).

3.5   Summary This chapter started with the definition of circular economy and then the drivers of circular economy were explained. After that the principles of circular economy were discussed which include the reduce, reuse and recycle practices along with the priorities of the circular economy practices.

References Andrews, D. (2015). The circular economy, design thinking and education for sustainability. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 30(3), 305–315. Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Smart, P., & Maull, R. (2018a). In search of a circular supply chain archetype—A content-analysis-based literature review. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 438–451. Boulding, K.  E. (1966). The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In H. Jarrett (Ed.), Environmental quality in a growing economy: Essays from the sixth RFF forum (pp. 3–15). Routledge. Castellani, V., Sala, S. & Mirabella, N. (2014). Beyond the throwaway society: A life cycle‐based assessment of the environmental benefit of reuse. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 11(3). Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and opportunities for achieving ‘leapfrog development’. The

24 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(3), 231–239. Geng, F. J., Sarkis, J. & Xue, B. (2012). Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: an evaluation and critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 23(1), 216–224. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1–2), 278–311. Masi, D., Day, S., & Godsell, J. (2017). Supply chain configurations in the circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 9(9), 1602. Mendoza, J., Sharmina, M., Gallego-Schmid, A., Heyes, G., & Azapagic, A. (2017). Integrating Backcasting and Eco-Design for the Circular Economy: The BECE Framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 526–544. Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369–380. Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 710–718. Stahel, W. (2013). Policy for material efficiency—Sustainable taxation as a departure from the throwaway society. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1986), 20110567. Webster, K. (2013). What Might We Say about a Circular Economy? Some Temptations to Avoid if Possible. World Futures, 69(7-8), 542–554. Ying, J., & Li-jun, Z. (2012). Study on green supply chain management based on circular economy. Physics Procedia, 25, 1682–1688. Yuan, Z., Bi, J., & Moriguichi, Y. (2008). The circular economy: A new development strategy in China. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(1–2), 4–8.

CHAPTER 4

Circular Supply Chains

Abstract  This chapter starts with the definitions of the circular supply chains and the circular agricultural supply chains along with a discussion of the transition from linear to circular agricultural supply chains. This chapters concludes with the benefits of the circularity for agricultural supply chain entities. Keywords  Circular supply chains • Circular agricultural supply chains • Linear to circular supply chains

4.1   Definition of Circular Supply Chains Under the trend of globalization, the importance of supply chain management has become increasingly prominent. Many scholars even emphasize that the competition among enterprises today is the competition among supply chains. At the same time, how to make the supply chain greener and more sustainable has become a key issue under the situation that all parties are paying more and more attention to environmental protection (Brandenburg and Rebs 2015). With the continuous development of the CE concept, an increasing number of scholars begin to study the application and practice of CE in various fields and levels (Genovese et al. 2017). As a result, the application of circular economy in supply chain has naturally become a hot research topic and something that concerns all companies. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7_4

25

26 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

When discussing the concept of Circular Supply Chain (CSC), many scholars usually compare several concepts of supply chain sustainability with that of circular supply chain (Batista et al. 2018; Masi et al. 2017). These concepts related to supply chain sustainability include reverse logistics, green supply chain, sustainable supply chain and closed-loop supply chain. Batista et  al. (2018) stated that although these concepts cannot fully contain the meaning of the circular supply chain, each of these concepts contain some scopes and circular flows of the CSC. Specifically, Lai, Wu and Wong mentioned that reverse logistics enable products or materials to flow reversely from consumers, the end point of the supply chain, to each node of the supply chain along the supply chain channel, so that discarded or damaged products can regain their value and avoid becoming waste. The definition of green supply chain refers to the purpose of minimizing the impact on the environment from raw material acquisition, processing, production, packaging, warehousing, transportation, consume to scrap disposal. Sustainable supply chain management emphasizes a broader and comprehensive supply chain strategic management, taking into account the environmental, economic and social factors in supply chain management, so as to achieve the goal of long-term sustainability of the supply chain (Zorzini et  al. 2015). Finally, as a relatively new concept, closed-loop supply chain integrates the forward and reverse supply chains and covers the whole life cycle of products from cradle to grave, in order to close the flow of materials and reduce pollution and waste generation. The above concepts of supply chain sustainability include some circular flows of the CSC, but not all the scopes and circular flows. Batista et al. (2018) claimed that the model of circular supply chain needs to be extended on the basis of the closed-loop supply chain, and the extension point is the scope and focus of a material recovery system. For the scope, post-production management should be taken into account in the CSC so as to include open-loop in the supply chain; for the focus, the value chain system of the CSC also needs to be derived from the related by-product synergies and waste recovery flows. As a result, Batista et al. (2018) defined the circular supply chain as “the coordinated forward and reverse supply chains via purposeful business ecosystem integration for value creation from products or services, by-products and useful waste flows through prolonged life cycles that improve the economic, social and environmental sustainability of organisations.” Figure 4.1 presents the typical CSC from supplier to end consumer.

4  CIRCULAR SUPPLY CHAINS 

27

Fig. 4.1  A typical circular supply chain. (Source: Batista et al. 2018)

Other scholars have also discussed the definition of CSC, such as Mangla et al.’s (2018) definition of CSC, as a restorative production system with unlimited reuse, remanufacturing and recycling of resources. Yang et al. also stated that CSC is a supply chain that emphasizes internal circulation, slows down cycle and reduces waste in each stage of product life cycle.

4.2   Definition of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains The term Circular Agricultural Supply Chains refers to agricultural systems in which the three practices of 3Rs are core (Despoudi and Dora 2020). The implementation of CE practices in agriculture aims to reduce resource consumption and emissions to the environment through closed-­ loop processes. Food and resources wastage should be prevented and then recovering, and recycling processes should be in place.

4.3   From Linear to Circular Agricultural Supply Chains Supply chain management (SCM) is defined as management of upstream and downstream relationships, where in the number of network entireties (i.e. supplier, carrier, manufacturer and retailer) collaborates to contribute to low-cost supply chain and superior customer service. Contradictorily, in modern days business, the management of business process has shifted in the context of SCM where the entities compete for inter-network rather

28 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

than as members of supply chain network. This contradiction is due to that, the challenge of resource scarcity caused by rising consumption of natural resources, consequent resource price volatility, shortened product life cycle, and growing manufacturing cost. The manufacturing system, based on the linear supply chain is unquestionably unsustainable. In the linear supply chain, virgin raw materials are extracted from mining companies and subsequently processed into final products, which are ultimately disposed into landfill, mostly with little or no recovery process of the products, components and embedded materials. For this supply chain model, the demand for raw material is continuously increasing as the increasing population. Since the dawn of industrialisation, the consumption of non-renewable resource is 1.7 times more than what earth can generate. If companies still operate in this economic model, the natural resource will be exhausted at some point of the future. However, the linear production paradigm is not caused material scarcity. The most urgent problem is the negative environmental impact like the destruction of natural habitats and climate change. Thus, in more recently, companies are encouraged to optimise the value of in all aspects of “Triple bottom line”. This encouragement comes from stricter legislation, increasing costs on waste disposal, raising customer awareness on environmental issues and deficient use of resources. Therefore, it is imperative to develop supply chains that are sustainable and profitable by taking the values of environments, societies and companies into consideration. The concept of CE appears to provide opportunities to resolve the problems that existed in the linear supply chain. For two decades ago, academic researchers have already started to focus on the interrelationships between the environment and economy. The introduction of CE has attracted almost all attention of different parties, including society, government, industry and academia. The term CE in the supply chain context is defined as an economic-industrial system, that utilises the 6Rs to reduces, recycles, and recover the wastes in the production and consumption process, and it operates at three levels, which are Macro level (nation) Meso level (eco-industrial-park) and micro-level(from companies to consumers). The CE is a method to improve the environment and economy and social equity simultaneously and sustainably. The concept of CE is increasingly relevant to reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain, which aims at reducing the environmental footprint and leaving disposal scarcely by optimising the value of disposed products. The concept of CE is worthwhile satisfying the different value propositions of societies, environments

4  CIRCULAR SUPPLY CHAINS 

29

and companies toward a prosperous and sustainable eco-economic system. Three groups’ benefits will be satisfied by adopting the CE to address the mismatch between environment development and consequent environmental influence. For the companies, the CE can bring economic and competitive advantages through a particular pathway to grasp innovations and to eliminate the obstacles to sustainability; For example, the main CE innovation is mainly the material flow of reuse refurbish and recycling of disposed products, which respond to the increasing risks of price volatility, increasing challenges of production efficiency that are driven by returning products and increasing wastes caused by complexity of return products. Eventually, the prices of the product can be decreased, which in turn facilitates the consumption. For the societies, the implementation of CE can bring employment opportunities in the sectors of the reverse supply chain. For the environment, in the concept of CE, the biological wastes and substance wastes can be not only utilised as the maximum of its value within closed-loop industrial cycles but also re-entered back to nature without any harms. Therefore, the concept of CE is supported by governmental bodies and industrial unions to achieve industrial symbiosis and industrial ecology.

4.4   Benefits of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains Food is an essential commodity which provides people with much-needed nourishment and strength that helps them to work, move, think and stay healthy. It can be consumed either in a solid or in a liquid state. Each food has peculiar concentrations of nutrition such as carbohydrates, fats, protein, and vitamins which are paramount for the sustenance of the human body. To ensure food security all people should have access to food of their preferences. The COVID-19 pandemic showed for one more time that the current food system does not ensure food security as there were many cases in which people did not have access to food at all or to the food that they wanted. More emphasis needs to be placed on the ASCs to ensure that food is available to everyone. The ASC has a range of commodities and corporations are involved in selling a wide range of products in different markets throughout the world. Agricultural products, which are essentially raw materials, undergo a series of processing and modifications before they reach the final

30 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

consumer. Nowadays, the supply chain is expanding throughout domestic, provincial, national, and international fields. This has progressed from very short individual channels to longer, consistent and cohesive networks among various manufacturers, distributers, processers and producers. With the increasing concerns about the environment, it is outmost necessary to apply principles of CE to the ASC in order to increase the lifespan and shelf-life of the resources through appropriate recycling, reprocessing, and resource reduction processes. Before the emergence of this concept, food waste was generally disposed in large numbers. However, CE introduced the ideas that resources should be recovered and reused instead of being dumped. CE may not only save material cost, but also boost the economic growth and operational efficiency. It not only reduces wastes, but also takes into account the emissions and resources used across the supply chain. In recent years, sustainability has become an emerging goal of the ASC due to the sustained attention of various aspects to environmental issues (Genovese et  al. 2017). According to Wognum et  al., consumers are increasingly interested in the sustainability behind products (i.e. raw materials, procurement, packaging, and transportation). Also, due to the pressure of governmental regulations and consumers’ increasing awareness of environmental issues in consumption, many companies are forced to turn their supply chain model into a CSC (Ageron et al. 2012). The Circular Agricultural Supply Chain (CASC) can bring many benefits to companies. For instance, Beske, Land and Seuring (2014) pointed out that CSC can help companies provide consumers with higher quality and safer food. Geissdoerfer et al. also mentioned that the CSC can reduce food waste, improve brand image and increase long-term profits. As a result, Sharma et  al. stated that agricultural companies need to use a CSC to improve their customer loyalty and competitive advantage. At the same time, some scholars also discussed challenges faced by the CASC.  Genovese et  al. (2017) studied the carbon emissions and other environmental pollution of the agricultural supply chain (waste cooking oil supply chain) after the implementation of the CSC, and concluded that the impact of the supply chain on the environment has been significantly reduced, but the shortterm economic benefit is still a challenge. According to Cheruvu, Kapa and Mahalik, lots of food waste is caused by food packaging, so food packaging is a challenge for the CSC. In addition, many producers in developing countries lack sustainability knowledge, which may affect the implementation of the CSC. Farooque, Zhang and Liu claimed that weak

4  CIRCULAR SUPPLY CHAINS 

31

regulation of laws and regulations, lack of pressure from the market and lack of support from other stakeholders in the supply chain are all challenges faced by the CASC. Food wastage or food loss happens at different levels of the supply chain. It has been divided into two steams namely upstream and downstream (Despoudi 2019). The losses which happen in backward countries are termed as upstream losses and the losses which takes place in the well-­ developed countries are classified as downstream. Under upstream food, lose can be further divided losses in the process of production, handling, storage and distribution. In terms of downstream, it is shown as losses for retailers, consumers and post-consumer food losses (Despoudi 2019). Food loss is recognised as those foods which are consumable but are abandoned or disposed and identified as losses or residues. In order to be sustainable in the future, there must be concrete efforts taken to avoid this wastage. Therefore, by introducing CE, the wasteful products can be converted into raw materials which can be used for producing other products there by significantly reducing waste. CASC reduces the purchase cost, since those products which were supposed to be discarded are reused again (Genovese et al. 2017). Basic raw materials are now replaced with these recycled goods. The overall emission levels will also be reduced significantly if the goods are reprocessed. CASC processes follow those activities which causes emissions and finds new ways to reduce them by tracks their performance. It encourages cooperation among suppliers to reduce the emission levels at different stages of the supply chain (Genovese et al. 2017). Reverse logistics is the process which helps in converting the wasted products into usable products which will make producers take them back and use it again. This can only be achieved by having strict government regulations (Despoudi and Dora 2020). This is not only used for recycling general food waste but also for recovering unutilized packaging material. This process has encouraged more biodegradable and nature friendly packing. Product take backs can additionally be implemented to ease this process. Circular economy principles are very common in the field of sustainability. This will help people change their views on how they can manage their resources. Shifting our traditional methods to the circular model will not only help in improving the flexibility of reducing resource consumption and discharge into the environment but also improve value creation. Hence, by reducing excess food and waste, the loop of linear economic principle of “take- produce- consume- discharge” can finally be closed.

32 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

4.5   Summary This chapter defined the circular supply chains and the circular agricultural supply chains along with a discussion of the transition from linear to circular agricultural supply chains. This chapters concluded with the benefits of the circularity for agricultural supply chain entities.

References Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A. & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainable supply management: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 168–182. Beske, P., Land, A., & Seuring, S. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 131–143. Brandenburg, M., & Rebs, T. (2015). Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 229(1), 213–252. Despoudi, S. (2019). Optimised food supply chains to reduce food losses, chapter 13 in the book. In C. Galanakis (Ed.), Saving food: Production, supply chain, food waste and food consumption. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Despoudi, S., & Dora, M. (2020). Circular food supply chains. Institute of Food Science and Technology, 34(1), 48–51. Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Figueroa, A., & Koh, S. L. (2017). Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega, 66, 344–357. Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N. P., Dora, M., & Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country context. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 551–569. Masi, D., Day, S., & Godsell, J. (2017). Supply chain configurations in the circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 9(9), 1602. Zorzini, M., Hendry, L., Huq, F., & Stevenson, M. (2015). Socially responsible sourcing: reviewing the literature and its use of theory. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(1), 60–109.

CHAPTER 5

Drivers, Enablers and Barriers of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains

Abstract  This chapter focuses on a discussion of the drivers, enablers and barriers of circular agricultural supply chains. In terms of the drivers, different factors are examined which are: human activities, public health, knowledge, economic drivers, government support and regulations, customer awareness, leadership, and business status. Certain enablers were identified as being cultural, regulatory, internal, financial, and sectoral enablers, while barriers as being cultural, market, regulatory, technical, financial, technological, and sectorial. Keywords  Drivers of circular economy • Enablers of circular economy • Barriers of circular economy

5.1   Drivers of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains Although certain factors were identified as drivers of CE economy, these factors may different per sector and therefore in this chapter the drivers of CE in the ASC from the company’s point of view are examined. These are: human activities, public health, knowledge, economic drivers, government support and regulations, customer awareness, leadership, and business status. Figure 5.1 shows the drivers of circular economy in the ASC.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7_5

33

34 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Public health

Human activities

Knowledge about CE

Circular Agricultural Supply Chains

Government support & regulations

Leadership

Economic activities

Customer awareness & brand image

Fig. 5.1  Drivers of circular economy in the ASC

Human Activities Human activities are the primary reason for creation of waste in the ASC. To prevent the wastes being piled up, the process of waste management was introduced. Sustainability is used in this waste management to ensure that all human beings get the basic necessities at a sufficient level. There is a direct correlation between the human activities and waste generation (Agamuthu et al. 2009). When the range of activities rises the need for managing the waste also raises which paved the way for sustainability and circular economy. There is a need for education as it can influence people to react and collaborate with other businesses on waste management issues. This can be started by giving public regular updates in the form of information as they become more aware of the situation. The

5  DRIVERS, ENABLERS AND BARRIERS OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL… 

35

process of recycling will increase by 20% if the people are properly educated and are aware about the benefits of this model (Agamuthu et al. 2009). People will only be motivated to learn if they get an incentive. For example, small scale producers selling in local markers could start charging for plastic bags, wraps and tinfoil or they can have a deposit program where they can return the money back to the customer if they return the plastic item bought by them (Flanagan 2017). Public Health The health of the general public has been impacted largely due to the inadequate measures taken by governments and companies to manage food waste and food packaging waste. Introducing sustainability practices through CE can reduce the effects of pollution caused by wastes, thereby protecting public health. In most of the developing countries, wastes are inefficiently handled and only 30% to 70% is collected while the rest are disposed in open landfills. These have the capacity to cause viruses and diseases which will lead to infections, respiratory illness and other health complications. Measures need to be taken in such a way that food wastes and food packaging wastes are separated at source before collecting them. By splitting them into compostable and non-compostable wastes, the overall quality of recycling will increase. This process of separation will act as a vital step towards implementation of CE. A wide range of advantages can be achieved by that as it reduces food insecurity, improves food safety along with other occupational, social and environmental health benefits. Knowledge About Circular Economy Knowledge in the field of CE is important because these practices tend to create awareness in order to prevent food waste. To transfer and expand this knowledge, training and education is essential. The best practices in managing waste should be identified, and dissemination of this information can be done in the form of formal and informal education across the different ASC entities. Suggestions from employees will help the ASC industry gain knowledge because they have better understanding of the activities which they are involved in. Hence, worker’s enthusiasm and

36 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

participation are an important driving force for the development of this concept. Knowledge sharing among different sectors of the ASC will play a crucial part in the progression of CE. Different sectors will have different ways of preventing wastes and if these ideas are not shared by the stakeholders, the benefits cannot be attained. The regulatory departments should also encourage sharing of information in the ASC so that knowledge can be attained by both the government and the private companies. Governments should take steps in enabling knowledge sharing about CE such as providing incentives, developing policies and conduct awareness campaigns to encourage knowledge sharing. Economic Activities For any ASC waste management process to take place the company will need the required financial and infrastructural facilities. A country’s socio economic data are also important as they help the policymakers and the government to identify the type of waste materials generated and the kind of policies to be taken to tackle them (Agamuthu et al. 2009). The waste which is recovered has a potential to be sold again for a profit. Some countries like China and India have been using such waste materials as effective sources of secondary raw materials which are sometimes traded from developed countries. Two percent employment of some Asian countries is based on the waste recovery of sellable materials. Adopting this process not only improves economic activities but also reduces the demand for water, packaging, greater appreciation for food provenance and food security. Customer Awareness and Brand Image Consumers are looking for ASC products that are sustainable in terms of the production methods, the ingredients used, and the materials used for packaging. There has been constant pressure from customers to adopt CE. Collaboration with customers is vital, as they want to tackle environmental issues by producing friendly products. Climatic change and food shortages are two other reasons for initiating this change. Customers are constantly putting pressure on ASC industries, communities and the government to adopt green and social initiatives to protect the ecosystem. With the growing rate of ecological awareness among consumers, it is

5  DRIVERS, ENABLERS AND BARRIERS OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL… 

37

important for ASC businesses to protect the environment in order to retain their trust and image (Agamuthu et al. 2009). It is crucial for businesses to retain their status because it is a reassurance factor for the customers and affects the mindset of other stakeholders such employees, influencers, sponsors etc. ASC manufacturing industries are starting to forego their traditional methods and embrace cleaner forms of production which increases the goodwill of their company (Agamuthu et al. 2009). Leadership Top management’s commitment in CE plays a significant role in preserving a sustainable environment. Companies which are leader in CE need to take steps to co-create with other organisations to enable CE implementation. This will enable the ASC companies to share valuable initiatives and methods for establishing CE. Coordination and cooperation could be increased among different industries and companies with who are pioneers in CE implementation could lead the way. The leaders should be responsible for setting benchmarks in their production and manufacturing processes. They should take up the idea of introducing green practices by stressing on the corporate social responsibility of the company. One of the best examples of this can be seen from the CEO of AB InBev, Mr. Carlos Britto who has taken the initiative to join the Ellen MaCarthur foundation (Foundation 2018). He has also implemented a process where they reuse grains for brewing as it is nutritious and suitable for consumption. This will avoid large amounts of grains from being dumped or resold as animal food. Government Support and Legislation The rules and regulations constituted by local governments drive CE implementation in the ASC. With the increasing levels of pollution, CO2 emissions, and environmental degradation governments are setting recycling and reducing regulations for both companies and consumers. Subsidies and funding from the government will also aid and motivate the ASC companies to switch from traditional methods to eco-friendly practices. More acts regarding reprocessing and recycling of food and other materials should be introduced by the government. Reusing ­materials can be an integral part of sustainable manufacturing process and will encourage business to adopt circular business models in the future.

38 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

The need to have good collaboration with suppliers should similarly be urged by the government as it helps product stability. So both ASC producers and sellers can benefit when government starts funding the shift from traditional linear practise to the circular paradigm (Despoudi et al. 2018; Despoudi 2016).

5.2   Enablers and Barriers of Circular Economy in Agricultural Supply Chains The enablers and barriers of circular economy are complementary in nature. Sometimes they have the tendency to overlap but enablers are mainly introduced to focus on improving and resolving several barriers. Occasionally, the enablers which are created might develop their own barriers. Out of the various barriers, significant barriers include cultural, market, regulatory, technical, financial, technological, and sectoral barriers. Similarly, enablers like cultural, regulatory, internal, financial, and sectoral enablers are examined further in the literature below (see Fig. 5.2). Enablers of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains Cultural Enablers A top-down methodology should be implemented whereby the decision makers and other members are familiar with the theory. The buy-in from the leaders of a company is very important to establish the norms of circular model into the supply chain. Hence, leadership is seen as a key driver. It is advisable to combine both financial and social goals collectively with the members and management of the company. Industry-customer workshops can be introduced to check in with the clients and collaborate with other business. The opinions of both customers and suppliers will improve significantly when they get to know that the circular model will have a positive impact on the economy. This provides an opportunity for the company to improve its customer-supplier relationship and be socially responsible. System thinking and value chain activities are seen as major drivers as it involves procurement and using modern ways of creating a model within the purchase structure (ARUP & foundation 2018).

5  DRIVERS, ENABLERS AND BARRIERS OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL… 

39

Cultural enablers

Sectorial enablers

Regulatory enablers

Circular Agricultural Supply Chains

Financial enablers

Internal enablers

Fig. 5.2  Enablers of circular economy in ASCs

Companies should find ways to avoid short-term gains and engage in collaboration by having long-term ventures with other stakeholders (ARUP & foundation 2018). Regulatory Enablers Policy support from the government can be used for developing the much-needed expertise and invention to enable CE implementation in the ASC. Regulations and incentives are helpful because companies cannot be expected to establish this model on its own. For instance, the C40 organisation has made major cities sign and make rules regarding the reduction of waste up to 15% by 2030 and the avoidance of burying waste in landfills up to 50% by 2030. Their other aim is to improve treatment of food waste and carbon offset (EllenMaCarthur foundation 2019; C40 2020).

40 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Internal Enablers Companies can fulfil the circular model if they take adequate steps in developing the core mentality of their company by integrating circularity into their objectives and KPI(Key Performance Indicators). The benefits need to be communicated clearly so that the transition happens smoothly. By having good communication, the company can create a holistic environment that can enable internal stakeholders to provide ideas and strategies. Training programs needs to be established so that the people in the organisation have the required knowledge and competences for the circular economy paradigm. Assessment tools should be established to detect any leakages and to create more value. This will also act as competitive advantage for the companies implementing this concept. According to food retailers, company’s sustainability stance of not wasting food in the future will increase customer satisfaction. Financial Enablers Value of assets can be targeted by introducing concepts like whole life costing as this can facilitate more energy efficiency. Companies need not take up very big investments initially. They can start off by employing simple methods like cost saving ideas, using reclaimed and second hand materials, and temporary work place to know the final outcome. There are monetary advantages in the form of cost reduction in production process. By effectively using secondary materials, the company can have better margins and recover cost by selling them in new markets. This has the capacity to attract new customers and increase the loyalty of existing customers as well. Scaling can be used for combining different projects together with can help saving costs and turn obstacles into prospective openings. Scaling also improves flexibility which in turn helps in surmounting regulatory barriers. There is a great benefit for food sector merchants because it allows them to be more resource efficient and by re-­using the food products, the companies will spend less on natural resources and other raw materials making them more efficient.

5  DRIVERS, ENABLERS AND BARRIERS OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL… 

41

Sectorial Enablers Sector should provide a foundation such that it improves communication, enhances vision and helps converting the standards to be put into practice (ARUP & foundation 2018). These enablers also design tools and approaches like building material database, developing new methods of reusing and collaboration with other industries. Identifying new innovation is key as it has the potential to provide more openings, develop standards and other infrastructural facilities which will assist recycling and reverse logistics.

5.3   Barriers of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains Although CE implementation seems to have many enablers, there are certain barriers that need to be acknowledged. Figure 5.3 illustrates the eight barriers of CE implementation in Circular Agricultural Supply Chains which are: cultural barriers, market barriers, regulatory barriers, technical barriers, financial barriers, technological barriers and sectorial barriers. Cultural Barriers Absence of information, interest and commitment with stakeholders are the main reasons for this barrier. The whole progress of circular economy may be slowed down with the lack of interest as there is vast information which has to be overseen before taking a decision. Individuals find it difficult to leave their existing comfort zones and adopt circular practice. Companies can have the resources and infrastructure, but the lack of collaboration will make it hard for them to implement circular economy. More interest should be given to cross chain and cross sector partnerships. At times company doesn’t concentrate on the interest of customers which shows the lack of mindfulness. Countries have the important task of protecting their economy by defending their current linear systems as they find the process implementing circular economy to be expensive. When trade agreements are made between countries, circularity is a nominal requirement, and this has allowed linear products to survive in the market. Those domestic products which has less environmental impact and are not competitive are forced off. Shared business objectives cannot be achieved

42 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Cultural barriers Sectorial barriers

Market barriers

Circular Agricultural Supply Chains

Technological barrier

Financial barriers

Regulatory barriers

Technical barriers

Fig. 5.3  Barriers of circular economy in ASCS

if there is lack of cooperation because of silo attitudes and mindsets. For example, Holland has reported that 38% of their food wastage could have been avoided if they start composting instead of throwing it in the bin along with other wastes. The main cause of this is the lack of awareness and interest from both the public and the firms. Market Barriers Market includes the demand and supply trends which can be highly uncertain and can restrict new ventures. The markets forces are seen as major obstacles for changeover from the traditional practices to the circular

5  DRIVERS, ENABLERS AND BARRIERS OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL… 

43

model because of its minimal virgin material costs. This will force other linear products to have a competitive advantage over the circular products. This process of conversion can only be effective if the enterprise has a stable source of funding. Market failures happen because of lack of communication, improper flow of information and lack of investment costs. When compared to other barriers, market is the seen as the second most serious barrier. For example, some feel that eradicating plastic from food packaging will do more harm than good because it increases the overall cost of packaging as companies are forced to look into alternatives like cardboard which costs more and leads to deforestation as well. Regulatory Barriers These include rules and regulations passed by the government which makes it very difficult to implement the closed loop concept. The problem is the lack of consistency. Legislations keep changing and with the absence of global consensus, makes it even more complicated to maintain uniformity. Without proper, specific, severe and consistent legislations, firms find it demotivating to move towards circular models. In some countries ineffective environmental policies discourages companies to change from their linear model. Moreover, competition laws will also have a negative impact on companies collaborating with other companies. Since the number of countries involved are many the need for harmony of rules will be very important but cannot be done effortlessly. The other contributors include those laws which obstruct the implementation process and the lack of incentives. One of the major examples of this are the laws regarding expiry label of eggs in Europe. Expiry dates are mainly listed for pantry purposes but when it is refrigerated the egg’s lifetime increases. So, when the eggs go past the expiry date people fear it’s no longer edible but in reality, its safe for consumption. Some laws contradict each other indirectly because of difference in views. For instance, some rules for hygiene undermines food waste. Similarly, the hygiene of livestock may not meet the nutrition required according to law. For example, the lack of financial and economic incentives from the government are the main reason for food sector merchants to be discouraged from circular economy in Sweden. They feel that the government should take a proactive role in promoting and restructuring the concept.

44 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Technical Barriers The manner in which products are made does not depend solely on social and economic repercussions but also the technical knowledge possessed by the company. Since the environment is dynamic, technical competencies are essential for implementing circular economy. Technical abilities are paramount for a product as it distinguishes it from other products in terms of stability, endurance, efficiency and value. Firms tend to face administrative issues in the form of not meeting important certification, documentation, labels, standards and rules. Lack of technical information will also include the necessary aptitudes and skills which the employees might lack which in turn can affect the company’s working environment as a whole. The extent to which a specific product can be reused depends on the company’s technical knowledge about the product. A specific product’s chances of recovery increases, when the technical variability increases. The use of other by-products for the product also depends on the technical knowledge of the company. Financial Barriers Those issues which are involved with property, investment, purchase, sales, raw materials etc. are under the financial barrier. It becomes hard to implement this when firms expect instant pay back and higher expenditure on capital intensive activities makes it even more difficult. Even though circular model promises lengthier financial returns, enterprises are more preferential towards short term gains. There are high risks of liquidity as the financial risk is disseminated over a longer time period. Need for more working capital and labour education cost will also increase the burden of cost-effective strategies as more capital is needed. The initial cost to step up the operations are high because of the infrastructure which should support reverse logistics, innovation, and documentation necessary for the modern concept. Other constraints to funding like access to assets and investment have contributed significantly towards the financial barrier. For instance, food and retail company’s biggest concern is related to the profit which they will earn from adopting this model. They found it difficult to measure economic gain because of the absence of rational and viable structure. Even in countries like Sweden the retailers felt that since the economy is not being developed, they are forced to avoid this concept.

5  DRIVERS, ENABLERS AND BARRIERS OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL… 

45

Technological Barriers The primary obstacle is that the existing materials need to be discarded as they are not developed with the system of reusing or recycling owning to the lack of technology, most countries are lacking the ability to provide remanufactured product that have good quality. The issue of transparency can lead to lack of adequate data on the product. This can affect the activities of a company as they will be clueless about the type of raw materials used in the final product. This becomes even more problematic when there are many number of dealers who have obtained the product from unknown sub-dealers. The lack of adequate expertise on how to use the technology and the kind of skills to be adopted are issues which has to be addressed. Some technologies which are linear in nature are very well established in the economy which makes it even harder to introduce new circular systems. Sectorial Barriers These are recognised as the environment base which lacks upkeep, protection, possession, layout, assembly, and other infrastructure. The hypothetical barrier furthermore includes the lack of bandwidth where the circular principles must be given priority when a crucial decision is made. For example, lack of infrastructure which includes handling, storage and distribution can also result in loss of food products. This can occur because of microorganisms, spillage and degradation (Despoudi 2019). Implementation of circular economy is a long-term decision and the absence of answerability and complex initiatives will further hamper the overall process (ARUP & foundation, 2018). People with different opinions and interests will bring about conflicting pursuits that will result in a fragmented supply chain. These conflicts comprise of obligations with documentation and creation of products (ARUP & foundation, 2018). No indicators or benchmarks have been developed to measure circularity. Since there is no transparency or standardisation, the impact of circular economy on the society cannot be measured. At times companies have the tendency to display the positives of the circular economy as they don’t have a guideline to assess it. Various problems occurred when products were moved from their technical cycle to their biological cycle which has made industrial development of natural products a hurdle.

46 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

5.4   Summary This chapter focused a discussion of the drivers, enablers and barriers of circular agricultural supply chains. In terms of the drivers, different factors were examined which are: human activities, public health, knowledge, economic drivers, government support and regulations, customer awareness, leadership, and business status. Certain enablers were identified as being cultural, regulatory, internal, financial, and sectoral enablers, while barriers as being cultural, market, regulatory, technical, financial, technological, and sectorial.

References Agamuthu, P., K. M. Khidzir, Fauziah Shahul Hamid (2009). Drivers of sustainable waste management in Asia. Waste Management & Research, https://doi. org/10.1177/0734242X09103191 ARUP & foundation, E. M. (2018). FROM PRINCIPLES TO PRACTICES: FIRST STEPS TOWARDS A CIRCULAR BUILT ENVIRONMENT. https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/ first-steps-towards-a-circular-built-environment Despoudi, S. (2016). An investigation of the collaboration—Postharvest food loss relationship and the effect of the environmental turbulence factors. Loughborough University. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-­jspui/bitstream/2134/ 21785/1/Thesis-­2016-­Despoudi.pdf Despoudi, S. (2019). Optimised food supply chains to reduce food losses, chapter 13 in the book. In C. Galanakis (Ed.), Saving food: Production, supply chain, food waste and food consumption. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Despoudi, S., Papaioannou, G., Saridakis, G., & Dani, S. (2018). Does collaboration pay in agricultural supply chain? An empirical approach. International Journal of Production Research, 56, 4396–4417. Flanagan, S. (2017). How Can Education Improve The Recycling Behaviors And Attitudes Of Middle School Students. School of Education Student Capstone Theses and Dissertations.

CHAPTER 6

Practices of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains

Abstract  This chapters starts by explaining the importance of circular economy practices in the agricultural supply chain. Then the practices of circular economy are discussed along with case examples with applications of circular economy principles in the agricultural supply chain context. Keywords  Principles of circular economy • Agricultural supply chain

6.1   The Importance of the Circular Economy Practices in the Circular ASC Ghisellini et al. (2006), emphasizes that the implementation of sustainability patterns, such as CE, are not only reliant on the innovative concepts themselves but the innovative actors that action them. It can often be difficult for firms to maintain on their sustainable development vision, most often its implementation needs to be supported by innovation designers and intermediaries who provide services and designs towards appropriate radical changes in both practices, policies and decision-making tools. Circular economy is embracing a new way of doing business that will not only favour environmental policies, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cost reduction, but governments see the concept as a viable model to social and economic sustainability, such as turning waste streams into valuable resources, job creation and new © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7_6

47

48 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

investment opportunities. On the other hand, companies initially failed to incorporate CE principles into their business strategy due to the lack of mandates, costs, logistical hurdles and inertia of ‘business as usual’ (Veleva and Bodkin 2018). However, the timing to introduce a sustainable economic model into one’s business strategy is more favourable than ever. In a recent report to the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Ellen Macarthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company concluded that circular economy will provide a global economic opportunity of over $1 trillion as well as significant impact to social and environmental wellbeing. In turn, this created a large awareness for the concept and many corporations are looking to seize their chance at this new diversified revenue stream. Additional business benefits of transitioning to circular economy include reduction in disposal costs and risks, improved brand reputation and the ability to attract and retain new talent. The shift to circular economy implementation also integrates a social position as more firms are addressing their responsibility to societal and environmental impact, for value creation and competitive advantage. Generation of food waste can bring several impacts on the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental, notwithstanding the morale dimension. Food loss and waste are responsible for high levels of emission of greenhouse gases, food insecurity and the economic loss. In the coming years, Sustainable Development Goals will strive to ensure sustainable reduction of waste generation through prevention/ reduction, recycling and reuse through a systematic approach and cooperation among the actors operating in the supply chain. Within this context, we are starting to see an alignment with the principles of a circular economy. According to Matharu et  al., food supply chain waste is a unique bio resource that may be exploited (valorised) for high valueadded chemicals, functional materials and bioenergy. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) High Level Panel of Experts on Food security and Nutrition concluded that valorisation approaches for food waste and by-products streams can be regarded as a sensible solution to reduce waste in supply chains at meso- and macro-levels on the global food system. We believe food waste reduction and prevention at the outset but also see an opportunity of obtaining value from so-called unavoidable losses because of harvesting and processing. A value gap exists between the

6  PRACTICES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS 

49

food supply chain waste sent for animal feed and the one used for composting and energy recovery, which may be exploited (valorised) for high value-­ added chemicals, functional materials and bioenergy. Studies undertaken so far on various aspects of FLW indicate that data on food waste generation and its fate (e.g. landfill, recovered, collected for charitable redistribution) is scarce, fragmented and disaggregated. The European Commission is considering serious actions on the issue of tackling FLW by introducing its Circular Economy Package to inspire Europe’s transition towards a circular economy, which will increase global competitiveness, encourage sustainable growth and generate new opportunities. The global drivers for a bio-based economy, enhanced bio-resource utilisation and, transitioning from linear to circular-economies for a sustainable twenty-first century seem very compelling. Existing business models for the circular economy are less dynamic and noninclusive, which appear unable to support every kind of company in designing a circular business model. The circular economy recognises we have limited resources and takes a far more sustainable approach. Instead of being lost to landfill, resources are maximised by being kept in use for a long as possible before being reused, re-manufactured or recycled. The Circular economy in food focuses on the production of agricultural commodities with minimal usage of inputs, closing nutrient loops and reducing waste discharges. A circular economy is an alternative to a traditional linear economy (make, use, dispose) in which resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life. The circular economy is governed by 3Rs, namely Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. It fosters innovation and greater efficiency all the way through the life cycle of a product. One, reducing the consumption of resources and the generation of wastes in the process of production, circulation and consumption; two, reusing the discards as products directly or after repair, refurbishment or remanufacturing, or reusing them, wholly or partly. Three, recycling waste as raw materials for direct use or regenerative use after waste recovery. The CE concept and its 3R principles promote a transition of the economic growth mode from a linear model of resource-product-waste to a circular model of resource product-waste- (reused or regenerated) resource. The first action that business must consider is to prevent food waste generation. After its minimization, a second-best option for inevitable is its reuse,

50 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

firstly for human consumption, and secondly for animal feeding. The third option is represented by the possibility of recycling for (i) industrial usage, (ii) anaerobic digestion, (iii) composting and (iv) combustion for energy recovery; to finish, landfilling represents the last available option.

6.2   Circular Economy Practices in Circular Agricultural Supply Chains Reduction Practice The reduction principle’s primary objective is to maximise the efficiency of production and consumption. This is done by producing products with greater value that will have a less impact on the economy, using smaller number of resources, and avoiding products which can damage the ecosystem. Eco-efficiency can be achieved by encouraging more frugal ways like basic packaging, smaller and weightless raw materials, promoting innovation of environment friendly technologies etc. (Ghisellini et  al. 2016). The Reduction principle aims to minimize the consumption of resources and reduction of waste through the improvement of efficiency in production, circulation and consumption of processes. A preventative approach to resource utilization. In a manufacturing context, the Reduction principle looks to minimize the input of primary energy, raw materials and waste and firms will often turn to better technologies for eco-efficiency in their production process, as well as re-designing with the aim of prolonging the lifespan of the product focusing on the economic and environmental dimension of sustainability (Ghisellini et al. 2016). As noted by Jayal et al., it can difficult to measure the efficacy on reduction principles implementation, and the authors argue that a life-cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluating resource utilization in consumer product redesign can assist in quantifying the overall impact, economically and environmentally, in terms of material and energy consumption and carbon footprint. In a circular food economy, this principle would possibly look at combining local and seasonal elements in short-supply chains, such as supporting local growers, would reduce storage and transportation while providing better demand-­supply balance, which in turn contribute to food waste prevention. Some of the examples which can be used for reducing food waste are: following FIFO (First in, First out) method to avoid

6  PRACTICES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS 

51

expiry, increasing awareness, planning meals ahead, monitoring and storing food in air tight container to increase the lifetime, freezing the food based on its type and donating the rest. The majority of this waste can be prevented. And the unavoidable part can be processed into a valuable resource. For instance, under the Courtauld Commitment retailers and brands have made significant improvements in their supply chains to help reduce food waste. ASDA extended the shelf life of milk by 1  day through improved logistics. Sainsbury’s Real Time Supply Chain System which has cut product waste by 2%. Musgrave Group/United Biscuits improved forecasting resulted in a drop in promotional waste by over 13%. Similarly, food waste is reduced at the retailers’ level by changing packaging and confusing labelling. Examples are: Warburton’s removed ‘Display until’ dates from their products. Kingsmill produced pack sizes better suited to today’s households ‘Little Big Loaf’. On-Pack Recycling Label helps to make it easy for consumers to recycle packaging. Retailers have started consumer campaigns such as Sainsbury’s “Love Your Leftovers”, Morrison’s “Great Taste Less Waste”, The Co-operative’s Food Lover till screens in the UK. Reuse Practice The reuse principle refers to those practices were the products have the capacity to not be thrown out as waste and are utilized again for the same purpose for which it was designed (Council 2008). Reuse can only be successful if the products are designed in such a way that they are long-lasting for many phases of utilisation. This process can be encouraged by providing subsidies and when customers start realising the importance of reusing the products (Ghisellini et al. 2016).When compared to traditional methods, reusing is very eco-friendly as it needs less raw materials, power, and employment. Added advantage to reuse is that it prevents carbon and other degrading emissions (Castellani et al. 2014). In the food sector this concept is illustrated by returning the wasted food to alternate markets, feeding animals, and donating it to the people who are in need of it. Food charities such as FareShare and FoodCycle, retailers and distributors to increase food being redistributed to charity. Rather than reduce, it is better to prevent food waste at the source. We can initiate a range of food waste prevention interventions. From better matching supply with fluctuating demand for different food types, to discounting soon-to-expire

52 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

products, and using overripe produce for in-store food outlets, retailers can reduce their food waste. Waste prevention efforts are also being addressed by organisations such as FoodShift and Feedback. We can transform collected organic materials to drive regenerative peri-urban food production. Currently, the most common management processes for organic materials are composting, anaerobic digestion, and wastewater treatment. Converting organic waste into a source of value begins with effective collection systems and pure waste streams. New technology, supporting policy frameworks, and community engagement can rapidly transform collection systems and increase organic waste collection rates. Recycle Practice The recycling principle refers to the process by which the used products are not thrown out as waste and are recovered into functional or usable substances. However, it only includes natural products and cannot be applied to fossil fuels (Council 2008). The main benefits include conservation of resources, less use of landfills and incinerators, better use of domestic resources and energy saving methods (Ghisellini et  al. 2016). The Reuse principle refers to the products that are used again, wholly or partly, for the same purpose for which they were conceived, or as parts of other products. The Recycle Principle looks at recovering waste as raw material for direct use or regenerative use into products and substances for the original or other purposes, “which includes the reprocessing of organic material but not energy recovery”. At the end of the life cycle, resources are therefore reused and therefore limiting the quantity of waste to be treated and disposed of. Most often, the concept of circular economy is identified with this third principle however it must be noted that this practice is the least sustainable solution in terms of resource efficiency and profitability (Stahel 2013), as it is limited by nature seeing as some waste material are recyclable until a certain point or not even at all. For instance, in the manufacturing of plastics, some waste is unrecyclable due to the presence of contaminants such as ink and metals, and has raised some authors to discuss the development at global level of an agreed-upon risk assessment for existing and newly developed products (Ghisellini et  al. 2016). In the context of food waste, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, nutrient recycling or nutrient looping are processes by which

6  PRACTICES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS 

53

discarded organic resources can be turned into valuable consumables; from low-tech organic compost to innovative, high value biomaterials. A great example of product reintroduction into productive use, is the regenerative practices of peri-urban farmers (within 20 km of cities), collaborating with city restauranteurs for their organic waste in the development of healthy soils, which can then result in foods with improved taste and micronutrient content. Stahel argues that this method of redistribution of resources is the key to circular economy as it is the most profitable and sustainable strategy to CE. It is very appealing with respect to environmental benefit as it requires less energy, fewer resources and less labour, leading to almost zero emission of toxic substances. In the case of consumer products, an engagement from end-users for reused and remanufactured products through firm’s marketing efforts would create demand for firms to design durable products for multiple life cycles. This productive system to material efficiency not only helps reduce emissions but helps in reducing a firm’s costs of disposal, creating incentives for companies to favour take-back of products for remanufacturing. Some countries, like Germany and Korea, even have a polluter pay principle in their legislation that aims to enhance the circularity of products and materials, by shouldering the costs of disposal and recovery on the producer who will therefore have a strong motivation to reuse materials where possible, whereas in others, like say in Japan, there is a shared responsibility among all stakeholders, including consumers, to achieve a more ambitious results to waste collection for reuse and recycle (Ghisellini et  al. 2016). In Circular economy, the loop of materials to product manufacturing can be principally closed, however in the food system, specifically towards food reuse, the loop of matter can be partially closed as not all food surplus can be consumed (e.g. animal feed) or recycled further into nutrient matter for regenerative use. Some illustrations of recycling in the food sector are: using by-products and left overs, incinerating to produce fuel, rendering, composting, converting scrap into bio gas and reprocessing those packaging material which comes along with the food products. Food and packaging waste can be recycled through Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and composting. Examples such as Greene King offer customers a choice of meal sizes to make a difference to the amount of food left on plates. Anaerobic digestion involves the treatment of domestic and commercial food waste. It provides nutrient-rich digestate, generates renewable

54 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

energy and contributes to growth in the economy. Malaby Biogas process around 17,000 tonnes of waste a year and up to 20,000 tonnes at full capacity. The AD sector now generates around 1000 GWh of renewable energy per year. Using digestate and compost (valuable biofertilisers) in farming completes the food loop, ensuring vital nutrients are returned to the field to grow new crops. Farmers and growers on the use of digestate, and how to reduce their reliance on conventional fertilisers. Gask Farm have reduced them spend on fertiliser by £40,000 per annum. Waste Utilisation/Recovery of Waste Edible Waste  the rejected small or slightly damaged potatoes which are unsuitable for retail marketing or chipping considered as avoidable loss can be diverted to the dehydrating industry. It can then be converted into potato flakes, potato flour and potato starch. Volunteers from different organisation who work for charities can rescue those notable potatoes and can transform them for processing. Apart from these, surplus of potatoes can also be used as stock feed for cattle and pigs, which would in turn reduce the need to import energy rich feedstuffs. By-product Waste Potato processing industries while producing potato chips generate a huge volume of potato peel as a by-product i.e. possibly avoidable loss can cause environmental pollution due to its microbial spoilage. Traditionally potato peel waste is used to produce low value animal feed and fertilizer. However, in recent times, several biomolecules are now extracted from potato peel waste such as lactic acid and phenolic acids which has an important usage in the food industry as food preservatives and flavouring agents a great achievement has been made in lactic acid and other biochemical extraction from potato peel waste. This finding also highlights a need for an interdisciplinary research to capture and understand all possible leaks within the food system along with the role of different stakeholders for generating value from the wastes/ losses so that it could be a truly circular system. In brief, the 3R principles of circular economy aims at sustainable development facilitating the efficient and cyclical use of resources through a more closed-loop supply chain, while reducing environmental impact and optimizing the value of disposed products. The 3R principles can be

6  PRACTICES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS 

55

consolidated by the three principles of circular economy developed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation: 1. Designing out waste and pollution by revealing and designing out the negative impacts of economic activity that cause damage to human health and natural systems. 2. Keep Products and Materials in use preserving value in the form of energy, labour, and materials, encouraging many different economic uses before nutrients are returned to natural systems. 3. Regenerate Natural Systems by preserving or enhancing renewable resources. The first point in the foundation’s principles addresses the elimination and reduction of the negative impact of production and consumption, which aligns directly to Yang et al.’s reduction principle, in that both principles are fostering ways in increasing system effectiveness to design out negative externalities. However, for the foundation, designing out waste is taken one step further over just ‘reducing’ and looks at the concept of ‘waste’ and eliminating it altogether by turning existing waste streams into fully useful and valuable input towards other production. The second point to circular economy principles for the foundation, closely mirrors the reuse practices in Yang et al.’s framework, where the preservation of the value of materials means extending the product-life cycle as long as possible and both schools of thought on ‘reuse’ make mention of resource having multiple cycles but eventually having an alternate end-life cycle. The third and final principle to Ellen MacArthur’s principles to circular economy, stresses a more active role to resource regrowth and preservation, whereby regenerating the health of the ecosystem is not only about returning (or recycling) recovered biological resources to the biosphere, but the shift would also include firm’s investing in renewable energy and materials. A visual representation of the circular economy concept and its principles is shown in Fig.  6.1. The figure below encapsulates the core principles of the restorative and regenerative circular economy and illustrates the foundation’s drive “ in shifting the material composition of consumables from technical towards biological nutrients, and in turn have those nutrients cascading through different applications before extracting valuable feedstock and finally re-introducing their nutrients into the biosphere”.

56 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Fig. 6.1  Circular economy system and its principles

The illustration describes a continuous flow of biological and technical materials in the economy through a variety of circular set ups. This circular framework is part of four simple principles of circular value creation: the power of the inner circle, the power of circling longer, the power of cascading use, and the power of pure circles. The value creation in the cascading lever emphasizes the principles of reusing and recycling which when focusing more on the circularity of biological nutrients, for instance circular economy of food and food waste management, the shorter and fewer the loops the better the value of preservation. In existing literature, there are increasing studies in circular economy specifically addressing food waste through the concept of a “hierarchy” often around the 3R framework.

6.3   Examples of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains In the text that follows different applications of the CE practices are presented in the ASC context.

6  PRACTICES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS 

57

Fig. 6.2  Circular economy example of olive residue. (Source: Authors)

Case 1: Use of Olive Residue in Turkey This is a case from an olive oil extraction unit in Turkey which mainly follows the reuse principles of CE. The dries olive residue is used for making soaps and sold in premium prices at the tourist destinations. Figure 6.2 shows the CE reusing processes for the olive residue. Case 2: Wine from Banana Waste This is a case in Uganda. Rural small holder farmers bring bananas to the processing unit. Otherwise, the bananas would be wasted in the field due to low local demand and lack of transport facilities for bringing them to major markets in Urban area. The local processor ferments these bananas and press them to make sweet wine and same them in  local and urban markets. This initiative not just save food waste but also increase livelihood of many small holder farmers in the region. Figure 6.3 shows the reusing processes for making wine from banana waste. Case 3: Circular Food System in a Meat-Packing Plant in Chicago The Plant is a collaborative community of food production businesses in Chicago. The facility and community are a collaboration between the forprofit owner/developer Bubbly Dynamics, and the dynamic community

58 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Fig. 6.3  Reusing process for wine from banana waste. (Source: Authors)

of food businesses co-located together in the 93,500 square foot facility. A 2015 study estimated that each month the businesses in The Plant produce around 18,000 kg of materials, 40% of which were finished products and 60% by-products. A material flow analysis over a three-month period found that 42% of the output materials from businesses were captured on site (mostly in the form of brewer’s grain). The Plant community is currently working on a system which allows them to repurpose and capture more value from by-­products—e.g. spent grain from the brewery is used as growing medium for mushrooms. The Plant also collecting food waste from nearby industries to feed into their anaerobic digester, which produces biogas that is used on-site. Case 4: Closing the Loop on Single-Use Food Packaging The rapidly growing takeaway food sector results in many single-use plastic containers being discarded every year. Recycling is generally impractical due to contamination caused by food residues, so takeaway packaging most often ends up in landfill. Reusable containers should be implemented wherever possible, but this is sometimes not practical, leaving a proportion that remains single use. BioPak’s compostable foodservice packaging

6  PRACTICES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS 

59

made from renewable plant-based materials offers a partial solution for the foodservice items that remain single-use. BioPak has created a circular system, ensuring that packaging and importantly, the food it contains does end up being composted thus contributing to the preservation of healthy soils. Since launch, 200 companies have joined together, diverting 660 tonnes of compostable packaging and food scraps from landfill and creating 66,000 bags of nutrient rich compost. When it comes to foodservice packaging, contamination caused by food residue makes conventional recycling impractical. But for composting, food residues are actually an advantage. As a report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has shown, food scraps are an exceptional source of nitrogen (N), a critically important macronutrient needed for healthy plant growth. In the composting process nitrogen-rich food residue assists biodegradation, balancing with other feedstocks that are richer in carbon (C), such as dry leaves, wood, and cardboard. The ideal C:N ratio is about 30:1, too much carbon and the decomposition slow down. Compostable packaging can facilitate diversion of food waste, allowing beneficial nutrients to return and regenerate soils, rather than ending up in landfill. For packaging to be considered compostable, it must comply with relevant international standards and fit into a successful post-consumer collection, sorting, and composting system that is proven to work in practice and at scale. Organic waste collection services are still not universally offered, so to ensure its packaging is effectively composted, BioPak established its own compost service. The compost service is designed to close the loop, with the ability to divert single-use food packaging away from landfill. The service collects compostable packaging, food scraps, and organic waste all in one organic waste bin—no separation required. The collection service has been rolled out across Australia and New Zealand, reaching over 2000 postcodes. BioPak is working with local, industrial composting services and waste management partners. So far, 200 companies having joined together, resulting in 660 tonnes of compostable packaging and food scraps being diverted from landfill and creating 66,000 bags of nutrient rich compost. BioPak has partnered with the Australian Organic Recycling Association (AORA) and is working collaboratively with the waste management industries and local governments to increase access to composting infrastructure and scale the operations. BioPak believes that the use of compostable packaging can play a significant role in reducing the negative impact of single use food service packaging. The key challenge now lies in scaling up collection systems and organic

60 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

recycling infrastructure worldwide. In areas where composting is not available, BioPak is working on expanding options for organic recycling. This could include converting organic material into biochar, a benefit to soil structure as well as carbon sequestration; or utilising the organic waste as a feedstock for worm and insect farming. To further increase benefits, Biopak could also explore different options for the growing or procurement of feedstock. For example, feedstock could be sourced from agricultural or industrial by-products; or grown in marginal areas helping restore degraded land; or cultivated using ‘regenerative practices’ which activate soil biology, enhance biodiversity, increase water storage, and sequester carbon. Case 3: Collaborating to Change Local Food Systems Every second the equivalent of six garbage trucks of edible food are wasted globally. In cities, less than 2% of the valuable nutrients in food by-­products and human waste are recovered for productive use. The modern food system is degrading and unhealthy, but cities could hold the key to changing this. The solution: The Municipality of Milan and Fondazione Cariplo have taken a bold new strategic approach to support a new food system by developing the Milan Food Policy—a tool to support the city’s food industry players as they manage food related challenges. What makes the Milan Food Policy circular: Through local procurement, developing logistics for distributing surplus food, and valorising discarded organic material, Milan is making the most of its food resources while supporting the regeneration of natural systems. The benefits: By working with local public and private organisations, and supporting innovation, Milan has seen important reductions in food waste and the associated costs. Through awareness raising and capacity building, local organisations involved with food are also able to evolve and benefit from this positive shift. The first step was to assess the local food system by engaging food experts and stakeholders. To support the initiative, the Milan 2015–2020 Food Policy Guidelines were developed, and a food policy office was established to coordinate efforts and monitor progress. Since the launch, many concrete initiatives have been developed and implemented that build on the foundation of the Milan Food Policy.

6  PRACTICES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY CHAINS 

61

6.4   Summary This chapter started by explaining the importance of circular economy practices in the agricultural supply chain. Then the practices of circular economy were discussed along with case examples with applications of circular economy principles in the agricultural supply chain context.

References Castellani, V., Sala, S. & Mirabella, N. (2014). Beyond the throwaway society: A life cycle‐based assessment of the environmental benefit of reuse. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 11(3). COUNCIL, T. E. P. A. O. T. (2008). Waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0098 Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. Stahel, W. (2013). Policy for material efficiency—Sustainable taxation as a departure from the throwaway society. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1986), 20110567. Veleva, V., & Bodkin, G. (2018). Corporate-entrepreneur collaborations to advance a circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 20–37.

CHAPTER 7

The Circular Economy Advantage and Implications on Sustainability Performance: Collaborative Advantage and Impact of CE Implementation Abstract  This chapter focuses on explaining the relationship between circular economy, collaborative advantage and sustainability performance. Keywords  Collaborative advantage • Sustainability performance • Circular economy

7.1   Collaborative Advantage and Circular Economy Strategic partnerships have become central to sustained competitive success in rapid changing global markets. For both entrepreneurs and large companies, establishing long-term partnerships with key players in their supply chains is critical for creating and capturing value and for establishing a viable business strategy (Bocken et al. 2014; Ghisellini et al. 2016). Combining complementary resources and capabilities creates the potential for significant inimitable synergy that can lead to higher- long term performance, sustainable competitive advantage and difficult-to-imitate value, key corporate assets that define collaborative advantage. In the context of complementarity in circular economy implementation, transitioning from a linear “take-make-­waste” model to developing an innovative model of limited waste can be difficult for large established market players, and this tremendous social and economic entrepreneurial opportunity is easier to © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7_7

63

64 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

seize by establishing strategic partnerships with entrepreneurial organizations that are better equipped to handle high uncertainty and risks because they are able “to produce value out uncertainty” (Veleva and Bodkin 2018). When companies begin to think and act with joint perspective to resource optimization, a circular value chain develops as part of the collaborative advantage. Bocken et al. (2014) proposes considering such collaborations as a new business model and a new unit of analysis for businesses, a sustainable business model based on co-creating value from waste, where he argues that in CE value is no longer created by firms acting autonomously, but by organizations working together through partnerships and alliances. There is currently very limited literature and research on the impact of circular economy strategies on value creation between large firm-small entrepreneur collaborations. In addition to Boken et al.’s theory to business model innovation in CE, an application to Veleva and Bodkin’s (2018) proposed framework for corporate-entrepreneur collaboration in a circular economy will support in assessing the collaborative advantage on the current and future alliances on product reuse or food waste repurposing. Firstly, the authors confirmed in their results that for both entrepreneurs and large companies, establishing long term partnerships with key players in their supply chains is critical for creating and capturing value and for establishing a viable business strategy, (Bocken et al. 2014; Ghisellini et al. 2016; Veleva and Bodkin 2018). As part of the CE value proposition, each organization is capable of leveraging the value of their respective knowledge and intangible benefits. For instance, a smaller entrepreneurial company can offer greater flexibility to CE principles implementation whereas larger companies have the ability to provide global solutions that can garner larger recognition. Reciprocity is such an important concept in collaboration processes and creating alliances with local networks can therefore be stronger and resilient to failure.

7.2   Sustainability Performance and Circular Economy Definition of Sustainability Performance With the development and progress of supply chain, people have increased awareness and requirements on supply chain sustainability performance, encouraging the transition of conventional supply chain towards

7  THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY ADVANTAGE AND IMPLICATIONS… 

65

sustainable supply chain. The three aspects of supply chain sustainability performance are economic, social and environmental performance. Among them, economy refers to the collaboration between intra and inter organisation; society relates to human resources; environment refers to develop a green supply chain. The business should not only consider how could they improve efficiency to add more value to the supply chain, but also consider how green their supply chain could be. The supply chain sustainability performance in the aspects of economic, social and environmental performance could be evaluated with different indicators. For economic performance, the indicators could be supply chain cost and service level; for social performance, indicators consist of labour practices and decent work, human rights, society and product responsibility; for environmental performance, indicators include greenhouse gas emissions, waste generation, energy and water consumption. Sustainability Performance and Circular Economy More and more companies are going above the legal compliance requirements to systematically reduce their environmental impacts and embrace social responsibility, because it helps the company deliver greater value to all stakeholders and can be a source of competitive advantage. The research around building innovative strategies using a sustainable approach and how this influences performance is still very limited. Nevertheless, few studies are focusing on how to measure effectively the “circularity” level of a product, a supply chain or a service. For sustainability commitment to lead to performance improvement, a firm’s operations must work efficiently and cohesively not only across all departments internally but across their supply networks. Bocken et  al. (2014), stresses that a firm incorporating a sustainable business model (SBM), whether revising or an extension to its existing business model, is satisfying a triple bottom line and considers many stakeholders interests, including environment and society. They help drive and implement corporate innovation for sustainability, embed sustainability into business purpose and processes and serve as a key driver of competitive advantage. While the literature on various aspects of sustainability strategy creation, performance indicators and measurement in business and/or food supply chains are limited, the application of sustainable business model enables

66 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

the company to convert resources and capabilities into economic, social and ecological value, in collaboration with value chain partners on the basis of mutually strengthening relations and services. In assessing the sustainability performance to circular economy principles implementation, an emphasis on applying a sustainable business model around a circular value cycle is imperative as it creates, delivers and captures value with and within closed material and service loops. An application of the sustainable business model proposed by Bocken et al. (2014), will analyse the value created from ‘waste’ in applying the 3R principles to circular food economy to the hierarchy of the different waste management alternatives presented earlier. Circular economy and sustainability can only be achieved with buy-in across the entire supply chain. With the limited research exploring the ways in which firms pursuing circular economy principles implementation influences performance, this report aims to verify the impact of circular commitment on collaborative processes and routines, and the collaborative advantage of these dynamic capabilities on performance.

7.3   Summary This chapter explained the relationship between circular economy, collaborative advantage and sustainability performance.

References Barratt, M. (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(1), 30–42. Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. Veleva, V., & Bodkin, G. (2018). Corporate-entrepreneur collaborations to advance a circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 20–37.

CHAPTER 8

Opportunities and Challenges of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains

Abstract  This chapter presents the opportunities of circular agricultural supply chains some of which are reduced costs, differentiation, economic growth, reduced usage of materials, reduced emissions, and creation of new job opportunities. Keywords  Opportunities • Challenges • Circular supply chains

8.1   Opportunities of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains The linear supply chain model is unsustainable and the solution to that is the circular supply chain (CSC) model. This is why the concept of CSC has received attention from businesses and policymakers and many opportunities arise across various sectors including Agriculture. Circular Agricultural Supply Chains (CASC) can lead to significant cost savings which can be achieved through the reduced used of materials and the reuse of materials and products such as food packaging waste, and resources used in production of food products. In the linear supply chain, the prices of the ASC products were highly volatile, and several supply risks were inherent. The CE model provides resilience opportunities as ASC companies are reducing their dependency on natural

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7_8

67

68 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

resource markets and thus reducing the risk of being exposed to price shocks (Colwill et  al. 2016; Masi et  al. 2017). This is supported by WEF (2014) report that indicated apart from cost saving, closing production loops, CE would reduce demand for virgin materials and help mitigate demand driven volatilities on raw material markets and supply chains. Further benefits arise through the use of recycled inputs with higher share of labour costs which leads to reduced business exposure to raw materials volatility (EMF 2014). ASC companies that were previously resource dependent can minimize their reliance on such resources by reusing some material or by using the resources more efficiently. Innovative agricultural businesses could better use materials, improve energy efficiency and leverage new technological developments to improve their return on investments be financially sustainable. In doing so, achieving economic growth, increased business revenues from lower production cost through utilisation of inputs emerging from circular activities. Rethinking ASC and developing new business models emerge from continued innovation leading to competitive advantage for Agri businesses. In addition, emerging technological and organisational innovations underpinning circularity would all provide resource productivity for Agri businesses. The establishment of demand for new business opportunities in CASC with partners such as reverse logistics companies, product marketers, remanufacturers, and creation of jobs are among other benefits associated with circular supply chain (EMF 2015; Bastein et al. 2013). Recent studies by EMF and McKinsey highlights that jobs will be created in a circular economy fuelled by lower prices expected across different sectors and labour intensity quality recycling activities. These jobs are likely to be across sectors such as remanufacturing, industrial sectors, reverse logistics through to SMEs and creation of new entrepreneurs and start-ups in the context of Agri businesses. There are several ASC benefits and opportunities emerging and there would be many more that develop, and the below Table 8.1 provides a summary of the key business, economic, social and environmental opportunities. It is clear that the CASC can lead to improved business, economic, social and environmental growth. In doing so, leading to job creation,

8  OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL… 

69

Table 8.1  Circular supply chain opportunities Opportunities

Factors

Reference(s)

Business/ organizational

Cost savings through substantial net material cost savings Increased brand protection Profit opportunities Leveraged access to new markets, Product differentiation Lower cost of capital and labour Improved risk management and relations with external stakeholders Economic growth New job creation Reduced market volatility and greater security of supply New demand for business services and creation of new markets Technological innovation Economic growth Poverty reduction Wealth creation Improved health and wellbeing Reduced environmental impacts due to better resource usage Reduced use of natural resources Reduced waste Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions Reduced usage of hazardous substances Move to renewable energy supplies Improved biodiversity

Sharma et al. (2010)

Economic

Social

Environmental

EMF (2013, 2014, 2015), Wijkman and Skånberg (2015)

Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) Ghisellini et al.(2016)

EMF (2012, 2013, 2014), Wijkman and Skånberg (2015). Bastein et al. (2013)

innovation, new business models, reduced usage of natural resources, improved supply chain security and reduced waste amounts which are all some of the prominent benefits and opportunities associated with integrating CE principles and practices in ASC management.

70 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

8.2   Challenges of Circular Agricultural Supply Chains The application and adoption of circular economy principles come with not only opportunities but with also several challenges that hinder the way to full implementation of CE principles in ASC and making transition far from being achieved (van Loon and Van Wassenhove 2018). The shift from linear supply chain to CSC involves activities that are high cost related when it comes to, raw materials extraction, production planning, reverse logistics management and distribution and inventory management (Kok et al. 2013). These high upfront investments and long anticipated return on investment periods are factors that have hindered many organisations including Agricultural businesses (especially SMEs) from implementing CE in their supply chains (Oakdene Hollins 2011; Rademaekers et al. 2011). In addition to these the direct costs, there are also indirect costs such as time and human resources that are required as they form a critical role in the implementation of CSC (Yacob et al. 2013; Pan et al. 2015). There are also market related challenges such as: • Ownership issues in product reuse; • Lack of refurbished products resulting in a supply issue; • Low quality refurbished products due to lack of established standards for refurbished products; • Volatile market demand for circular products and; • Legal issues related to retention of products sold. These market factors add more complexity in implementing CE principles in ASC. Identifying supply chain partners is also seen as a key challenge since finding those with appropriate skills and the same level of commitment required for CE implementation is an arduous task. Establishing partnership in the supply chain is not all about developing closer relationships, or integrating processes between supply chain functions or developing close information exchange but also needs implementation of integrated strategies both at tactical and strategic levels in the organisations. An effective and efficient CASC require coordination and information sharing and there is a fundamental need for trusted information sharing in

8  OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL… 

71

the supply chain. The difficulties experienced in information sharing range from the quality of information, quality and inadequate information systems, fear of opportunistic behaviour, lack of common goals and fear of losing sensitive data. Technology is also a key enabler for effective CASC. Therefore, lack of it can be a stumbling block to the integration of CE into the supply chain. One of the biggest benefits of technology in the supply chain is allowing businesses to track and optimize production activities in real time, use smart solutions to reduce energy consumption and full capacity utilization. However, due to financial investments not all Agri businesses especially SMEs are in the position of investing in high cost technology which acts as hurdle for accessing data/information in the supply chain, making decisions how waste materials can be reused, virtualisation of the distribution chains and coordination of material flows (Spanaki et  al. 2019, 2021a, 2021b). Businesses also face internal resistance to change or lack of commitment by employees which makes it difficult to develop or implement CSC strategies. Employees in most cases are not interested in CE implementation or may lack capabilities for being able to understand the benefits of what CE principles has to offer. The Table 8.2 below outlines some of the key CSC challenges although it is to be noted that they are not an exhaustive list but provide an insight into key issues in the context of CSC. It is without doubt that the implementation of CASC comes with significant challenges and the most common barriers include organisational and economic challenges due to limited financial capability due to high cost associated collection and segregation during product returns and high costs of environmentally friendly products. There is also a need for change with user behaviour towards recycled, remanufactured products and incorrect perception of these products for CASC to be successful.

8.3   Summary This chapter presented the opportunities of circular agricultural supply chains some of which are reduced costs, differentiation, economic growth, reduced usage of materials, reduced emissions, and creation of new job opportunities.

72 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Table 8.2  Circular supply chain challenges Challenges Business/ organizational

Factors

Cost of product/waste take back Access to financing and high risk Complex product or packaging design Challenges of management commitment to make strategic transformation within the organization Lack of government assistance such as limited funding options, efficient taxation, import duty Lack of technical capabilities Size and limited bargaining power (most SMEs) Market and competition (e.g. brand and reputation issues, cannibalism) Lack of standards, taxation and policy misalignment Supply chain management challenges such as return flows uncertainty, coordination and information sharing. Organisational leadership and cultural issues Technological challenges such as data privacy and security and product technology improvement Economic Economic and financial viability Lack of awareness and market demand, Policy and technology barriers Political obstacles High upfront costs Complex international supply chains Challenges of company-company cooperation, Legacy systems and innovation challenge Data and indicators Social Lack of consumer enthusiasm, Public participation barriers User behaviour such as user willingness to pay and changing user preferences Lack of skills Culture issues Negative perception of circular economy Lack of understanding Environmental Lack of stakeholder environmental awareness Lack of recycling policies Regulatory barriers Lack of supportive laws on waste management

Reference (s) Valeva and Bodkin (2018) Mangla et al. (2018) Zhu and Geng (2013), Geng and Doberstein (2008) Bressanelli et al. (2019)

Preston (2012) Govindan and Hasanagic (2018)

Geng and Doberstein (2008) Bressanelli et al. (2019) Govindan and Hasanagic (2018)

Su et al. (2013), Li and Yu (2011)

8  OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF CIRCULAR AGRICULTURAL… 

73

References Bastein, A.  G. T.  M., Roelofs, E., Rietveld, E., & Hoogendoorn, A. (2013). Opportunities for a circular economy in the Netherlands (pp. 1–13). Delft: TNO. Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., & Saccani, N. (2019). Challenges in supply chain redesign for the circular economy: A literature review and a multiple case study. International Journal of Production Research, 57(23), 7395–7422. Colwill, J., Despoudi, S., & Bhamra, R. (2016). A review of resilience within the UK food manufacturing sector. In Y. M. Goh & K. Case (Eds.), Advances in transdisciplinary engineering (Vol. 3). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-­ 1-­61499-­668-­2-­451. Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2015). Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe, Available at: 〈http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/books-and-reports#〉Accessed 1/10/2019. EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). (2012). Towards the Circular Economy Volume 1: An Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation. EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). (2013). Towards the Circular Economy Volume 2: Opportunities for the Consumer Goods Sector. UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes. EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). (2014). Towards the Circular Economy Volume 3: Accelerating the Scale up Across Global Supply Chains. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and opportunities for achieving ‘leapfrog development’. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(3), 231–239. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1–2), 278–311. Kok, L., Wurpel, G., & Ten Wolde, E. (2013). Unleashing the Power of the Circular Economy; IMSA Amsterdam: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Li, J., & Yu, K. (2011). A study on legislative and policy tools for promoting the circular economic model for waste management in China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 13(2), 103. Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N. P., Dora, M., & Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country context. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 551–569. Masi, D., Day, S., & Godsell, J. (2017). Supply chain configurations in the circular economy: a systematic literature review. Sustainability, 9(9), 1602.

74 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

Oakdene, H. (2011). “The Further Benefits of Business Resource Efficiency”, Research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Pan, S. Y., Du, M. A., Huang, I. T., Liu, I. H., Chang, E. E., & Chiang, P. C. (2015). Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 409–421. Preston, F. (2012). A global redesign? Shaping the circular economy. London: Chatham House. Rademaekers, K., Zaki, S. S., & Smith, M. (2011). Sustainable Industry: Going for Growth & Resource Efficiency. ECORYS Nederland, 1, 1–164. Sharma, A., Iyer, G. R., Mehrotra, A., & Krishnan, R. (2010). Sustainability and business-to-business marketing: A framework and implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 330–341. Spanaki, D., Karafili, E., & Despoudi, S. (2019). Data sharing in agriculture 4.0: Concepts and challenges. EurOMA conference 2019—Finland. Spanaki, K., Sivarajah, U., Fakhimi, M., Despoud, S., & Irani, Z. (2021a). Disruptive technologies in agricultural operations: A meta-review of AgriTech and AI research. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10479-020-03922-z. Spanaki, K., Karafili, E., Sivarajah, U., Despoud, S., & Irani, Z. (2021b). Artificial intelligence and food security: Swarm intelligence of AgriTech drones for smart AgriFood operations. Production Planning and Control. In press. Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42, 215–227. van Loon, P., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2018). Assessing the economic and environmental impact of remanufacturing: A decision support tool for OEM suppliers. International Journal of Production Research, 56(4), 1662–1674. Veleva, V., & Bodkin, G. (2018). Corporate-entrepreneur collaborations to advance a circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 20–37. Wijkman, A., & Skånberg, K. (2015). The circular economy and benefits for society. Club of Rome. World Economic Forum; Ellen MacArthur Foundation; McKinsey & Company. Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the Scale-Up across Global Supply Chains; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. Yacob, P., Aziz, N. S. B., Makmor, M. B. M., & Zin, A. M. (2013). The policies and green practices of Malaysian SMEs. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(2), 52–74. Zhu, Q., & Geng, Y. (2013). Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for energy saving and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 6–12.

CHAPTER 9

Conclusion and Way Forward

Abstract  This chapter summarises the contents of this book and provides avenues for future research. Keywords  Circular economy • Sustainability • Collaborative advantage • Innovation The importance of CE is becoming more and more important as we are facing climatic change effects and resource limitations. Sustainability is core in any kind of business. companies cannot ignore it anymore and urgent action is needed. In the past years there was a movement from linear to circular supply chains. There are three core practices of CE in supply chains i.e. reduce, reuse, and recycle. However, every sector has its own unique drivers, enablers and barriers. The Agricultural Supply Chains have been characterised as being unsustainable and immediate implementation of CE principles in key in their survival. In this book the specific drivers, enablers and barriers of CE implementation in the ASC were identified and discussed. However, these should be further replicated and researched in specific ASCs as some of these may be country and product specific. Further research is needed to ascertain the existence of these drivers, enablers, and barriers in particular agricultural supply chains. In this book the core practices of CE in ASCs were explained, and relevant case study examples were presented. Future research should present © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7_9

75

76 

S. DESPOUDI ET AL.

more CE examples and other such innovative applications to inform research and practice. Different CE innovations are expected to emerge for different food products and here research could look into particular products and CE practices implementation. CE seems to bring many advantages to ASC entities such as collaborative advantage and improvements in sustainability performance. Future research could look into more specific case study examples of ASC entities and the relative advantages that they achieve through CE implementation. Further research is also needed to replicate the relationship between CE, collaborative advantage and sustainability performance in different ASCs and ASC products. Several opportunities were also found to emerge from CE implementation in ASCs, however these should be considered in relation to the relative challenges in order to make appropriate decisions. Future research should replicate further existence of the opportunities and challenges that have been identified in the research through empirical data collection.

References

Agamuthu, P., K. M. Khidzir, Fauziah Shahul Hamid (2009). Drivers of sustainable waste management in Asia. Waste Management & Research, https://doi. org/10.1177/0734242X09103191 Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A. & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainable supply management: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 168–182. Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. (2015). An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and sustainable supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 360–377. Ala-Harja, H., & Helo, P. (2014). Green supply chain decisions—Case-based performance analysis from the food industry. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 69, 97–107. Alhola, K., Ryding, S. O., Salmenperä, H., & Busch, N. J. (2019). Exploiting the potential of public procurement: Opportunities for circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 96–109. Aminoff, A., & Kettunen, O. (2016, April). Sustainable supply chain management in a circular economy—Towards supply circles. In International conference on sustainable design and manufacturing (pp. 61–72). Cham: Springer. Andrews, D. (2015). The circular economy, design thinking and education for sustainability. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 30(3), 305–315. Aramyan L. H., & Van Gogh J. B. (2014). Reducing postharvest food losses in developing economies by using a network of excellence as an intervention tool. Presented in the IFAMA 2014 and CCA food and agribusiness world forum ‘people feed the world’ in Cape Town, South Africa, June. http://www.ifama.org/files/ conf/papers/988.pdf © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7

77

78 

REFERENCES

ARUP & foundation, E. M. (2018). FROM PRINCIPLES TO PRACTICES: FIRST STEPS TOWARDS A CIRCULAR BUILT ENVIRONMENT. https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/ first-steps-towards-a-circular-built-environment Barratt, M. (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(1), 30–42. Bastein, A.  G. T.  M., Roelofs, E., Rietveld, E., & Hoogendoorn, A. (2013). Opportunities for a circular economy in the Netherlands (pp. 1–13). Delft: TNO. Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Smart, P., & Maull, R. (2018a). In search of a circular supply chain archetype—A content-analysis-based literature review. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 438–451. Batista, L., Gong, Y., Pereira, S., Jia, F., & Bittar, A. (2018b). Circular supply chains in emerging economies—A comparative study of packaging recovery ecosystems in China and Brazil. International Journal of Production Research, 57, 1–21. Beer, S., & Lemmer, C. (2011). A critical review of ‘green’ procurement: Life cycle analysis of food products within the supply chain. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(3), 229–244. Beske, P., Land, A., & Seuring, S. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 131–143. Biswas, A., & Roy, M. (2015). Leveraging factors for sustained green consumption behavior based on consumption value perceptions: testing the structural model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 95, 332–340. Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. Bocken, N. M., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), 308–320. Boulding, K.  E. (1966). The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In H. Jarrett (Ed.), Environmental quality in a growing economy: Essays from the sixth RFF forum (pp. 3–15). Routledge. Brandenburg, M., & Rebs, T. (2015). Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 229(1), 213–252. Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., & Saccani, N. (2018). Challenges in supply chain redesign for the circular economy: A literature review and a multiple case study. International Journal of Production Research, 75, 1–28. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future. In Report of the world commission on environment and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canning, L. (2006). Rethinking market connections: Mobile phone recovery, reuse and recycling in the UK. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(5), 320–329.

 REFERENCES 

79

Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 38(5), 360–387. Castellani, V., Sala, S. & Mirabella, N. (2014). Beyond the throwaway society: A life cycle‐based assessment of the environmental benefit of reuse. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 11(3). Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & supply chain management. Harlow: Pearson UK. Colwill, J., Despoudi, S., & Bhamra, R. (2016). A review of resilience within the UK food manufacturing sector. In Y. M. Goh & K. Case (Eds.), Advances in transdisciplinary engineering (Vol. 3). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-­161499-­668-­2-­451. Coskun, S. et al. (2016). A model proposal for green supply chain network design based on consumer segmentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 110, 149–157. COUNCIL, T. E. P. A. O. T. (2008). Waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0098 Dao, V., Langella, I., & Carbo, J. (2011). From green to sustainability: Information technology and integrated sustainability framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20, 63–79. Darom, N. A. M., & Hishamuddin, H. (2016, March). Integration of economic and environmental aspects in sustainable supply chain management: A review. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on industrial engineering and operations management (pp. 8–10), Kuala Lumpur. De Angelis, R., Howard, M., & Miemczyk, J. (2018). Supply chain management and the circular economy: Towards the circular supply chain. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 425–437. Defra. (2006). Food industry sustainability strategy. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ publications/files/pb11649-­fiss2006-­060411.pdf Delloite. (2013). The food value chain: A challenge for the next century. http:// www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/Consumer Business/2015-­Deloitte-­Ireland-­Food_Value_Chain.pdf Despoudi, S. (2016). An investigation of the collaboration—Postharvest food loss relationship and the effect of the environmental turbulence factors. Loughborough University. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-­j spui/bitstream/2134/ 21785/1/Thesis-­2016-­Despoudi.pdf Despoudi, S. (2019). Optimised food supply chains to reduce food losses, chapter 13 in the book. In C. Galanakis (Ed.), Saving food: Production, supply chain, food waste and food consumption. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Despoudi, S. (2020). Green food supply chain. In C. Galanakis (Ed.), Food industry and the environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­8164495.00002-­3.

80 

REFERENCES

Despoudi, S. (2021). Challenges in reducing food losses at producers’ level: The case of Greek agricultural supply chain producers. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020. 09.022. Despoudi, S., & Dora, M. (2020). Circular food supply chains. Institute of Food Science and Technology, 34(1), 48–51. Despoudi, S., Papaioannou, G., Saridakis, G., & Dani, S. (2018). Does collaboration pay in agricultural supply chain? An empirical approach. International Journal of Production Research, 56, 4396–4417. Despoudi, S., Papaioannou, G., & Dani, S. (2020). Producers responding to environmental turbulence in the Greek agricultural supply chain: Does buyer type matter? Production Planning and Control. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953728 7.2020.1796138. Driscoll, M. (2012). How can we build a sustainable farming system for all? http:// www.theguardian.com/sustainable-­b usiness/blog/farming-­s ystem­principles-­based-­sustainable Du, L., Yu, L., & Cheng, R. (2010, April). The construction research on rapid-­ response eco-supply chain of the textile industry based on the circular economy. In 2010 international conference on E-health networking digital ecosystems and technologies (EDT) (Vol. 1, pp. 248–251). IEEE. Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2015). Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe, Available at: 〈http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/books-and-reports#〉Accessed 1/10/2019. Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation. California Management Review, 36(Winter), 90–100. EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). (2012). Towards the Circular Economy Volume 1: An Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation. EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). (2013). Towards the Circular Economy Volume 2: Opportunities for the Consumer Goods Sector. UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes. EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). (2014). Towards the Circular Economy Volume 3: Accelerating the Scale up Across Global Supply Chains. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Engels F. (1843 [1956]). Outlines of a critique of political economy. In F. Engels (Ed.), On Marx’s capital. Moscow: Progress Publishers. EPA. (2011). Generators of food waste. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/ materials/organics/food/fd-­gener.htm#food-­hier FAO. (2011). Global food losses and waste. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_ upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101–114.

 REFERENCES 

81

Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thurer, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019). Circular supply chain management: A definition and structured literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 882–900. Flanagan, S. (2017). How Can Education Improve The Recycling Behaviors And Attitudes Of Middle School Students. School of Education Student Capstone Theses and Dissertations. Foresight. (2011). Foresight project on global food and farming futures. In Synthesis report C7: Reducing waste. London: The Government Office for Science. Fortes, J. (2009). Green supply chain management: A literature. Otago Management Graduate Review, 7(1), 51–62. Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S.  N., de Carvalho, M.  M., & Evans, S. (2018). Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 712–721. Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and opportunities for achieving ‘leapfrog development’. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(3), 231–239. Geng, F. J., Sarkis, J. & Xue, B. (2012). Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: an evaluation and critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 23(1), 216–224. Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Figueroa, A., & Koh, S. L. (2017). Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega, 66, 344–357. Gereffi, G., & Lee, J. (2012). Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(3), 24–32. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. Gidney, M. (2012). Why a fair supply chain is key to achieving a sustainable food system. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/fairtrade-partnerzone/fair-supply-chain-sustainable-food-system Godfray, H. C., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Nisbett, N., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Toulmin, C., & Whiteley, R. (2010). The future of global food system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 2769–2777. Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1–2), 278–311. Guide, V. D. R., Jr., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Closed-loop supply chains: An introduction to the feature issue (part 1). Production and Operations Management, 15(3), 345–350.

82 

REFERENCES

Gungor, A., & Gupta, S. M. (1999). Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery: A survey. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 36(4), 811–853. Gurtu, A., Searcy, C., & Jaber, M. Y. (2015). An analysis of keywords used in the literature on green supply chain management. Management Research Review, 38(2), 166–194. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Otterdijk, R., & Meyberg, A. (2011). Global food losses and waste. http://www.fao.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf Halkier, B. (2001). Risk and food: Environmental concerns and consumer practices. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 36(8), 801–812. Handfield, R. B., & Nichols, E. L. (1999). Introduction to supply chain management. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Harland, C. M., Caldwell, N. D., Powell, P., & Zheng, J. (2007). Barriers to supply chain information integration: SMEs adrift of eLands. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1234–1254. Hazen, B. T., Mollenkopf, D. A., & Wang, Y. (2017). Remanufacturing for the circular economy: An examination of consumer switching behavior. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 451–464. HM Government. (2010). Food 2030. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/ food/pdf/food2030strategy.pdf Hodges, R., Buzby, J. C., & Benett, B. (2010). Postharvest losses and waste in developed and less developed countries: Opportunities to improve resource use. Journal of Agricultural Science. Cambridge University. Howard, M., Hopkinson, P., & Miemczyk, J. (2018). The regenerative supply chain: A framework for developing circular economy indicators. International Journal of Production Research, 1–19. http://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-­ a-­waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html; https://www.ellenmacart h u r f o u n d a t i o n . o r g / a s s e t s / d o w n l o a d s / T C E _ E l l e n -­M a c A r t h u r­Foundation_9-­Dec-­2015.pdf; https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ circular-­e conomy/concept/infographic; https://www.scmglobe.com/ four-­participants-­in-­every-­supply-­chain/ Kagermann, H. (2015). Change through digitization—Value creation in the age of industry 4.0. In Management of permanent change (pp. 23–45). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Kalmykova, Y., Sadagopan, M., & Rosado, L. (2018). Circular economy—From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 190–201. Kok, L., Wurpel, G., & Ten Wolde, E. (2013). Unleashing the Power of the Circular Economy; IMSA Amsterdam: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Li, J., & Yu, K. (2011). A study on legislative and policy tools for promoting the circular economic model for waste management in China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 13(2), 103.

 REFERENCES 

83

Linton, J. D., Klassen, R., & Jayaraman, V. (2007). Sustainable supply chains: An introduction. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1075–1082. Lundqvist, J., de Fraiture, C., & Molden, D. (2008). Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain, SIWI Policy Brief Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), Stockholm, Sweden. Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2015). Critical success factors of green supply chain management for achieving sustainability in Indian automobile industry. Production Planning & Control, 26(5), 339–362. Lyons, A. C., & Azanizawati, M. (2014). An examination of multi-tier supply chain strategy alignment in the food industry. International Journal of Production Research, 52(7), 1911–1925. Malthus, T. (1798). An essay on the principle of population. http://129.237.201.53/ books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf Manavalan, E., & Jayakrishna, K. (2019). An analysis on sustainable supply chain for circular economy. Procedia Manufacturing, 33, 477–484. Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N. P., Dora, M., & Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country context. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 551–569. Masi, D., Day, S., & Godsell, J. (2017). Supply chain configurations in the circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 9(9), 1602. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books. Mendoza, J., Sharmina, M., Gallego-Schmid, A., Heyes, G., & Azapagic, A. (2017). Integrating Backcasting and Eco-Design for the Circular Economy: The BECE Framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 526–544. Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2), 1–25. Mishra, J. L., Hopkinson, P. G., & Tidridge, G. (2018). Value creation from circular economy-led closed loop supply chains: A case study of fast-moving consumer goods. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 509–521. Morgan, J., & Mitchell, P. (2015). Employment and the circular economy: Job creation in a more resource efficient Britain. London: Green Alliance. Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369–380. Nasir, M. H. A., Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Koh, S. C. L., & Yamoah, F. (2017). Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 183, 443–457. Neto, J. Q. F., Walther, G., Bloemhof, J., Van Nunen, J. A. E. E., & Spengler, T. (2009). A methodology for assessing eco-efficiency in logistics networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 193(3), 670–682.

84 

REFERENCES

Oakdene, H. (2011). “The Further Benefits of Business Resource Efficiency”, Research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Otles, S., Despoudi, S., Bucatariu, C., & Kartal, C. (2014). Food waste production and sustainability in the food industry, chapter 1, in the book. In C. Galanakis (Ed.), Food waste recovery: Processing technologies and Techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pan, S.  Y., Du, M.  A., Huang, I.  T., Liu, I.  H., Chang, E.  E., & Chiang, P. C. (2015). Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 409–421. Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 710–718. Porterfield, T. E., Bailey, J. P., & Evers, P. T. (2010). B2B eCommerce: An empirical investigation of information exchange and firm performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(6), 435–455. Premanandh, J. (2011). Factors affecting food security and contribution of modern technologies in food sustainability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 91(15), 2707–2714. Preston, F. (2012). A global redesign? Shaping the circular economy. London: Chatham House. Quariguasi Frota Neto, J., & Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M. (2009). The environmental gains of remanufacturing: evidence from the computer and mobile industry. ERIM report series reference no. ERS-2009-024-LIS. Rademaekers, K., Zaki, S. S., & Smith, M. (2011). Sustainable Industry: Going for Growth & Resource Efficiency. ECORYS Nederland, 1, 1–164. Rockström, J., Steffen, W. L., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E., Lenton, T.  M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.  J., & Nykvist, B. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. Salminen, V., Ruohomaa, H., & Kantola, J. (2017). Digitalization and big data supporting responsible business co-evolution. In Advances in human factors, business management, training and education (pp. 1055–1067). Cham: Springer. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710. Shahbazi, S., Wiktorsson, M., Kurdve, M., Jönsson, C., & Bjelkemyr, M. (2016). Material efficiency in manufacturing: Swedish evidence on potential, barriers and strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127, 438–450. Sharma, A., Iyer, G. R., Mehrotra, A., & Krishnan, R. (2010). Sustainability and business-to-business marketing: A framework and implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 330–341.

 References 

85

Simatupang, T. M., & Sridharan, R. (2005). The collaboration index: a measure for supply chain collaboration. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Singh, J., & Ordoñez, I. (2016). Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: Important lessons for the upcoming circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 342–353. Spanaki, D., Karafili, E., & Despoudi, S. (2019). Data sharing in agriculture 4.0: Concepts and challenges. EurOMA conference 2019—Finland. Spanaki, K., Sivarajah, U., Fakhimi, M., Despoud, S., & Irani, Z. (2021a). Disruptive technologies in agricultural operations: A meta-review of AgriTech and AI research. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10479-020-03922-z. Spanaki, K., Karafili, E., Sivarajah, U., Despoud, S., & Irani, Z. (2021b). Artificial intelligence and food security: Swarm intelligence of AgriTech drones for smart AgriFood operations. Production Planning and Control. In press. Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 53–80. Stadtler, H. et al. (2015). Supply chain management and advanced planning: concepts, models, software, and case studies. Springer. Stahel, W. (2013). Policy for material efficiency—Sustainable taxation as a departure from the throwaway society. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1986), 20110567. Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., & Yu, X. (2013). A review of the circular economy in China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42, 215–227. Sustain. (2015). Sustainable food. http://www.sustainweb.org/publications/ the_sustain_guide_to_good_food/ SustainAbility. (2011). Appetite for change. http://www.sustainability.com/ library/appetite-­for-­change#.Tzzj5Vy15WU Tukker, A. (2015). Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy—a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 76–91. van Loon, P., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2018). Assessing the economic and environmental impact of remanufacturing: A decision support tool for OEM suppliers. International Journal of Production Research, 56(4), 1662–1674. Van Weelden, E., Mugge, R., & Bakker, C. (2016). Paving the way towards circular consumption: Exploring consumer acceptance of refurbished mobile phones in the Dutch market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 743–754. Veleva, V., & Bodkin, G. (2018). Corporate-entrepreneur collaborations to advance a circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 20–37. Vermeulen, S., Campbell, B., & Ingram, J. (2012). Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 195–222.

86 

References

Vidal, J. (2012). The future of food. Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/ global-­development/2012/jan/22/future-­of-­food-­john-­vidal Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., & McBain, D. (2008). Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: Lessons from the public and private sectors. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14(1), 69–85. Wang, Z., Mathiyazhagan, K., Xu, L., & Diabat, A. (2016). A decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers to green supply chain management adoption in a food packaging company. Journal of Cleaner Production, 117, 19–28. Webster, K. (2013). What Might We Say about a Circular Economy? Some Temptations to Avoid if Possible. World Futures, 69(7-8), 542–554. Weetman, C. (2016). A circular economy handbook for business and supply chains: Repair, remake, redesign, rethink. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Wells, P., & Seitz, M. (2005). Business models and closed-loop supply chains: A typology. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(4), 249–251. Wijkman, A., & Skånberg, K. (2015). The circular economy and benefits for society. Club of Rome. World Economic Forum; Ellen MacArthur Foundation; McKinsey & Company. Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the Scale-Up across Global Supply Chains; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. Yacob, P., Aziz, N. S. B., Makmor, M. B. M., & Zin, A. M. (2013). The policies and green practices of Malaysian SMEs. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(2), 52–74. Ying, J., & Li-jun, Z. (2012). Study on green supply chain management based on circular economy. Physics Procedia, 25, 1682–1688. Yuan, Z., Bi, J., & Moriguichi, Y. (2008). The circular economy: A new development strategy in China. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(1–2), 4–8. Zorzini, M., Hendry, L., Huq, F., & Stevenson, M. (2015). Socially responsible sourcing: reviewing the literature and its use of theory. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(1), 60–109. Zhu, Q., & Geng, Y. (2013). Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for energy saving and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 6–12. Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., & Lai, K.  H. (2010). Circular economy practices among Chinese manufacturers varying in environmental-oriented supply chain cooperation and the performance implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(6), 1324–1331.

Index

NUMBERS, AND SYMBOLS 3R, 20, 22, 49, 54, 56, 66 A Agricultural Supply Chains (ASC), v, 1–4, 11, 32, 46, 71, 75 B Business status, 2, 33, 46 C Circular Agricultural Supply Chains, v, xi, 1, 2, 27–46, 50–60, 67–71 Circular economy, v, vi, xi, xii, 1, 2, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 25, 33–36, 38, 40–45, 48, 49, 52–56, 61, 63, 66, 68, 70, 72 Circular Supply Chain (CSC), 25–27 Climatic change, 1, 11, 75 Collaborative advantage, v, 1, 2, 63, 66, 76

Consumers, 3, 5, 6, 8–10, 21, 26, 28, 30, 31, 36, 37, 51, 53 Cultural enablers, 38–39 Customer awareness, 2, 28, 33, 46 and brand image, 36–37 D Drivers, v, 1, 2, 17, 18, 20, 23, 33, 38, 46, 49, 75 of circular economy, 1, 23 E Economic activities, 36 Economic drivers, 2, 18, 19, 33, 46 Environmental issues, 6, 28, 30, 36 Environmental sustainability, 26 F Farmers, 8, 53, 57 Financial enablers, 40 Food insecurity, v, 1, 6, 7, 11, 35, 48

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Despoudi et al., From Linear to Circular Food Supply Chains, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72673-7

87

88 

INDEX

Food Losses (FL), v, 1, 8, 11, 31 Food production, 4, 7–9, 52, 57 Food safety, v, 1, 5, 10, 11, 35 G Global food crisis, v, 1, 11 Government support, 2, 33, 46 and legislation, 37–38 H Human activities, 2, 33–35, 46 I Internal enablers, 40 K Knowledge, 2, 30, 33, 35, 40, 44, 46, 64 L Leadership, 2, 33, 37, 38, 46, 72 Linear supply chain, 17, 19, 28, 67, 70 N Natural environment, 4, 5, 8 Natural resources, v, 1, 4–8, 10, 11, 16, 28, 40, 69 P Packaging, 10, 21, 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 43, 50, 51, 53, 58–60, 67, 72

Principles of circular economy, 1, 2, 23, 55 Profitability, 4, 17, 20, 22, 52 Public health, 2, 33, 35, 46 R Recycle, v, 2, 20, 21, 23, 51, 53, 75 Recycle practice, 21–22, 52–54 Reduce, v, 2, 9, 17, 18, 20–23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 65, 68, 71, 75 Reduction practice, 20–21, 50–51 Regulations, 2, 17, 30, 31, 33, 37, 43, 46 Regulatory enablers, 39 Resource availability, 19 Reuse, v, 2, 11, 20–23, 27, 29, 37, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 64, 67, 70, 75 Reuse practice, 21, 51–52 Risks, 6, 17, 18, 20, 29, 44, 48, 64, 67 S Sectorial enablers, 41 Socially sustainable, 4 Society, 4–6, 28, 45, 65 Stakeholders, 11, 17, 19–21, 31, 36, 37, 39–41, 53, 54, 60, 65, 69 Supply chain management (SCM), 27 Sustainability, v, xi, 1–11, 17, 18, 20, 26, 29–31, 34, 35, 40, 47, 48, 50, 63–66, 75, 76 Sustainable food, 4, 5