Table 2 Analysis of prevention and...

Table 2

Analysis of prevention and reduction options identified along the retail internal SC stages

		Effect
Option	Rationale	Inv.^1a	Time^1b	Impa.^1c	Impl.²	Main barriers
(a) Inbound logistics
(a.1) Sourcing approach	Higher supplier reliability; more inbound transport bundling	↓	↓	med	low	Supplier dependency; competitive pressure
(a.2) Supplier collaboration	Higher supplier reliability	↓	–	med	low	Supplier dependency; IT integration; data quality; data protection regulation
(a.3) Inbound product flows	Shorter lead time by DSD	↑	↓	high	med	Supplier dependency; processing costs
	More frequent deliveries by CD	↓	↓	high	med	Supplier dependency; processing costs
(a.4) Minimum order quantities and pack sizes	Aligning minimum order quantities and pack sizes to demand	↓	–	med	med	Supplier dependency
(a.5) Order cycles and volumes	More frequent deliveries; higher accuracy of demand forecasts	↓	–	high	low	Supplier dependency; incentive misalignment; processing costs
(a.6) Quality inspection	Higher supplier reliability; prioritized distribution of flawed products	↓	–	high	med	Processing costs; subjectivity of quality assessment; IT integration
(b) Warehousing and distribution
(b.1) Delivery pattern	More frequent deliveries to stores	↓	↓	high	low	Processing costs
(b.2) Push allocation of warehouse stocks	Early distribution of emerging overstocks prolongs sales time window	–	↓	high	low	Inventory transparency; data quality
(b.3) Picking operations	Decreasing storage time and increasing sales time window	–	↓	low	low	Inventory transparency; processing costs
(b.4) Transship- ment btw. Stores	Demand pooling across multiple stores	↓	–	low	low	Inventory transparency; processing costs; network density
(c) Upstream store operations
(c.1) Assortment sizes	Pooling demand; improving forecasting accuracy	↓	–	very high	low	Competitive pressure
(c.2) Imperfect produce	Decreasing food loss at the agriculture and processing stage	↑	–	low	med	Cannibalization effect
(c.3) Differentiating service levels	Decreasing permanent availability; leveraging substitutions between products (pooling demand)	↓	–	very high	low	Competitive pressure
(c.4) Forecasting store demand	Improving forecasting accuracy	↓	–	very high	very high	Data quality; IT integration; employee qualification and motivation
(c.5) Shelf merchandising	Product arrangement using the FEFO principle	–	↓	high	high	Processing costs; employee qualifications and motivation
(d) Downstream store operations
(d.1) Food waste monitoring and analysis	Increasing transparency about root causes and its analysis	↓	–	very high	very high	Data quality; employee qualification and motivation
(d.2) Discounting of overstocks	Demand stimulation by expiration-date-based pricing	–	↓	very high	very high	Processing costs; cannibalization effect; brand image
(e) Salvaging
(e.1) Further processing internally	Refinement of products	–	–	med	med	Processing costs; food law regulations
(e.2) Take-back agreements	Supplier returns; incentive for stronger collaboration	–	–	low	low	Processing costs
(e.3) Secondary channels	Salvaging overstocks	–	–	med	high	Processing costs; food law regulations
(e.4) Donations	Salvaging overstocks	–	–	very high	very high	Processing costs; food law regulations

		Effect
Option	Rationale	Inv.^1a	Time^1b	Impa.^1c	Impl.²	Main barriers
(a) Inbound logistics
(a.1) Sourcing approach	Higher supplier reliability; more inbound transport bundling	↓	↓	med	low	Supplier dependency; competitive pressure
(a.2) Supplier collaboration	Higher supplier reliability	↓	–	med	low	Supplier dependency; IT integration; data quality; data protection regulation
(a.3) Inbound product flows	Shorter lead time by DSD	↑	↓	high	med	Supplier dependency; processing costs
	More frequent deliveries by CD	↓	↓	high	med	Supplier dependency; processing costs
(a.4) Minimum order quantities and pack sizes	Aligning minimum order quantities and pack sizes to demand	↓	–	med	med	Supplier dependency
(a.5) Order cycles and volumes	More frequent deliveries; higher accuracy of demand forecasts	↓	–	high	low	Supplier dependency; incentive misalignment; processing costs
(a.6) Quality inspection	Higher supplier reliability; prioritized distribution of flawed products	↓	–	high	med	Processing costs; subjectivity of quality assessment; IT integration
(b) Warehousing and distribution
(b.1) Delivery pattern	More frequent deliveries to stores	↓	↓	high	low	Processing costs
(b.2) Push allocation of warehouse stocks	Early distribution of emerging overstocks prolongs sales time window	–	↓	high	low	Inventory transparency; data quality
(b.3) Picking operations	Decreasing storage time and increasing sales time window	–	↓	low	low	Inventory transparency; processing costs
(b.4) Transship- ment btw. Stores	Demand pooling across multiple stores	↓	–	low	low	Inventory transparency; processing costs; network density
(c) Upstream store operations
(c.1) Assortment sizes	Pooling demand; improving forecasting accuracy	↓	–	very high	low	Competitive pressure
(c.2) Imperfect produce	Decreasing food loss at the agriculture and processing stage	↑	–	low	med	Cannibalization effect
(c.3) Differentiating service levels	Decreasing permanent availability; leveraging substitutions between products (pooling demand)	↓	–	very high	low	Competitive pressure
(c.4) Forecasting store demand	Improving forecasting accuracy	↓	–	very high	very high	Data quality; IT integration; employee qualification and motivation
(c.5) Shelf merchandising	Product arrangement using the FEFO principle	–	↓	high	high	Processing costs; employee qualifications and motivation
(d) Downstream store operations
(d.1) Food waste monitoring and analysis	Increasing transparency about root causes and its analysis	↓	–	very high	very high	Data quality; employee qualification and motivation
(d.2) Discounting of overstocks	Demand stimulation by expiration-date-based pricing	–	↓	very high	very high	Processing costs; cannibalization effect; brand image
(e) Salvaging
(e.1) Further processing internally	Refinement of products	–	–	med	med	Processing costs; food law regulations
(e.2) Take-back agreements	Supplier returns; incentive for stronger collaboration	–	–	low	low	Processing costs
(e.3) Secondary channels	Salvaging overstocks	–	–	med	high	Processing costs; food law regulations
(e.4) Donations	Salvaging overstocks	–	–	very high	very high	Processing costs; food law regulations

Note(s): ^1a,b,c Decrease (↓) or increase (↑) of [a] lot sizes and overall inventory at the retailer's SC (including safety stocks) and [b] total throughput time from supplier to customer; [c] Expected overall impact on food waste

² Implementation level indicated by share of retailers who report the option as implemented at a percentage of 0–25% as low, 25–50% as medium, 50–75% as high and >75% as very high

Source(s): Created by authors

[ViewLarge]