Why Food‐Waste Strategies Stall: Decision Procedures for Environmental Management in Food‐System Firms

ABSTRACT Reducing food waste is a common corporate sustainability goal, yet firms continue to generate avoidable waste despite setting targets and investing in measurement systems. Using 19 cases from a study of 22 interviews across 20 food‐system firms, we examined the tools used and how waste‐relevant decisions were made. More successful implementation followed an ‘embedded translation pathway’, where priorities were supported by clear procedures at operational decision windows. These comprised routing defaults that prioritised destinations for surplus food; threshold rules that linked specified conditions to actions; and lightweight optimisation that selected among options within defined constraints. Stalled implementation exhibited an ‘erosion chain’ linking information decay, loss of trust in tools and metrics, and constraints encoded in tools and routines. These findings help explain why adoption of environmental management tools often fails to change operational practices, and help managers identify where waste prevention is feasible and where only improved diversion is achievable.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
Published
2026-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.71128
Primary Topic
Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Why Food‐Waste Strategies Stall: Decision Procedures for Environmental Management in Food‐System Firms

Debra Polson, Simon Lockrey, Roland Somlai, Julian Waters-Lynch
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
article

Why Food‐Waste Strategies Stall: Decision Procedures for Environmental Management in Food‐System Firms

Debra Polson, Simon Lockrey, Roland Somlai, Julian Waters-Lynch
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Reducing food waste is a common corporate sustainability goal, yet firms continue to generate avoidable waste despite setting targets and investing in measurement systems. Using 19 cases from a study of 22 interviews across 20 food‐system firms, we examined the tools used and how waste‐relevant decisions were made. More successful implementation followed an ‘embedded translation pathway’, where priorities were supported by clear procedures at operational decision windows. These comprised routing defaults that prioritised destinations for surplus food; threshold rules that linked specified conditions to actions; and lightweight optimisation that selected among options within defined constraints. Stalled implementation exhibited an ‘erosion chain’ linking information decay, loss of trust in tools and metrics, and constraints encoded in tools and routines. These findings help explain why adoption of environmental management tools often fails to change operational practices, and help managers identify where waste prevention is feasible and where only improved diversion is achievable.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
Alfaisal University (SA), MIT University (MK), RMIT University (AU)
Responsible consumption and production
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
Why Food‐Waste Strategies Stall: Decision Procedures for Environmental Management in Food‐System Firms — Debra Polson, Simon Lockrey, et al. · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS