Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Analysis of challenges inhibiting the reduction of waste in food supply

chain
Samir Gokarn*, Thyagaraj S. Kuthambalayan
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM), Dhanbad 826004, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main objective of this paper is to identify and analyse the effectiveness of challenges inhibiting the
Received 6 March 2017 reduction of waste in Indian agri-food supply chain (AFSC). The reduction of food waste impacts posi-
Received in revised form tively all three dimensions of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental). Thirty-three chal-
24 August 2017
lenges inhibiting reduction of waste in AFSC are identified by a review of the literature and a consultation
Accepted 3 September 2017
with experts in the Indian food industry and academia. These challenges are grouped using Exploratory
Available online 5 September 2017
Factor Analysis into a super-set of nine challenges. The inter-relationship and respective dominance
among these nine challenges is then determined using Interpretive Structural Modelling and MICMAC
Keywords:
Food waste
analysis. The group of independent challenges (food characteristics, supply chain uncertainty, market
Agri-food supply chain infrastructure, and food policy and regulation) have higher driving power and low dependency, and
Interpretive Structural Modelling require maximum attention. These four challenges constrain decisions at the three-decision-making
Exploratory Factor Analysis echelon (strategic, tactical, and operational) and each of the supply-chain echelons. The group of
dependent challenges (supply chain partnerships, operational capability, and supply chain networks)
have high dependence and low driving power and are resultant effects. The challenge, information
technology, with high driving and dependence power, is a linkage variable. It acts as an enabler of
dependent variables, and it mitigates the complexities due to food characteristics and uncertainty. The
challenge, consumer behaviour, with low driving and dependence power, is an autonomous variable. It
has little influence on waste reduction in Indian AFSC. This study highlights the importance of con-
ducting region-specific study of supply chains and promotes sustainable practice.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and misshapen produce), and increased governmental food safety

Supply chain management is essential because of the high level
of dependencies between different stages. The concept was intro-
duced in the early 1980s (Oliver and Webber, 1982) and has
attracted much attention since the 1990s. Most studies, however,
focus on manufactured products and service and not on food sector.
Food sector is a significant part of any economy and deserves
attention. This study focuses on agri-food, and is restricted to foods
of plant origin.
Agri-food industry in developed countries is re-organising and
adopting supply chain management practice. This is prompted by
competition from multinational corporations in the food process-
ing and retailing sector, growing consumer intolerance of sub-
standard foods (even towards cosmetic defects such as blemishes
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: samirgokarn@gmail.com (S. Gokarn).
regulations (Chen, 2006).
The main concern in agri-food supply chain (AFSC) is food
wastage. The food, if not consumed, is a waste, despite its non-food
use (Gustavsson et al., 2011). The loss in weight (or volume) and
alteration in physical conditions or characteristics of produce are
referred to as ‘food loss’. Food loss is a subset of food waste (Tsolakis
et al., 2014).
It is estimated that one third of all food produced for human
consumption is wasted (FAO, 2014; FAO, 2017). The waste of food is
a non-productive use of scarce resources (land and water) and leads
to environmental degradation (FAO, 2014). The impact of food
waste on the three dimensions of sustainability, economic (‘Profit’),
social (‘People’), and environmental (‘Planet’), is summarised in
Table 1. The effective management of AFSC has significant impli-
cations for food waste and sustainability (Humphrey and
Memedovic, 2006).
In developed countries, 70e80% of food is processed and
rigorous quality standards are the prime cause of wastage at agri-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.028
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
596 S. Gokarn, T.S. Kuthambalayan / Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604
Table 1
Impacts of food waste on the three dimensions of sustainability.
Economic Social
Reduction in profit Decrease in nutrition level and increases in susceptibility to
micronutrient deficiencies and the related diseases.
Increase in cost for disposal and Increase in price of food, which negatively affects access.
treatment of waste
Decrease in financial resources for Reduction in labour productivity and wages
investment in other sectors
food production and produce processing stage. At the distributor
and wholesaler/retailer it is due to overstocking, and at households,
it is due to buying in excess of need. The food wastage at the retail
and consumer stage is significantly more than that at the early
supply chain stages (Priefer et al., 2016).
However, in developing countries, the food wastage is higher at
the immediate post-harvest stages (Parfitt et al., 2010). In India,
from the wholesale market to the consumer there is very little food
wastage as there is a market for any type and grade of product.
There is a lack of understanding of ways to improve the supply
chain, upstream of the whole-seller.
The analysis of supply chains must be region specific. The rela-
tive importance of challenges inhibiting reduction of waste in AFSC
differs by region. Indian diet consists chiefly of vegetables, grains,
and pulses and less of meat, leading us to focus on agri-food. Most
studies on AFSC are generic, lacking focus on a particular region,
and with a focus on operational issues (Shukla and Jharkharia,
2013). India's agriculture sector and population, are one of the
largest in the world. Agriculture contributes to 20% of GDP and
provides employment to 50% of the population. An improved un-
derstanding of waste reduction in its AFSC has important implica-
tions for global food security.
The main contributions of this study are:
1. The identification of thirty-three challenges inhibiting reduction
of waste in AFSC by a review of the literature and brainstorming
amongst experts in the Indian food industry and academia. The
underlying relationships among these challenges is uncovered
using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and the similar chal-
lenges are grouped into a super-set of ‘nine’ challenges, which
represent all other challenges within them.
2. The inter-relationship and the respective dominance among
these ‘nine’ challenges are determined by using Interpretive
Structural Modelling (ISM) and MICMAC analysis; and
3. Managerial insight is provided which should help all stake-
holders, involved in designing and managing the AFSC, to
reduce waste and improve sustainable practice.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2
provides the related literature and positions our work in the liter-
ature. Section 3 discusses the use of EFA and ISM approach. Section
4 presents the results. Section 5 discusses the results. Section 6
concludes and provides directions for future research.
2. Literature review
A vast majority of the literature on AFSC still tend to focus on
maximising firms revenue and improving consumer satisfaction
with a reduction in food waste being a secondary objective (Shukla
and Jharkharia, 2013). The principal objective of this study is
reduction in waste of agri-food, specifically, foods of plant origin.
Both, long shelf-life produce (e.g., grains, pulses) and short shelf-
life/perishable/fresh produce (fruits and vegetables), are
considered.
Environmental
Increase in emissions of greenhouse gas methane
Non-productive use of water and of agricultural land.
Waste of non-renewable energy.
Tsolakis et al. (2014) classify existing research efforts on AFSC
along strategic, tactical, and operational decision-making echelons.
Most studies are narrowly focused on distinct decision-making
echelon and supply chain echelon (suggesting a need for a holis-
tic approach).
Shukla and Jharkharia (2013) review literature related to the
supply chain of fresh produce. They identify a lack of focus on issues
in developing countries where most research is state funded and
oriented towards increasing food grain production and not waste
reduction. The food wastage has consequently increased along with
food production.
Table 2 provides the literature relevant to Indian AFSC. Of these
studies, except Balaji and Arshinder (2016), the remaining focus on
a specific challenge inhibiting reduction of food waste, or, on a
single issue at a specific supply chain stage, or, on improvement in
supply chain cost/competitiveness (reduction of waste is not the
main objective). These studies thus provide a ‘silo’ view of means to
reduce waste in AFSC.
2.1. Positioning of this study
Food waste along the AFSC is due to interrelated challenges with
lack of actions at a stage affecting food waste at other stages. So, a
broader perspective (which is missing in most studies) is required
to identify the challenges inhibiting waste reduction and to deter-
mine their inter-relationship and their respective dominance. In
this direction, Balaji and Arshinder (2016) identify sixteen chal-
lenges, by a review of the literature and brainstorming amongst
experts in the Indian food industry and academia. They then apply
Total Interpretive Structural Modelling and Fuzzy MICMAC
approach to determine the inter-relationship among these chal-
lenges and their respective dominance.
In this study, a total of thirty-three challenges are identified
(please refer Table 4) by a similar process. Nine of these challenges
belong to the strategic and eight belong to the tactical and opera-
tional, decision-making echelon. The remaining sixteen challenges
stem from (1) unique characteristics of the agri-food, (2) uncer-
tainty present in the AFSC, (3) behavioural aspects of the con-
sumers, and (4) inadequate national food policy and regulation.
This study departs significantly from that of Balaji and Arshinder
(2016) due to the identification and analysis of these ‘sixteen’
challenges, as they add to the complexities of decision-making at all
three, strategic, tactical, and operational, levels. Most of the chal-
lenges identified are relevant to each of the supply-chain echelon.
This addresses the shortcoming identified by Tsolakis et al. (2014).
From a methodological point of view, like Balaji and Arshinder
(2016), ISM is used to simplify and determine the direction of re-
lationships among challenges using expert knowledge (Warfield,
1974). Few significant references to literature on the applications
of ISM methodology in India is provided by Diabat et al. (2014).
The effectiveness of ISM methodology depends on the knowl-
edge of experts. So unlike Balaji and Arshinder (2016), to simplify
ISM procedure and reduce the possibility of error, EFA is used to
group similar challenges into a super-set of ‘nine’ challenges which
 S. Gokarn, T.S. Kuthambalayan / Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604 597

Table 2
Studies on Indian AFSC.

Sources Agri-food Objective

Arivazhagan et al. (2012) Fresh produce Analysis of waste at retail outlets.

Balaji and Arshinder (2016)
Cardoen et al. (2015)
Faisal and Talib (2016)
Joshi et al. (2009)
Murthy et al. (2009)
Parwez (2014)
Sagheer et al. (2009b)
Sachan et al. (2005)
Shukla et al. (2014)
Sagheer et al. (2009a)
Fresh produce Analyse the interactions among causes of waste and identify the dominant causes.
Generic Assessment of waste at the production stage.
Generic Improving the traceability in food supply chain in response to stringent market demand conditions.
Fresh produce Improving the efficiency of a cold chain.
Fruits Assessment of wastage in fruits along the supply chain.
Generic Analysis of the status of information technology infrastructure in AFSC.
Generic Analysis of interaction in AFSC network between the human components
(farmer-producer, processor, exporter/retailer, human resources, and national government),
non-human components (regulatory scenario, food quality systems and infrastructure),
and the global market share.
Food grains Analysis of different foodgrain supply chain model based on total supply chain cost and the ratio of cost,
at the consumer end and at the farmer end.
Processed food Food safety regulatory model for processing and manufacturing industry.
Generic Analyse standards compliance.

then represent all other challenges within them. This differs from
the commonly used method to ask experts to rate the importance
of the challenges and drop from the list the challenges with low
average rating. This process has the associated risk of dropping a
relevant challenge. ISM and MICMAC approach is applied to the
challenges in the super-set. The application of EFA, ISM and
MICMAC approach to the problem of waste reduction in Indian
AFSC is a unique effort and adds to the literature.
3. Method
A review of the literature and a consultation with experts in the
Indian food industry and academia leads to the identification of
challenges inhibiting reduction of waste in AFSC. Table 3 provides
the profile of these experts and Table 4 provides the description of
the 33 challenges identified. In this section, the application of EFA,
ISM, and MICMAC methods, is discussed.
3.1. Application of EFA
A large number of challenges increase the possibility of error in
establishing contextual relationship using ISM approach. Hence,
EFA, a multivariate statistical procedure, has been used to reduce
the number of challenges to a manageable number.
The target population was the stakeholders of Indian food in-
dustry. The respondents were managers, researchers, academi-
cians, and policy makers having knowledge of AFSC. A
questionnaire survey based on the identified items was developed.
Respondents rated each variable on a five-point Likert-type scale.
The scale value indicates the degree to which the variable is rele-
vant to waste reduction in AFSC (1- not at all important and 5-
extremely important). The questionnaire was self-administered. A
total of 350 respondents were consulted in a period of six months
and 134 responses collected. Of these, 127 responses (from 25
managers, 52 researchers, 43 academicians, and 7 policy makers)
were found complete in all respect, and valid.
Sample size is important in factor analysis, but there is little
consensus on adequate sample size. One guiding rules of thumb by
Hair et al. (1998), for factor analysis, is a sample size of at least 100
and a sample to variable ratio of at least 3:1. The sample size in this
study meets these criteria. To ensure the suitability of respondent
data for factor analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy was determined. The KMO value was found to
be 0.843 (which is greater than the recommended value of 0.5).
Factors were extracted using Orthogonal Varimax rotation (the
most common rotation technique used in factor analysis) and
Principal Component Analysis (which produce uncorrelated factor
structures). The cumulative percent of variance explained and
eigenvalue (>1) criteria were used in factor extraction.
ISM approach establishes the relationships among the identified
factors (challenges) and its application is discussed next.
3.2. Application of ISM method
In ISM method, experts from academia and industry (previously
identified and whose profile is given in Table 3) were consulted for
inputs needed to establish relationships among challenges. ISM
methodology is thus interpretive in nature. It creates an under-
standing of the interactions among factors and their in-between
structure (by arranging the factors into a hierarchy). The ISM
approach is as follows:
1. Determine pair-wise relationships among the challenges to
obtain a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM).
2. Determine the transitivity relationships to obtain a reachability
matrix from SSIM.
3. Partition the reachability matrix into different levels.
4. Develop the ISM model based on the final reachability matrix
and the outcome of level partition.
5. Check the conceptual inconsistency of the ISM based model and
make necessary modifications.

Table 3
Profile of experts.

Expert Number Years of experience Type of Activity Designation

1 26 Food Processor Chief Executive

2 08 Organised Retailer Store Manager
3 25 Aggregator and Producer Chief Executive
4 11 Food Processor Senior Manager-Operations
5 13 Organised Retailer Store Manager
6 22 Academics Professor
7 11 Academics Associate Professor
598 S. Gokarn, T.S. Kuthambalayan / Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604

Table 4
Challenges inhibiting reduction of waste in AFSC.

Sr. Item Source (s) Description

No.

Strategic level
1 Complex market Priefer et al. (2016) The market system helps bidders and sellers interact and make deals. It is the system of regulation, credentials,
system reputation, and clearing, in a social context, which surrounds the price mechanism.
2 Inefficient distribution Ahumada and A distribution network is the configuration of the facilities to transfer goods from the supply to the demand points in
network Villalobos (2011) the best possible manner. The design decision involves the number of facilities, their function, and their location.
3 Inefficient procurement Boudahri et al. (2011) Procurement channels comprise: requisition, purchase, and invoice channels, and facilitate Purchase-to-Pay process
channels while maintaining user-friendliness, control & visibility, and efficiency.
4 Inefficient Boudahri et al. (2011) A transportation network is a realisation of a spatial network, whose objective is to deliver commodities at the agreed
transportation time and at the agreed location.
networks
5 Lack of cooperation Beulens et al. (2005) Cooperation implies having a common goal and a positive attitude towards each other. It does not imply a close
working relationship.
6 Lack of coordination Hobbs and Young Coordination implies a close working relationship and joint decision-making.
(2000)
7 Lack of supply chain Poole et al. (1998) Clauses in the contract aim to achieve coordination by providing a suitable incentive to both parties.
contracts
8 Lack of trust Beulens et al. (2005) Trust refers to a firm‘s expectation that their partners will act to benefit their (firm‘s) interests regardless of their
ability to monitor such behaviour.
9 Lack of cold chain & Joshi et al. (2009) A cold chain refers to the refrigerated storage and distribution activities.
storage
10 Lack of processing Bhatnagar and Sohal Processing of food serves to prevent spoilage and retain its nutritive value.
facility (2005)
Tactical & Operational level
11 Lack of traceability Wilson and Clarke It refers to the knowledge of life history of a product.
(1998)
12 Lack of technical Joshi et al. (2009) Technical expertise refers to a persons’ knowledge or skill and his ability to perform a particular task well.
expertise
13 Lack of technical Kaipia et al. (2013) Technical support refers to the help and advice provided by a firm, about their products, to its customers.
support
14 Lack of communication Kaipia et al. (2013) Communication ensures smooth operations by providing visibility and information across the supply chain.
15 Poor harvesting Ahumada and The timing of planting and harvesting are dictated by market conditions and the biological nature of the grower's
planning Villalobos (2011) product.
16 Poor packaging Williams et al. (2008) It is the ability to package products with minimum damage or loss.
efficiency
17 Poor storage facility Murthy et al. (2009) It refers to the available infrastructure for storage of produce at intermediaries in the supply chain.
18 Poor transportation Higgins et al. (2004) It refers to the transportation of produce such that it reaches the destination at the agreed time in a convenient,
planning economical, and environment-friendly manner.
Constraints
19 Bulkiness (Size) Van der Vorst et al. The bulkiness of the fresh produce adds to the transportation, handling and packaging difficulty.
(2007)
20 Consumerism Parfitt et al. (2010) It refers to the purchasing in excess of need.
21 Consumer attitude Parfitt et al. (2010) It refers to the consumers' intolerance of substandard foods, which includes any cosmetic defects such as blemishes
and misshapen produce.
22 Consumer habits Parfitt et al. (2010) It refers to the consumer habit of throwing away food.
23 Demand uncertainty Taylor and Fearne Demand uncertainty refers to the difficulty in accurately projecting customer demand in the future. Even if the
(2009) average consumer demand is stable, weather changes and changing consumer preferences induce variations.
24 Inadequate food policy Joshi et al. (2009) Food policy is concerned with meeting or furthering social objectives.
25 Lack of quality & safety Trienekens and It refers to food control systems to protect public health, prevent fraud and deception, and avoid food adulteration by
measures Zuurbier (2008) means of legislation, infrastructure, and enforcement mechanisms.
26 Lack of awareness Parfitt et al. (2010) It refers to the awareness of consumers of wasted food generally, and the amount of food they waste.
27 Perishability Van der Vorst et al. It is a characteristic of the produce which causes it to spoil, decay or become unsafe to consume if not kept
(2007) refrigerated.
28 Poor regulatory Shukla et al. (2014) It refers to regulating food industry behaviours, such as marketing unhealthy foods and promoting purchase in large
framework portions, which contribute to poor diet and waste.
29 Price uncertainty Van der Vorst et al. The uncertainty is in the price the farmers receive for their produce.
(1998)
30 Process uncertainty Van der Vorst et al. Natural factors cause uncertainty in crop yields.
(1998)
31 Quality variation Hodges et al. (2010) Quality refers to variation in nutrient composition of the produce due to genetics, pre-harvest conditions, the
maturity of the produce at harvest, post-harvest handling and storage conditions, and processing techniques
employed.
32 Seasonality Van der Vorst et al. Seasonal climate influences area planted or harvested and the number of crops grown (besides yield).
(2007)
33 Supply uncertainty Kaipia et al. (2013) It refers to variations in supply quantity because of human behaviour (e.g., shortage gaming and forward buying
because of price discounts) beside other reasons.

3.2.1. Development of SSIM  V: If challenge i influences challenge j

To develop SSIM, the opinion of experts on the relationship  A: If challenge j influences challenge i
between challenges is used. One of four symbols (‘V’, ‘A’, ‘X’, ‘O’) is  X: If challenge i and j influence each other
used to understand the relationship between any two challenges (i  O: If challenge i and j are unrelated.
and j), and the direction of this relationship,.
 S. Gokarn, T.S. Kuthambalayan / Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604
The outcome of these contextual relationships for the identified
challenges is the SSIM.
3.2.2. Development of reachability matrix
The reachability matrix is developed from SSIM in two steps.
The first step consists of determining the initial reachability matrix,
a binary matrix. It is the result of substituting V, A, X, and O with ‘1’
or ‘0’ in SSIM, using the convention stated below:
 If the notation in the cell (i, j) is ‘V’, then, the cell (i, j) notation is
converted into ‘1’ and the cell (j, i) notation is converted into ‘0’.
 If the notation in the cell (i, j) is ‘A,’ then the cell (i, j) notation is
converted into ‘0’ and the cell (j, i) notation is converted into ‘1’.
 If the notation in the cell (i, j) is ‘X’, then the notations in both
the cells (i, j) and (j, i) is converted into ‘1’.
 If the notation in the cell (i, j) is ‘O’, then the notations in both
the cells (i, j) and (j, i) are converted into ‘0’.
The second step consists of using the transitivity rule to obtain
the final reachability matrix of the challenges. This rule says that if a
variable X is related to a variable Y, and the variable Y is related to a
variable Z, then the variable X is also related to the variable Z. This
rule is used to establish a relationship between challenges X and Z,
which have no in-between relationship in the initial reachability
matrix.
3.2.3. Level partitions
The reachability set for a particular challenge consists of the
challenge itself and the challenges, which it may influence. The
antecedent set consists of the challenge itself and the challenges,
which influence it. The intersection of these two sets is determined.
The challenge, for which the reachability and the intersection sets
are equivalent, is assigned to different Level in the ISM hierarchy
model, as it would not influence any other challenges above its own
level. These challenges are then discarded from the list. The above
process is repeated until each challenge is assigned to a level.
3.2.4. Formation of ISM based model
A directed graph (digraph), based on the final reachability ma-
trix and outcome of level partition, is drawn. The digraph is con-
verted into an ISM model, by removing the transitivity relation
between them.
MICMAC analysis classifies the identified challenges into four
categories, autonomous, dependent, linkage and independent,
based on their driving and dependence powers (Gorane and Kant,
2013), and its application is discussed next.
3.3. MICMAC analysis
The management of a challenge with high driving value helps
overcome the challenges dependent on it. The nine challenges are
classified into four categories, based on their drive and dependence
powers, as follows:
 Autonomous challenge (Quadrant-I): The challenge with weak
drive and dependence powers. The system is relatively unaf-
fected by this challenge.
 Dependent challenge (Quadrant - II): The challenges with weak
drive power, but strong dependence power.
 Linkage challenge (Quadrant - III): The challenge with strong
drive and dependence powers.
 Independent challenge (Quadrant - IV): The challenge with
strong drive power, but weak dependence power. These are the
‘key’ challenges.
599
The basis of categorisation is the multiplication properties of
matrices (Gorane and Kant, 2013). The driving power and depen-
dence power of each challenge are computed by adding the values
along the row for driving power and along the column for depen-
dence power. On the basis of these values, a graph is plotted for
each challenge, by treating corresponding dependence and driving
power as ‘X’ and ‘Y’ coordinates, respectively.
4. Results
In this section, the results of application of EFA, ISM, and
MICMAC methods, are presented.
4.1. Result of EFA
EFA result in the extraction of nine factors (see Table 5), which
together account for 77.26% of the total variance (as deemed suf-
ficient by Hair et al., 1998).
Reliability refers to the internal consistency of variables with
each factor (Hair et al., 2010). The Cronbach's alpha (a) value greater
than 0.6 implies a good degree of inter-consistency (Nunnally et al.,
1967). As seen in Table 5, the values of alpha for all the factors are
above 0.7. All the items are having high loading (more than 0.7) on
their proposed construct and no item is having cross factor loading,
indicating adequate convergent validity and discriminant validity,
respectively. Next, the identified factors (challenges) are inter-
preted based on corresponding variables and are named.
4.1.1. Food characteristics (C1)
Four items, perishability, quality variation, seasonality, and
bulkiness, are highly correlated to the challenge C1 and represent
the natural characteristics of produce. Fresh produce are bulky and
perishable. Bulkiness causes difficulty in physical handling and
transportation and perishability limits the marketable life of the
produce, the time period over which it can be processed, and the
ability to store it (and, thereby, the ability to balance supply and
demand over time). Perishability also reduces the producers bar-
gaining power with buyers (especially, with those who have
alternate supply sources), and causes quality deterioration during
transportation and storage (thus requiring that the produce be
graded for quality at each stage of the AFSC, and thereby, increasing
transaction cost). The produce exhibits quality variation from unit
to unit and from one supply period to other. Moreover, both the
quality and quantity of produce at agri-food production stage is
prone to weather conditions. Food characteristics thus act as a
challenge inhibiting the reduction of waste in AFSC.
4.1.2. Supply chain uncertainty (C2)
Four items, demand uncertainty, supply uncertainty, price un-
certainty, and process uncertainty, are highly correlated to the
challenge C2 and they represent the uncertainty present in AFSC. In
India, stages in AFSC are unaware of inventory policy of other
stages. There is a lack of scientific approach in determining reor-
dering quantity and batch size of the produce, which is essential,
given that the produce differs in shelf lives and have varied supply
and demand patterns (Joshi et al., 2009). Moreover, natural events
(e.g., crop damage due to adverse weather or pest) and human
behaviour (e.g., shortage gaming) contributes to supply and process
uncertainty. In India, food grains have minimum support prices set
by the government. The government is the principal buyer of grains
and sells them in retail stores at subsidised rates. The pricing of the
fresh produce, however, depends largely on supply and demand.
Supply chain uncertainty thus acts as a challenge inhibiting the
reduction of waste in AFSC.
600 S. Gokarn, T.S. Kuthambalayan / Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604

Table 5
Factor analysis results.

Scale Items Factor Loading Reliability (a) Challenges

Perishability 0.914 0.939 Food characteristics (C1)

Quality variation 0.909
Seasonality 0.881
Bulkiness 0.874
Price uncertainty 0.913 0.917 Supply chain uncertainty (C2)
Demand uncertainty 0.894
Supply uncertainty 0.865
Process uncertainty 0.847
Lack of technical expertise 0.897 0.948 Information technology (C3)
Lack of tracking technology 0.885
Lack of communication 0.871
Lack of technical support 0.864
Lack of coordination 0.887 0.937 Supply chain partnerships (C4)
Lack of trust 0.870
Lack of cooperation 0.831
Lack of supply chain contracts 0.724
Poor harvesting planning 0.855 0.876 Operational capability (C5)
Poor transportation planning 0.853
Poor packaging efficiency 0.827
Poor storage facility 0.805
Lack of awareness 0.835 0.844 Consumer behaviour (C6)
Consumer attitude 0.833
Consumer habits 0.827
Consumerism 0.815
Inadequate market system 0.888 0.895 Market infrastructure (C7)
Lack of processing facility 0.846
Lack of cold chain & storage 0.790
Inadequate food policy 0.893 0.864 Food policy and regulation (C8)
Poor regulatory framework 0.889
Lack of quality & safety measures 0.822
Inefficient procurement channels 0.872 0.795 Supply chain networks (C9)
Inefficient transportation networks 0.812
Inefficient distribution networks 0.776

4.1.3. Information technology (C3)
Four items, lack of technical expertise, lack of tracking tech-
nology, lack of communication, and lack of technical support, are
highly correlated to the challenge C3 and they represent (primarily)
the lack of use of information technology in AFSC. Agri-food tends
to have multiple-difficult to measure (or observe) - quality attri-
butes. It is also difficult to assess the value assigned to these attri-
butes by the consumers. This creates a challenge for informative
grading and labelling of produce (with, for e.g., the content and
nutritional value). Information technology facilitates communica-
tion between supply chain stages and improves decision-making
(for e.g., by use of automated demand forecasting). Product
tracing allows one to determine the condition the produce is, at any
point of time (Rijswijk and Frewer, 2008). Continuous monitoring of
the remaining shelf life of produce permits suitable actions to be
taken before the quality of produce falls below an acceptable level.
Tracking in Indian AFSC is almost non-existent (Joshi et al., 2009).
Lack of usage of information technology thus acts as a challenge
inhibiting the reduction of waste in Indian AFSC.
4.1.4. Supply chain partnerships (C4)
Four items, lack of coordination, lack of trust, lack of coopera-
tion, and lack of supply chain contracts, are highly correlated to the
challenge C4 and they represent the lack of supply chain partner-
ship in Indian AFSC. The Indian food industry comprises of many
loosely integrated players with a large number of intermediaries
between producers and consumers. Wholesalers or commission
agents link unorganised retailers with farmers and there is much
information asymmetry. Supply chain contracts between stages
reduce the effects of supply and demand fluctuations, but are
missing. There are very few buyers in most areas and the small,
dispersed producers face a situation of monopolistic competition
and an absence of forward integration. A coordination problem
exists as the harvesting schedule for different suppliers do not
overlap but vary over time. Lack of supply chain partnership thus
acts as a challenge inhibiting the reduction of waste in AFSC.
4.1.5. Operational capability (C5)
Four items, poor harvesting planning, poor transportation
planning, poor packaging efficiency, and poor storage facility, are
highly correlated to the challenge C5 and they represent the
operational inefficiency in AFSC. Agri-food production in India is
dispersed over a large geographical area. The unpredictable pro-
duction pattern of the many small farmers adds to the difficulty of
gathering crop intelligence. Due to the size of India, and its diverse
population and food habits, gathering information regarding con-
sumer preferences is also difficult. This results in poor harvesting
planning, and often oversupply/shortage of agri-food. The above
factors also contribute to poor transportation planning and
potentially high transportation cost. Moreover, the output of a
small producer makes an investment in storage facilities or
standardised containers unattractive (which in turn increase
handling activities and quality inspections activities, implying
additional transaction cost). Operational inefficiency thus acts as a
challenge inhibiting the reduction of waste in AFSC.
4.1.6. Consumer behaviour (C6)
Four items, lack of awareness, consumer attitude, consumer
habits, and consumerism, are highly correlated to this challenge
and they reflect the behavioural aspects of the consumer in AFSC. At
the consumer end, food wastage occurs for a number of integrated
reasons, which vary depending on the behaviour of household
consumers (Parfitt et al., 2010). These include, a lack of awareness,
buying in excess of need, improper food storage, and lack of
 S. Gokarn, T.S. Kuthambalayan / Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604 601

alternative use of leftovers (Priefer et al., 2016). Consumer behav-
iour thus acts as a challenge inhibiting the reduction of waste in
AFSC.
4.1.7. Market infrastructure (C7)
Three items, inadequate market system, lack of processing fa-
cility, and lack of cold chain and storage, are highly correlated to the
challenge C7 and they represent the lack of market infrastructure
facilities in AFSC. In India, the current cold storage capacity is 32
million metric tonnes while its actual requirement is 61 million
metric tonnes. Moreover, non-refrigerated trucks transport a large
quantity of perishable food items (Balaji and Arshinder, 2016). India
processes a very small amount of the food that it produces (relative
to other developing countries). Private investment in modern
processing, storage, transportation and trading facilities is lacking
due to the large unit operating cost in the initial years, together
with the uncertainty about future agri-food supply. Lack of market
infrastructure thus acts as a challenge inhibiting the reduction of
waste in AFSC.
4.1.8. Food policy and regulation (C8)
Three items, inadequate food policy, poor regulatory framework,
and lack of quality & safety measures, are highly correlated to the
challenge C8 and represent the inadequate food policy and regu-
latory aspects. Food policies and regulations address quality and
safety of produce, financial support, and awareness program. In
India, the data relevant to the quality of produce is not available at
any stage. There is a lack of awareness of procedures for quality
control and of standards (Shukla et al., 2014). Moreover, the strin-
gent health, safety and quality standards required by foreign
buyers, and the price incentive offered by them for quality produce,
result in the export of the best quality produce. Inadequate food
policy, regulation, and its awareness thus act as a challenge inhib-
iting the reduction of waste in AFSC.
4.1.9. Supply chain networks (C9)
Three items, inefficient procurement channels, inefficient
transportation networks, and inefficient distribution networks, are
highly correlated to the challenge C9 and represent the inefficiency
in supply chain networks. India's global logistics performance index
has fallen from 37 in the year 2007, to 54 in 2014. This is due to
inefficient clearance process (lacking simple and predictable for-
malities), poor quality of transportation infrastructure (ports, rail-
roads, roads, information technology), and lack of quality logistics
services (LPI, 2014). The state of roads in most areas is poor. Due to
geographically dispersed producers, the collection of produce is a
costly process. In certain regions, especially in the Northeastern
part of the country, the farmer needs to travel more than 50 km to
reach the market. Inefficient supply chain network thus acts as a
challenge inhibiting the reduction of waste in food supply chain.
4.2. Result of ISM method
4.3. Result of MICMAC analysis
Table 7 shows the driving power and dependence power of each
challenge. Fig. 2 shows the graph plotted on the basis of these
values.
5. Discussion
The levels of different challenges in ISM model (Fig. 1) provide
an understanding of their importance in successful reduction of
food waste in AFSC. Fig. 1 indicates that operational capability,
supply chain networks, supply chain partnerships, and consumer
behaviour challenges are at Level-I (top-level). The second level
(Level-II) challenges are information technology, food policy and
regulation, and market infrastructure, and reflect a lack of external
support. The management of Level-II challenges, aid in the man-
agement of Level-I challenges. Building the infrastructure and
formulating the food policy requires effective long-term planning.
Supply chain uncertainty appears at Level-III and food character-
istics appear at Level-IV, in the hierarchy. The management of
challenges at Level-IV and III has the highest potential of aiding
management of challenges at lower levels. The food characteristic,
for example, can be positively influenced by means of modern
scientific techniques. The management of Level-II and I challenges
has little influence on those at higher levels.
Fig. 2 shows that there is one autonomous challenge, consumer
behaviour, in Quadrant-I. Consumer behaviour has weak driver and
dependence powers and has little role in causing food waste. In
India, many live on $2 a day or less, in rural areas, and in large-size
households. Most produce is purchased from local vendors in small
lots, there is a market for any type and grade of product, and due to
Indian eating habit, very little food is wasted at the consumer end.
Consumer behaviour does not present itself as a significant chal-
lenge in reducing waste. However, managing this challenge is
known to be important for reducing waste in developed nations
(Priefer et al., 2016).
The challenges, food characteristics (C1), supply chain uncer-
tainty (C2), food policy and regulation (C7), and market infra-
structure (C8) in Quadrant-IV (Fig. 2) are independent challenges.
They have strong driving power, but weak dependency on other
challenges. They are, therefore, the ‘key’ challenges inhibiting the
reduction of food waste in Indian AFSC (Priefer et al., 2016).
Stakeholders and policy makers can reduce food waste more suc-
cessfully by focusing on and diagnosing these dominant challenges.
Three of these dominant challenges, food characteristics (C1),
supply chain uncertainty (C2), and food policy and regulation (C7)
are categorised as constraints, and the one remaining challenge,
market infrastructure (C8), is categorised as strategic (long-term)
decision, in Table 4. This implies that managing challenges, which
constrain rest of the decisions, can lead to considerable benefits.
Technologies can be adopted at the production and distribution

4.2.1. SSIM Table 6

Table 6 provides the SSIM (contextual relationships for the nine Structural self-intersection matrix (SSIM).

challenges). S/N List of factors C9 C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1

C1 Food characteristics V V V V V V V V e
4.2.2. Reachability matrix C2 Supply chain uncertainty V O V O V V V e
Table 7 provides the initial reachability matrix, and the final C3 Information technology V O O O O V e
C4 Supply chain partnerships A O O O O e
reachability matrix of the challenges.
C5 Operational capability O A A O e
C6 Consumer behaviour O O O e
4.2.3. Level partitions C7 Market infrastructure V O e
Table 8 shows that all the nine challenges achieve their level C8 Food policy and regulation V e
C9 Supply chain networks e
after four iterations.
602 S. Gokarn, T.S. Kuthambalayan / Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604

Table 7
Reachability matrix.

Initial reachability matrix

Challenges C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

C1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C2 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
C3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
C4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
C5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
C6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
C7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
C8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
C9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Final reachability matrix

Challenge C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 Driving Power

C1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Fig. 2. Cluster of challenges inhibiting the reduction of food waste in FSC.
C2 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 6
C3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 5
C4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
C5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 level to influence the food characteristics, namely, perishability,
C6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 quality variation, seasonality, and bulkiness. Examples include,
C7 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 5
production under controlled irrigation or under controlled tem-
C8 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 5
C9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
perature, lighting, and other conditions, crop varieties yielding
Dependence Power 1 2 5 7 5 2 4 3 6 33 commercial harvests sooner and extending the seasonal yielding
pattern, and chemicals delaying crop maturity. The fact that
farming sector in India is highly disaggregated with limited access
Table 8 to finance, education and training, and that small farmers do not
Level partition for Challenges: iteration 1 - iteration 4. have sufficient scale to invest in these technologies, is a constraint.
Increased adoption of above technologies also facilitates closer
Challenge Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
coordination between production and subsequent processing and
Iteration 1
distribution activities and reduces supply chain uncertainty (de-
C1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 1 1
C2 2,3,4,5,7,9 1,2 2
mand uncertainty, supply uncertainty, price uncertainty, and pro-
C3 3,4,7,8,9 1,2,3,7,8 3,7,8 cess uncertainty). At processing stage, technologies enable the
C4 4 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 4 I replacement of natural raw materials with tailor-made fat-, sugar-,
C5 5 1,2,5,7,8 5 I beverage-, and other product substitutes. This reduces the need to
C6 6 1,6 6 I
coordinate processing with farm production, and thus the process
C7 3,4,5,7,9 1,2,3,7 3,7
C8 3,4,5,8,9 1,3,8 3,8 uncertainty. At distribution stage, computerised warehousing and
C9 3,9 1,2,3,7,8,9 3,9 I computer monitoring of goods in transit can improve physical
Iteration 2 commodity and informational flows, plus provide early quality
C1 1,2,3,7,8, 1 1
control warnings and reduce supply-demand mismatch, coun-
C2 2,3,7 1,2 2
C3 3,7,8 1,2,3,7,8 3,7,8 II
tering price volatility.
C7 3,7 1,2,3,7 3,7 II Other technologies at the processing and distribution stage
C8 3,8 1,3,8 3,8 II include controlled atmosphere storage and transport, vacuum and
Iteration 3 polyethylene packaging, and ultra-high temperature processing,
C1 1,2 1 1
together with aseptic packaging. However, the investment required
C2 2 1,2 2 III
Iteration 4 to improve market infrastructure (market system, processing fa-
C1 1 1 1 IV cility, and cold chain and storage) is prohibitively large and is long-
term in nature. Only 2% of the produce grown in India is currently
processed, most food items are stored inappropriately, and trans-
ported by non-refrigerated trucks, and trading facilities are few.
Food waste due to an inadequate level of market infrastructure
and technology adoption is aggravated in India by poor food policy
and regulation (inadequate food policy, poor regulatory framework,
and lack of quality & safety measures). Due to poor food policy and
regulation, stages in AFSC do not take corrective measures to
reduce food waste, thus demonstrating a lack of social re-
sponsibility. The amount of waste is not known at a stage. There is a
need to adopt clear penalty and reward systems to promote waste
reduction and tie the reward to the level of investment (risk). India
is experiencing increasing urbanisation and growth in supermarket
chains as in the west. Nevertheless, there is an absence of regula-
tions and food control systems to ensure safety and quality of food.
Thus, as also noted by Hodges et al. (2010), in developing
Fig. 1. Interpretive structural model showing the level of challenges. country like India, adoption of existing technologies and expansion
of good practice, associated with market-led investment and
 S. Gokarn, T.S. Kuthambalayan / Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604
development of market infrastructure and institution have the
highest potential to reduce food waste across the AFSC.
The challenge, information technology (C3), is a linkage chal-
lenge present in Quadrant-III (Fig. 2). It has strong driving and
dependence power. Improvement in: the technical expertise of
people, communication, use of tracking technology, and technical
support, leads to improvement in: supply chain function, cross-
functional decisions and coordination at supply chain interfaces,
measurement and diagnosis of food waste, and relations with
customers, respectively. The need for information technology stems
from complexities due to food characteristics and uncertainties in
AFSC.
The dependent challenges in Quadrant-II (Fig. 2) are operational
capability (C5), supply chain network (C9), and supply chain part-
nership (C4). These challenges have weak driving power but are
strongly dependent on each another. AFSC in India is fragmented
and lacking ownership. Firms finding it difficult to reduce food
waste along the supply chain, as they are inefficient in terms of
their operational and relational capabilities. The ability to build
capabilities, establish partnerships, and form efficient supply chain
networks, is externally constrained by food policy, regulation and
market infrastructure, and is enabled by information technology.
6. Conclusion and directions for future research
The reduction of food waste is an important means of ensuring
food security and reducing environmental burdens. The main
objective of this paper is to identify and analyse the effectiveness of
challenges inhibiting the reduction of waste in Indian AFSC.
The challenges food characteristics, supply chain uncertainty,
food policy and regulation, and market infrastructure were deter-
mined to be the ‘key’ challenges inhibiting the reduction of food
waste in Indian AFSC. They constrain the decisions at the three
decision-making echelons and each of the supply chain echelons
and considerable benefits can be realised by AFSC firms by focusing
on and diagnosing these challenges.
The challenge, information technology acts as an enabler of
operational capability, supply chain partnership, and supply chain
network, and it mitigates the complexities due to food character-
istics and uncertainties in AFSC.
The challenge, consumer behaviour has little influence on waste
reduction in Indian AFSC. This study highlights the importance of
conducting region-specific study of supply chains. It should aid
stakeholders in Indian AFSC to understand the relevant challenges
and prevent/reduce waste.
Agri-food comprises a large variety differentiated by their shelf
life. Future scope of this study widens to the identification of
relative importance of the ‘key’ challenges with respect to shelf life.
Indian government purchases, stores, and distributes regulated
crops. Future research could focus on only government-sector
supply chain. Another extension is to focus on the supply chain of
a specific product, for example, Dairy, which too is a regulated
product in India.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the anonymous referees, and the editor for
their valuable feedback, which significantly improved the posi-
tioning and presentation of this paper.
References
Ahumada, O., Villalobos, J.R., 2011. Operational model for planning the harvest and
distribution of perishable agricultural products. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 133 (2),
677e687.
603
Arivazhagan, R., Geetha, P., Parthasarathy, R., 2012. Analysis of sources of fruit
wastages in retail outlets in Chennai, Tamilnadu, India. Int. J. Trade, Econ.
Finance 3 (3), 199.
Balaji, M., Arshinder, K., 2016. Modelling the causes of food wastage in Indian
perishable food supply chain. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 114, 153e167.
Beulens, A.J.M., Broens, D.F., Folstar, P., Hofstede, G.J., 2005. Food safety and trans-
parency in food chains and networks: relationships and challenges. Food Contr.
16 (6), 481e486.
Bhatnagar, R., Sohal, A., 2005. Supply chain competitiveness: measuring the impact
of location factors, uncertainly and manufacturing practices. Technovation 25,
443e456.
Boudahri, F., Bennekrouf, M., Sari, Z., 2011. Optimization and design of the trans-
portation network of agri-foods supply chain: application chicken meat. Int. J.
Adv. Eng. Sci. Technol. 11, 213e220.
Cardoen, D., Joshi, P., Diels, L., Sarma, P.M., Pant, D., 2015. Agriculture biomass in
India: part 2. Post-harvest losses, cost and environmental impacts. Resour.
Conservat. Recycl. 101, 143e153.
Chen, K., 2006. Agri-food supply chain management: opportunities, issues, and
guidelines. In: International Conference on Livestock Services. April 16-22,
Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Diabat, A., Kannan, D., Mathiyazhagan, K., 2014. Analysis of challenges for imple-
mentation of sustainable supply chain managementeA textile case. J. Clean.
Prod. 83, 391e403.
Faisal, M.N., Talib, F., 2016. Implementing traceability in Indian food-supply chains:
an interpretive structural modelling approach. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 19 (2),
171e196.
Food and Agricultue Organization of the United Nations, 2014. Food Wastage
Footprint Full-cost Accounting: Final Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017. Food Loss and Food
Waste. FAO, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-
waste/food-waste/definition/en/.
Gorane, S.J., Kant, R., 2013. Modelling the SCM enablers: an integrated ISM-fuzzy
MICMAC approach. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 25 (2), 263e286.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A., 2011.
Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., William, C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis,
vol. 5. Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 207e219, 3.
Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis,
seventh ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Higgins, A., Antony, G., Sandell, G., Davies, I., Prestwidge, D., Andrew, B., 2004.
A framework for integrating a complex harvesting and transport system for
sugar production. Agric. Syst. 82, 99e115.
Hobbs, J.E., Young, L.M., 2000. Closer vertical co-ordination in agri-food supply
chains: a conceptual framework and some preliminary evidence. Supply Chain
Manag. An Int. J. 5, 131e143.
Hodges, R.J., Buzby, J.C., Bennett, B., 2010. Postharvest losses and waste in developed
and less developed countries: opportunities to improve resource use. J. Agric.
Sci. 149 (S1), 37e45.
Humphrey, J., Memedovic, O., 2006. Global Value Chains in the Agrifood Sector.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna.
Joshi, R., Banwet, D.K., Shankar, R., 2009. Indian cold chain: modelling the in-
hibitors. Br. Food J. 111 (11), 1260e1283.
Kaipia, R., Dukovska-Popovska, I., Loikkanen, L., 2013. Creating sustainable fresh
food supply chains through waste reduction. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.
43 (3), 262e276.
LPI-Logistics Performance Index by World Bank., 2014. Retrieved from http://lpi.
worldbank.org/international/global/2014. (accessed 05.05.17).
Murthy, D.S., Sudha, M., Gajanana, T.M., 2009. Marketing and post-harvest losses in
fruits: its implications on availability and economy. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 64 (2),
259e275.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., Berge, J.M.T., 1967. Psychometric Theory, vol. 226.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Oliver, R.K., Webber, M.D., 1982. Supply-chain management: logistics catches up
with strategy. Outlook 5 (1), 42e47.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains:
quantification and potential for change to 2050. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol.
Sci. 365 (1554), 3065e3081.
Parwez, S., 2014. Supply chain dynamics of Indian agriculture: reference to infor-
mation technology and knowledge management. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 10
(1), 1e5.
Poole, N.D., Gomis, F.J.D.C., Igual, J.F.J., Gime
nez, F.V., 1998. Formal contracts in fresh
produce markets. Food Pol. 23 (2), 131e142.
Priefer, C., Jo € rissen, J., Br€
autigam, K.R., 2016. Food waste prevention in EuropeeA
cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action.
Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 109, 155e165.
Rijswijk, W.V., Frewer, L.J., 2008. Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety
and their relation to traceability. Br. Food J. 110 (10), 1034e1046.
Sachan, A., Sahay, B.S., Sharma, D., 2005. Developing Indian grain supply chain cost
model: a system dynamics approach. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 54 (3),
187e205.
Sagheer, S., Yadav, S.S., Deshmukh, S.G., 2009a. An application of interpretative
structural modelling of the compliance to food standards. Int. J. Prod. Perform.
Manag. 58 (2), 136e159.
Sagheer, S., Yadav, S.S., Deshmukh, S.G., 2009b. Developing a conceptual framework
604 S. Gokarn, T.S. Kuthambalayan / Journal of Cleaner Production 168 (2017) 595e604
for assessing competitiveness of India's agrifood chain. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 4 (2),
137e159.
Shukla, M., Jharkharia, S., 2013. Agri-fresh produce supply chain management: a
state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Operations Prod. Manag. 33 (2),
114e158.
Shukla, S., Shankar, R., Singh, S.P., 2014. Food safety regulatory model in India. Food
Control 37, 401e413.
Taylor, D.H., Fearne, A., 2009. Demand management in fresh food value chains: a
framework for analysis and improvement. Supply Chain Manage. Int. J. 14 (5),
379e392.
Trienekens, J., Zuurbier, P., 2008. Quality and safety standards in the food industry,
developments and challenges. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113 (1), 107e122.
Tsolakis, N.K., Keramydas, C.A., Toka, A.K., Aidonis, D.A., Iakovou, E.T., 2014. Agrifood
supply chain management: a comprehensive hierarchical decision-making
framework and a critical taxonomy. Biosyst. Eng. 120, 47e64.
Van der Vorst, J.G., Da Silva, C.A., Trienekens, J.H., 2007. Agro-industrial Supply
Chain Management: Concepts and Applications. FAO.
Van der Vorst, J.G.A.J., Beulens, A.J., Wit, W.D., Beek, P.V., 1998. Supply chain man-
agement in food chains: improving performance by reducing uncertainty. Int.
Trans. Oper. Res. 5 (6), 487e499.
Warfield, J.W., 1974. Developing interconnected matrices in structural modelling.
IEEE Trans. Syst. Men Cybern. 4 (1), 51e81.
Williams, H., Wikstro €m, F., Lo
€ fgren, M., 2008. A life cycle perspective on environ-
mental effects of customer focused packaging development. J. Clean. Prod. 16
(7), 853e859.
Wilson, T.P., Clarke, W.R., 1998. Insights from industry food safety and traceability in
the agricultural supply chain: using the internet to deliver traceability. Supply
Chain Manag. 3 (3), 127e133.