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

net/publication/358506294

Efforts are made but food wastage is still going on: a study of motivation
factors for food waste reduction among household consumers

Article in Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration · February 2022

DOI: 10.1108/APJBA-07-2021-0303

CITATIONS READS

7 1,495

3 authors:

Manita Matharu Neha Gupta

Amity University Amity University
13 PUBLICATIONS 133 CITATIONS 67 PUBLICATIONS 230 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vikas Swarnakar
Khalifa University
62 PUBLICATIONS 735 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vikas Swarnakar on 16 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-4323.htm

Efforts are made but food wastage Food waste

reduction
is still going on: a study of
motivation factors for food waste
reduction among
household consumers Received 3 July 2021
Revised 15 December 2021
Accepted 19 January 2022
Manita Matharu and Neha Gupta
Amity School of Business, Amity University, Noida, India, and
Vikas Swarnakar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Raipur, India

Abstract
Purpose – The goal of this research is to find the components that can inspire people to reduce food waste at
household consumer level. The components were created by combining the theory of planned behaviour (TPB),
theory of interpersonal behaviour (TIB) and motivation opportunity ability (MOA) model.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on the content analysis, which identifies the motivating
factors for food waste reduction at the consumer household level. A total of 12 motivating factors are identified
across extensive literature reviews along with opinions of experts. Then, the recognized motivating factors are
analysed for causal interrelationship using the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL)
approach. Data were collected from 95 experts, selected using purposive sampling, through a questionnaire survey.
Findings – A total of 95 household experts expressed their views on food waste reduction motivation factors,
and a decision matrix has been developed based on that. Then, opinions are analysed using the DEMATEL
approach, and it was found that “perceived behavioural control (PBC)” is the most influential motivating factor
for food reduction at the household consumer level. Results also showed that “knowledge and skills about
proper food management at home” are the least affected factor among the others.
Practical implications – Minimizing food wastes at the consumer and household level can provide the
benefits to both people and environment in multiple ways. The problem of food waste necessitates a
multifaceted response, and this study aims to address consumers’ motivation and capabilities to lessen food
waste behaviour. Since the benefits of minimizing food wastes have often remained untapped and neglected,
educational efforts should be used by policymakers to enhance household awareness of food waste.
Social implications – The present study contributes to the inadequate research on household food waste in
India and is expected to facilitate sustainable consumption.
Originality/value – Food waste management is particularly difficult for developing countries, like India,
which have little resources and are environmentally vulnerable. Not only is there a dearth of study on
household food waste, but most of the research has been conducted in developed economies. Also, a novel
applied method has been utilized in this study.
Keywords Food waste reduction, Decision-making, DEMATEL, Theory of planned behaviour, Theory of
interpersonal behaviour, Motivation, Opportunity, Ability model
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Highlighted by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN),
global food accessibility will be limited in the years ahead, up to 2050, stemming in an
unsustainable world-feeding position when combined with existing food waste. One-third of
worldwide food output is wasted, as per UN’s FAO, costing the global economy $750 bn.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration
The authors are thankful to Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editors, and anonymous reviewers for their © Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-4323
constructive and helpful comments those have improved the quality of the article. DOI 10.1108/APJBA-07-2021-0303
APJBA Close to 31 million tonnes of trash (70–75%) are deposited in open landfills each year. Food
waste reduction is an urgently needed solution to an economic, social, environmental and
food protection challenge (Kosseva, 2013; Stuart, 2009). Within its Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), the UN advocates for food waste. Specifically, Goal 12.3 specifies that “By 2030,
halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses
along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses” (Nations, 2015). Food
waste reduction is a crucial component of Europe’s circular economy programme (European
Commission, 2017).
Food loss is specified as any decline in the quantity or quality of food along the food
supply chain (FAO, 2019). Earlier, the FAO defined food waste as follows: “any change in the
availability, edibility, wholesomeness or quality of the food that prevents it from being
consumed by people”; or “the wholesome edible material intended for human consumption,
arising at any point in the Food Supply Chain (FSC) that is instead discarded, lost, degraded,
or consumed by pests” (FAO, 1981). The Waste and Resources Action Programme definition,
which includes food waste, is as follows: “food and drink are thrown away that was, at some
point before disposal, edible” (McCarthy and Liu, 2017; Richter and Bokelmann, 2017).
Additionally, Abeliotis et al. (2014) emphasized the definition of food waste as “composed of
raw or cooked food materials and includes food loss, before, during or after meal preparation
in the household, as well as food discarded in the process of manufacturing, distribution,
retail and food service activities.” Uneaten food and leftovers from food prepared in houses,
institutions, such as restaurants and school cafeterias, and industrial sources, such as plant
lunchrooms, are all included in the food waste.
The structure of the rest of the paper is as follows: following sections that include food
waste and the circular economy, food waste in the Indian context and identification of the
research gap, followed by the theoretical background in section two, and then section three
explains the detailed methodology adopted in the study. Further, section four analysis results
are presented whereas discussion on results has been done in section five. Section six
concluded the study with theoretical, practical and social implications.

1.1 Food waste and circular economy

As per the FAO, 1.3 billion tonnes of food are wasted in the world every year, in which
consumers are primarily responsible for food waste. The challenge of food waste has a
substantial environmental, social and economic impact. Food waste reductions can save
money for farmers, companies and households. For instance, 8–10% of worldwide ozone-
depleting substance emanations are related to food that is not burned through. Reduced food
waste at the retail, food service and household level can have several positive consequences
for both people and the planet. Therefore, food waste reduction is critical for humanity’s
future sustainability (Lipinski et al., 2013).
The concept of circular economy has gained significant interest in recent years as a
strategy to overcome the linear system’s inherent sustainability issues, such as material
scarcity, climate change, natural resource depletion and waste generation (Geissdoerfer et al.,
2018; Ki et al., 2020; Dissanayake and Weerasinghe, 2021; Matharu et al., 2020). The circular
economy aims to replace conventional linear supply chains with systems that recycle
materials in processing systems based on the principle "waste equals food” (Ghisellini et al.,
2016; Moreno et al., 2016). This principle extends the concept of recycling beyond recycling to
upcycling, which is any process capable of transforming waste into higher-value products by
using it as an input for other products (Kenny et al., 2008). To clarify, the circular economy is
planned in such a way that “one person’s waste becomes another person’s resource” (Moreno
et al., 2016; Borrello et al., 2016), and this may inspire sustainable consumption behaviour
(Matharu et al., 2020; Marzouk and Mahrous, 2020).
1.2 Food waste in Indian context Food waste
Food waste is a global problem and is identified as a large contributor to the global waste reduction
problem. The reduction in global food waste can help in meeting the sustainable development
goals (SDGs) of the country. India, at present, is ranked seventh in the world on overall food
waste; according to the Food Waste Index Report 2021, 50 kilograms of food is thrown away
per person in Indian households per year (Indian Express, 2021); this excess food waste
frequently ends up in landfills, where it produces harmful greenhouse gases with serious
environmental consequences. India is ranked 94th out of 107 nations with enough data to
compute Global Hunger Index (GHI) ratings (Global Hunger Index, 2020). India has a serious
level of hunger, with a score of 27.2. To sustain the 194 million Indians who go hungry every
day, the world’s second most populated country must eliminate food waste. Thus, reduced
food waste has the potential to contribute to increased food security, hunger reduction and
malnutrition, all of which are crucial challenges in India and other developing economies.
Some of the measures to minimize household food waste suggested by FAO include
purchasing only the much quantity that only we need (reducing wastage of impulsive
purchasing), storing food wisely (reducing wastage from spoilage), picking ugly produce
(reduction of wastage through non-conforming prescribed standard), understanding
information provided in food label (avoid throwing food without looking expiry date),
purchase from local food producers (minimize product delivery time and hence emit less
carbon and avoid spoilage), adopting sustainable diet, respecting and sharing food and
taking smaller steps to minimize food waste (FAO, 1996; Yadav et al., 2021).

1.3 Research gap

Several studies have reported instances of food waste or loss all through the value chain of
food–agricultural production to consumption (G€obel et al., 2015). The explanations include
financial, managerial and technical constraints in harvesting, storage and cooling techniques
(FAO, 2019). There are a lot of reasons which enhance food loss, such as insufficient
infrastructure, technology, lack of/poor refrigeration facilities and other logistical issues
(Khanna, 2016). Many studies distinguish food losses and food waste, as the former
happening in the early to mid-stages of the supply chain and involving losses on or after in
several stages (i.e. agricultural produce, harvesting, transportation, storage and handling)
whereas latter occurrence starts during downstream stages of supply chain, including
delivery, retail and consumption (Gustavsson et al., 2011; Parfitt et al., 2010). The present
study only focuses on “food waste” as it investigates individual food reduction behaviour.
The one of motives is to consider this area as household food waste has a slew of serious
negative effects on society and environment. To begin, it has a social impact by resulting in
an overall food price increase, making it less accessible to the poorest (Stuart, 2009). Second, it
has financial impacts as many times people purchase food but do not consume it within time
and when it rotted then people generally throw it. Third, food that gets wasted during
production and distribution imposes a cost to the environment.
Regardless of the apparent importance of identifying key elements that motivate, enable
or prevent household food waste minimization behaviour, not much research has addressed
this purpose directly to date. Extensive research on household food waste has concentrated
on detecting the types of food that are most likely to be thrown away (WRAP, 2009a, b, 2010),
the types of people who are most possible to throw away food (Brook Lyndhurst, 2007; Doron,
2012; Koivupuro et al., 2012; WRAP, 2009a) and how people feel about food waste. The
opportunities created by food waste reduction and evaluation of causal relationship between
the motivating factors of food waste reduction, on the other hand, have largely been
overlooked and underutilized. The current study addresses a knowledge gap in India’s
research on household food waste and is likely to contribute to the development of
APJBA sustainable consumption practices. These gaps motivated authors to perform the present
study. To fill the gaps, the following research objectives are derived:
(1) Finalize the list of motivating components that can inspire people to reduce food
waste at the household level.
(2) Investigate the cause and effect relationship among motivating factors.
(3) Explore the implications for the policymakers and practitioners.

2. Theoretical background
This study draws on the framework of theory of planned behaviour (TPB), theory of
interpersonal behaviour (TIB) and theory of motivation, opportunity and ability (MOA;
Rothschild, 1999) to investigate which factors motivate food-waste reduction behaviour.

2.1 Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

According to the TPB, behaviour is determined by intentions, projected by attitudes,
subjective standards and perceived behavioural control (PBC) (Ajzen, 1991). The TPB has
been successfully used to forecast and rationalize environmental behaviour on a large scale.
According to research, roughly 40% of all research studies of environmental psychology
applied the TPB as the theoretical foundation for the research (Kl€ockner, 2013), for instance,
on water conservation (Fielding et al., 2012). The followings are components of TPB.
2.1.1 Attitudes. Attitudes are a basic determinant of an individual’s preference for a
particular behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). An individual has a negative attitude toward food waste
and is constantly attempting to prevent it. Many consumers view edible food waste as a waste
of utility or purpose, which they find morally repugnant (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014). Many
studies examine attitudes and behaviours related to food waste, feelings of guilt,
environmental concerns, ethical concerns and high personal standards regarding food
waste (Quested et al., 2013a, b; Schanes et al., 2018).
2.1.2 Perceived behavioural control (PBC). PBC is a representation of an individual’s
perceptions of their means or ability and opportunity to execute a certain behaviour. PBC
refers to a person’s beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede
behaviour performance. Studies indicate that PBC influences intention while also having a
significant direct effect on wasting food (Stancu et al., 2016; Stefan et al., 2013; Visschers et al.,
2016), which implies that the consumers who perceive themselves to be in control are
expected to engage in waste-reducing behaviours.
2.1.3 Subjective norms (SNs). Subjective norms (SNs) are composed of individuals’
perceived beliefs of the social pressure to involve in that behaviour. SNs refer to what is
deemed acceptable or unacceptable behaviour in a particular situation (Ajzen, 1991);
individuals should intend to waste less food if wasting food is deemed unacceptable by
significant others. Social norms against waste means the degree to which consumers believe
wasting the food is discouraged or objected to by others (van Geffen et al., 2020b).

2.2 Theory of interpersonal behaviour (TIB)

Although emotions’ role has been largely overlooked to date, interpersonal behaviour theory
recognizes emotions as one of the critical roles of consumer behaviour and its potential to
influence behaviour (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014; Triandis, 1977). According to Triandis’s
(1977) theory of interpersonal behaviour, it has been emphasized that emotions are almost
certainly a major factor in food waste behaviour (or conservation). The following are the
components of TIB.
 2.2.1 Past food waste behaviour. Habits are “relatively stable behavioural patterns, which Food waste
have been reinforced in the past . . . [and] are executed without deliberate consideration, and reduction
result from automatic processes, as opposed to controlled processes like consciously made
decisions” (Verplanken and Holland, 2002, p. 287). Thus, automated responses instead of
deliberative reasoning guide habitual behaviours. Habits are frequently conceptualized,
quantified as past behaviour’s frequency, as it is believed that frequently performed
behaviours develop habits that become routine reactions to future conditions (Ouellette and
Wood, 1998). Habits are almost certainly a significant factor in wasting food. Additionally,
earlier research studies indicate food waste behaviours are often carried out for reasons
unrelated to waste prevention or eco-friendly goals and that the food waste behaviour is
highly habitual (Quested et al., 2013a, b).
2.2.2 Connection with food. Emotions are described as an emotional response to an event
or object and include sensory as well as cognitive aspects (Lazarus, 1991; Forgas, 1994).
Emotions can be classified according to their directionality, as either positive or negative
(Forgas, 1994; Lazarus, 1991). Emotions convey the significance of an issue and thus serve as
a catalyst to act (Lazarus, 1991; Lerner and Keltner, 2000). While qualitative research
indicates emotions could be associated with consumers’ food waste behaviour, it is unclear
whether the emotion is the cause of food waste or a consequence of it. Research indicates
participants felt guilty about food waste (Watson and Meah, 2013). Similarly, in another
study, most consumers are concerned or guilty when combating wasteful behaviour (Stefan
et al., 2013). Numerous surveys have revealed that consumers express strong feelings of guilt
when they discard food (Mallinson et al., 2016; Mirosa et al., 2018).

2.3 The motivation, opportunity and ability framework (MOA)

The MOA framework is a widely used conceptual framework that accounts for consumer
behaviour by combining motivations with habitual and contextual elements (van Geffen et al.,
2020a, b; Soma et al., 2021). The MOA framework has been employed to the behaviour of food
waste (van Geffen et al., 2020b). This approach considers both the motivational variables that
impact goal formulation and the hurdles that block goal execution, such as environmental
structures (opportunities) and skill and knowledge gaps (abilities).
2.3.1 Motivation. Motivation (M) for food waste prevention indicates an individual’s
readiness to take actions that reduce the volume of food waste. Attitudes, awareness and
social norms all perform a role in motivation. The ability (A) to avoid wasting food is defined
as a person’s ability to resolve problems that arise when doing actions that contribute to food
waste prevention. Knowledge and skills are critical components of ability. Motivation is
essential for food waste reduction behaviour. Motivation encompasses the factors that
influence intention setting, such as values, attitudes and SNs. Numerous factors that
contribute positively to food waste reduction have been linked with consumer awareness of
the issue itself.
2.3.1.1 Awareness and knowledge about food waste problem. While some did not consider
food waste to be a big problem, others said it was inescapable, and so there was little purpose
in seeking to eliminate it (De Coverly et al., 2008). Prior research has revealed a widespread
lack of awareness about the amount of food waste generated in households (Brook
Lyndhurst, 2007; Hamilton et al., 2013). Thus, food waste awareness becomes an important
factor to consider (Quested et al., 2013a, b; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; do Carmo
Stangherlin and De Barcellos, 2018).
2.3.1.2 Having experienced scarcity. According to Gjerres and Gaiani (2013), consumers
have a strong response to wasting the food and an intuitive sense that it is morally wrong.
They discuss the ethical repercussions and argue that changing how humans identify and
perceive food (ideally as a gift rather than a product) is critical for reducing food waste.
APJBA Significant generational differences in food waste behaviours exist, for instance, consumers
who experienced scarcity during or after the Second World War rarely waste food (Quested
et al., 2013a, b). A different viewpoint on food, such as seeing it as a gift instead of a product,
may help customers to reduce waste (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015).
2.3.2 Opportunity. Opportunity denotes the external, situational circumstances essential
to involve in the desired behaviour. The absence of opportunity can influence behaviour
directly or indirectly to reduce the wastage of food. Opportunities refer to the structures in
consumers’ environments that affect their behaviour. Food infrastructure, technological
appliances, lifestyle and other factors all have the potential to constrain consumers’ ability to
engage in certain behaviours. According to Liska (2004), many behaviours are constrained by
a lack of suitable opportunities, skills and resources.
2.3.2.1 Financial motives. Financial incentives can encourage consumers to purchase food
that would otherwise be discarded; however, purchasing bulk may lead consumers to
purchase extra food than they require. Financial concerns typically outweigh consumers’
concerns about food loss, which can expedite and prevent food waste reduction (Quested
et al., 2013a, b; Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015; De Koning et al., 2015; Falcone and Imbert, 2017;
Schmidt and Matthies, 2018).
According to van Geffen et al. (2020a), participants identified cost savings as motivation
for reducing waste and believed that the only way to decrease food waste would be to
purchase products of higher quality and appropriate packaging sizes, even if these were
expensive (van Geffen et al., 2020a).
2.3.2.2 Lack of time. Economic factors, such as time and money, relate to people’s aversion
to food waste, according to studies (Watson and Meah, 2013). Certain factors that make
consumers careless or lack concern for food waste include insufficient time for food shopping
and preparation (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015) and dissatisfaction with the flavour or
freshness of previously bought foods.
2.3.3 Ability. Abilities refer to the set of skills and knowledge required to successfully
perform a behaviour. Additionally, the term “abilities” implies the requisite knowledge and
skills for bridging the difference among intention and action. Consumers are encouraged for
food waste reduction, and all situational prerequisites are encountered even though
consumers’ inability to change their food waste behaviour may prevent them from doing so.
Consumers’ confidence in their individual ability to lessen food waste serves as a motivator
for reducing food waste (Stancu et al., 2016; Russell et al., 2017; Aktas et al., 2018; Schanes
et al., 2018).
2.3.3.1 Going for planned buying. Routines, such as planning the meal or doing inventory
checks, creating a list of things to buy and sticking to it may help consumers avoid buying
products impulsively and overbuying foods; upgraded skills of cooking at home (such as how
to repurpose leftovers) may aid in reducing the food waste (Stefan et al., 2013). Routines may
help limit the likelihood of underestimating stocks and purchasing food that is already on
hand (Darnton et al., 2011; Chandon and Wansink, 2006).
2.3.3.2 Knowledge and skills about proper food management at home. Many consumers
are unmindful about the “best before” and “use-by dates” (that denotes food quality) and “use-
by dates” (which refer to food safety), which may discard foods unreasonably. Lack of proper
storing or forgetting about stored foods causes foods to go bad unintendedly (Parfitt et al.,
2010; Lanfranchi et al., 2016; Porat et al., 2018; Schmidt and Matthies, 2018; Martindale and
Schiebel, 2017).
2.3.3.3 Good household skills. Household abilities, defined as the perceived ability to
manage food-related routines, were found to be substantially associated with residual reuse
and planning routines. These findings corroborate past research highlighting the importance
of perceived abilities and creating a new meal by combining leftovers (Parfitt et al., 2010;
Lanfranchi et al., 2016). Higher perceived capabilities for household tasks were positively Food waste
associated with leftover reuse routines. reduction
From the three above mentioned theories, a total of 12 motivating factors are identified,
which are presented in Table 1 and graphically shown in Figure 1.

3. Methodology
This study is designed to study the interrelationships between the motivating factors of food
waste reduction behaviour. First, motivating factors of food waste reduction have been
drawn from extensive literature reviews and experts’ opinions. Then, to determine the
interrelationships between the identified motivating factors, the Decision-Making Trial and
Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) technique has been employed. The DEMATEL
technique divides the motivation factors into “cause” and “effect” groups and is used to
identify the most influential motivator of food waste reduction behaviour. A detailed
procedure of DEMATEL utilized by the author has been discussed step by step in this
research. As the DEMATEL technique divides the motivation factors into the cause and
effect group and signifies the seriousness of their impact, therefore, it is preferred over other
multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques, such as AHP, TISM, TOPSIS, EDAS,
ISM, etc (Singh et al., 2019; Bansal et al., 2021). A computable and visual relationship among
motivators through matrices or causal graphs helps the decision-makers (DMs) and
policymakers to get observations in making effective strategies to manage them (Bai and
Satir, 2020). To study the causal relationship between the motivating factors, the DEMATEL
technique has a broad range from 0 to 4 (Vinodh and Swarnakar, 2015). The DEMATEL
technique is a MCDM procedure, which facilitates in creating interrelation between the

Codes Factor Name References

M1 Attitudes Ajzen (1991), Quested et al. (2013a, b), Schanes et al. (2018)
M2 Perceived behavioural control Ajzen (1991), van Geffen et al. (2020b)
M3 Having experienced scarcity Ajzen (1991), Stefan et al. (2013), Visschers et al. (2016),
Stancu et al. (2016), Russell et al. (2017), Aktas et al. (2018),
Porat et al. (2018), Schanes et al. (2018)
M4 Past food waste behaviour Verplanken and Holland (2002), Ouellette and Wood (1998),
Darnton et al. (2011), Quested et al. (2013a, b)
M5 Connection with food Forgas (1994), Lazarus (1991), Aschemann-Witzel et al.
(2015), Watson and Meah (2013), Quested et al. (2013a, b),
Stefan et al. (2013)
M6 Awareness and knowledge about De Coverly et al. (2008), Hamilton et al. (2013), Quested et al.
food waste problem (2013a, b), Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015), Graham-Rowe
et al. (2014)
M7 Subjective norms Quested et al. (2013a, b), Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015)
M8 Financial motives Quested et al. (2013a, b), Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015), De
Koning et al. (2015)
Falcone and Imbert (2017), Schmidt and Matthies (2018), van
Geffen et al. (2020a)
M9 Going for planned buying Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2015), Watson and Meah (2013),
Koivupuro et al. (2012)
M10 Lack of time Schmidt and Matthies (2018), Parfitt et al. (2010), Stefan et al.
(2013), Chandon and Wansink (2006) Table 1.
M11 Knowledge and skills about proper Parfitt et al. (2010), Lanfranchi et al. (2016), Porat et al. (2018), Motivating factors for
food management at home Schmidt and Matthies (2018) food waste reduction
M12 Good household skills Parfitt et al. (2010), Lanfranchi et al. (2016) behaviour
APJBA

Figure 1.
Motivating factors for
food waste reduction

motivators of food waste behaviour. This technique performs as a powerful technique for
decision-making. Gardas et al. (2018) tackle the post-harvest losses by analysing the critical
causal factors of post-harvest losses in the fruit and vegetable supply chain in India by
adopting the DEMATEL technique. Sharma et al. (2018) utilize the DEMATEL approach to
assess the success factors of implementation of sustainable food supply chain management.
Ali et al. (2019) developed the sustainable framework of the food supply chain to reduce food
wastage and analyse the risks using the grey DEMATEL approach. Farooque et al. (2019)
applied the DEMATEL approach to recognize and analytically evaluate the causal–effect
relationships between barriers of China’s circular food supply chains. Various risks are
involved in the agro-food supply chain that is assessed by Benabdallah et al. (2020) using the
rough DEMATEL approach. Mangla et al. (2021) identified the various challenges of food
safety practices in the food supply chain of emerging economies and analyse them using the
DEMATEL approach. The complete procedure of DEMATEL has been split into five steps.
The step-by-step method to utilize the DEMATEL methodology is as follows (Saini and
Gupta, 2020):
Step 1: Construction of an average direct relationship matrix.
The judgement of experts on the influence of various motivating factors on each other has been
collected by analysing the given matrix based on the DEMATEL scale (shown in Table 2). Then,
the direct relation matrix (say D) has been developed. If there are m experts, then

Variable Influence score

No influence 0
Low influence 1
Table 2. Medium influence 2
DEMATEL High influence 3
comparison scale Very high influence 4
 1 Xm
Food waste
D¼ ak ; i; j ¼ 1; 2;    ; m (1)
m k¼1 ij reduction
where aij denotes the degree of influence of factor i over factor j.
Then, the average direct relationship matrix will be as follows:
2 3
a11 . . . a1j . . . a1n
6 .. .. .. 7
6 . . . 7
6 7
D¼6 a
6 i1 . . . a ij . . . a 7
in 7
6 . . . 7
4 .. .. .. 5
an1 . . . anj . . . ann

Step 2: Normalization of an average direct relation matrix.

The average direct relation matrix can be normalized as follows:
Y ¼ k:aij (2)

where
1
k¼ Pm ; i; j ¼ 1; 2;    ; m (3)
max j¼1 aij
1≤i≤m

Step 3: Computation of the total relation matrix.

Calculate the total relation matrix by using equation (4)
T ¼ X ðI  X Þ−1 (4)

where “I” is the identity matrix.

Step 4: Developing a cause and effect group.
Compute ci “the sum of rows of T” and ri “the sum of columns of T”. Next, obtain the ci − ri,
which represents the kind of relationship between the factors, and ci þ ri, which shows the
degree of relationship between each factor with other factors.
Step 5: Producing a casual diagram.
Lastly, produce a causal diagram between the identified motivating factors.

4. Results
In this section, using the DEMATEL technique, the motivation factors of food waste
reduction have been classified into cause and effect groups, and the results of DEMATEL
analysis will be explored. To evaluate the influence of various factors over each other, a
team of experts was created to collect the opinions. The team of experts consists of people
from the food industry and household. All the experts were from the National Capital
Region (NCR), Delhi, India. A comprehensive questionnaire was created for the pilot
survey (Appendix). Experts were instructed about the purpose and objective of the study.
As this is a start pilot survey, 150 consumers were selected through judgement sampling
technique, which is quite satisfactory samples for such type of pilot surveys (Antony and
Fergusson, 2004; Antony et al., 2019). The questionnaires were circulated online among the
APJBA selected consumers for the understanding of their opinions. The total time spent in the
survey was 3 months and 11 days. Various social media sources, such as WhatsApp,
Facebook and LinkedIn, were utilized to contact the respondents. An online survey
approach was utilized due to its low cost and ease to distribute the questionnaire among
respondents in a standardized way through self-administrative methods (Couper and
Miller, 2008). Out of 150, a total of 108 responses were received from the respondents.
During final scrutiny, 13 questionnaires were found to be incomplete, and 95 responses
were used for final analysis, which signifies 63% response rate, which is quite satisfactory
for surveys of this nature (Sony and Naik, 2012; Antony and Sony, 2020). The analysis of
respondents’ data reveals that 63 respondents were male and 32 were female. Age was
anonymous in many responses, so the authors are unable to analyse the right age, but the
questionnaire was distributed to consumers having a minimum of 25 age and maximum
age of 60. Similarly, many respondents had not mentioned their qualifications, but the
minimum criterion selected to send the questionnaire were graduation and the maximum
was Ph.D.
In this study, R 3.6.3 software has been used for the computation of the DEMATEL
technique. The software follows the standard steps of the methodology. First, the average
direct relation matrix D is established representing the opinion of experts, as exhibited in
Table 3.
Following this, decision matrix has been normalized, and the average normalized matrix
has been computed to articulate the scores in the span of 0–1 (Table 4).
Table 5 presents the total relation matrix between the twelve motivating factors of food
wastage reduction behaviour.
Additional computations are completed as per steps of the procedure, and the outcomes of
causal relationships are obtained. The obtained values of total relation matrix row total “ci ”,
column total “ri ”, degree of relationship between the motivating factors “ci þ ri ” and type of
relationship between the motivating factors “ci − ri ” are exhibited in Table 6. These scores
will support in evaluating the motivators of food waste reduction.
The magnitude of “ ci − ri ” values classify the motivation factors of food waste reduction
into “Effect” and “Cause” groups. The positive scores of “ ci − ri ” represent the cause group
and negative scores of “ ci − ri ” effect group. Tables 7 and 8 present the ranking of motivators
and the cause and effect group’s classification. Further, Figure 2 has been drawn that
signifies the graphical relationship among the motivators of food waste reduction behaviour.
Motivators above the origin represent the “cause” group whereas below the origin “effect”
group in the graphical representation.

Motivators M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

M1 0 1 2 1 3 0 3 4 3 3 2 4
M2 4 0 2 3 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 4
M3 3 1 0 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 2
M4 3 3 2 0 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 3
M5 3 0 2 3 0 4 4 2 2 2 2 2
M6 3 1 1 3 2 0 2 2 4 4 4 4
M7 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 3 3 3 3
M8 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 2
M9 3 2 1 3 4 3 3 3 0 3 4 3
Table 3. M10 3 2 1 2 4 2 2 1 3 0 3 3
Average direct relation M11 3 1 1 2 4 2 3 3 2 3 0 4
comparison matrix M12 2 2 1 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 3 0
Motivators M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

M1 0.00000 0.02941 0.05882 0.02941 0.08824 0.00000 0.08824 0.11765 0.08824 0.08824 0.05882 0.11765
M2 0.11765 0.00000 0.05882 0.08824 0.08824 0.02941 0.05882 0.02941 0.08824 0.05882 0.02941 0.11765
M3 0.08824 0.02941 0.00000 0.05882 0.05882 0.08824 0.05882 0.02941 0.05882 0.05882 0.02941 0.05882
M4 0.08824 0.08824 0.05882 0.00000 0.08824 0.05882 0.05882 0.05882 0.08824 0.11765 0.08824 0.08824
M5 0.08824 0.00000 0.05882 0.08824 0.00000 0.11765 0.11765 0.05882 0.05882 0.05882 0.05882 0.05882
M6 0.08824 0.02941 0.02941 0.08824 0.05882 0.00000 0.05882 0.05882 0.11765 0.11765 0.11765 0.11765
M7 0.05882 0.00000 0.02941 0.02941 0.05882 0.02941 0.00000 0.05882 0.08824 0.08824 0.08824 0.08824
M8 0.02941 0.02941 0.02941 0.02941 0.05882 0.02941 0.02941 0.00000 0.05882 0.05882 0.05882 0.05882
M9 0.08824 0.05882 0.02941 0.08824 0.11765 0.08824 0.08824 0.08824 0.00000 0.08824 0.11765 0.08824
M10 0.08824 0.05882 0.02941 0.05882 0.11765 0.05882 0.05882 0.02941 0.08824 0.00000 0.08824 0.08824
M11 0.08824 0.02941 0.02941 0.05882 0.11765 0.05882 0.08824 0.08824 0.05882 0.08824 0.00000 0.11765
M12 0.05882 0.05882 0.02941 0.08824 0.11765 0.08824 0.05882 0.02941 0.05882 0.08824 0.08824 0.00000
reduction
Food waste

direct relation matrix

Table 4.
Normalized average
 Table 5.
APJBA

Total relation matrix

Motivators M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

M1 0.22213 0.139255 0.17187 0.21454 0.34120 0.18205 0.28875 0.28416 0.29845 0.31775 0.27857 0.36003
M2 0.34497 0.119017 0.18110 0.27851 0.35401 0.21563 0.27493 0.21575 0.31223 0.30680 0.26325 0.37620
M3 0.27589 0.124607 0.10129 0.21588 0.27616 0.23308 0.23393 0.18226 0.24681 0.26280 0.22304 0.27718
M4 0.35339 0.216383 0.19661 0.22434 0.39257 0.26701 0.30429 0.26651 0.34486 0.39202 0.34754 0.38957
M5 0.31368 0.116606 0.17637 0.27263 0.26477 0.28943 0.32198 0.24148 0.28674 0.30756 0.29155 0.32285
M6 0.35520 0.167940 0.17014 0.30875 0.37454 0.21536 0.30796 0.27242 0.37412 0.39963 0.38266 0.42031
M7 0.24567 0.097085 0.12677 0.18748 0.27884 0.18148 0.17760 0.20781 0.26702 0.28497 0.27443 0.29921
M8 0.17798 0.102380 0.10559 0.15307 0.22726 0.14758 0.16636 0.11624 0.19938 0.21229 0.20311 0.22399
M9 0.36627 0.195235 0.17770 0.31712 0.43377 0.30462 0.34475 0.30700 0.27867 0.38461 0.39062 0.40705
M10 0.32201 0.172632 0.15437 0.25530 0.38262 0.24488 0.27897 0.21899 0.31429 0.25364 0.31877 0.35447
M11 0.32711 0.149974 0.15800 0.26017 0.39149 0.25104 0.31058 0.27670 0.29715 0.34433 0.24707 0.38794
M12 0.29823 0.173980 0.15484 0.28237 0.38241 0.27179 0.27840 0.21758 0.29109 0.33714 0.32042 0.27454
Motivators ci ri ci þ r i ci − r i
Food waste
reduction
M1 3.098794 3.602573 6.701368 0.5037787
M2 3.242447 1.775101 5.017548 1.4673455
M3 2.652992 1.874702 4.527694 0.7782904
M4 3.695145 2.970215 6.665360 0.7249300
M5 3.205693 4.099703 7.305396 0.8940103
M6 3.749092 2.804012 6.553104 0.9450798
M7 2.628419 3.288561 5.916980 0.6601422
M8 2.035293 2.806965 4.842258 0.7716729
M9 3.907458 3.510853 7.418312 0.3966051 Table 6.
M10 3.271004 3.803590 7.074594 0.5325859 Causal relationship
M11 3.401605 3.541085 6.942690 0.1394803 between motivating
M12 3.282845 4.093425 7.376270 0.8105804 factors

Motivators ci þ r i Rank Motivators ci þ r i Rank

M1 6.701368 6 M7 5.916980 9
M2 7.418312 1 M8 4.842258 11
M3 4.527694 12 M9 5.017548 10
M4 6.665360 7 M10 7.074594 4 Table 7.
M5 7.305396 3 M11 6.942690 5 Overall ranking of
M6 6.553104 8 M12 7.376270 2 motivating factors

Cause group ci − r i Rank Effect group ci − r i Rank

M2 1.4673455 1 M1 0.5037787 5
M3 0.7782904 4 M7 0.6601422 3
M4 0.7249300 5 M8 0.7716729 2
M6 0.9450798 2 M10 0.5325859 4 Table 8.
M9 0.3966051 6 M11 0.1394803 6 Classification of cause
M5 0.8940103 3 M12 0.8105804 1 and effect groups

Figure 2.
Causal relationship
representation
APJBA Since the outcomes are based on the opinions of a set of respondents from a specific region,
so the findings cannot be generalized for the household consumers of other regions and other
levels of the food value chain.

5. Discussion
The findings of this study (refer to Table 8) show that the “perceived behavioural control
(M2)” has the highest influence on the food waste behaviour having the maximum positive
score. Therefore, it is believed as an extremely influential motivator in the cause group.
Further, it is noted that second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth-ranked motivating factors are
“awareness and knowledge about food waste problem (M6), connection with food (M5),
having experience scarcity (M3), past food waste behaviour (M4) and going for planned
buying (M9)”, respectively, in the cause category. Moreover, the study suggests that the top
three motivators of the effect group are “good household skills (M12), financial motives (M8)
and subjective norms (M7)”. On the contrary, based on the prominence values presented in
Table 6, global ranking of the motivating factors are as follows: perceived behavioural control
(M2), good household skills (M12), connection with food (M5), lack of time (M10), knowledge
and skills about proper food management (M11), attitudes (M1), past food waste behaviour
(M4), fairness and knowledge about food waste problem (M6), subjective norms (M7), going
for planned buying (M9), financial motives (M8) and having experience scarcity (M3). Ajzen
(1991) has identified three motivating factors for food waste reduction, whereas Graham-
Rowe et al. (2014) developed a model of only two factors, and van Geffen et al. (2020a, b) and
Soma et al. (2021) present seven factors under MOA for food waste reduction. None of the
previous studies have analysed the 12 motivating factors together quantitatively. Also, there
was no research found utilizing the applied method in methodology. This study determined
the weightage of each factor, ranked them and classified them into “cause and effect” groups
that will help the policymakers in mounting the strategies for reducing food waste at the
household level.

6. Implications
The study has various implications for policymakers and practitioners. In this section,
three types of implications have been discussed through which practitioners and
policymakers will be facilitated to motivate the household consumers towards food waste
reduction.

6.1 Theoretical implications

To achieve the SDGs, reduction in food waste problem is very important. Food waste has
been largely done on the consumer level and impacts the country socially, economically and
most environmentally. The study from the literature suggests that none of the previous
studies analysed the factors that motivate the people for food waste reduction. Some of the
studies have been developed a few theories towards food waste reduction. This study
identifies the factors that can motivate food waste reduction at the household level using the
theories from the past such as TPB, TIB and MOA model. These theories have proven useful
for disentangling the various motivation factors that affect food waste behaviour at
household consumer levels. The study tells that if the perceived behaviour of the consumers
is in control, then it will positively impact the food waste reduction. Also, efforts should be
made to spread awareness about the problems of food waste more and more through
campaigns or advertisements. The present study results also advise that persons may require
being educated in food management skills to enable them in keeping minimum food waste at
household level.
6.2 Managerial implications Food waste
This study demonstrates the critical idea that, rather than focusing exclusively on the reduction
objective of reducing consumer food waste, interventions should focus on providing
opportunities and enhancing skills that make it easier for consumers to minimize their food
waste. The findings of this study are essential in establishing strategies for reducing food
waste at the household level. The findings provide strong support for the approach to
household routines taken by numerous campaigns (e.g. planning, shopping and leftover
reuse). Our data indicate that interventions aimed at modifying residual reuse behaviours
may have the greatest impact on food waste, although shopping habits also have tremendous
potential.

6.3 Social implications

Corporations must recognize the crucial role of technology in minimizing food loss and waste
in the supply chain’s first phases. Investments in India’s thriving start-up ecosystem can also
help overcome systemic barriers by promoting the development of cutting-edge logistics and
supply chain technologies, as well as blockchain, artificial intelligence, data monitoring,
storage and packaging solutions. The findings of this study can be applied to other
developing economies that face high food waste and inadequate technological infrastructure
in supply chains, thereby addressing global hunger and food security concerns.

7. Conclusion
Globally, as the human population grows, so does the demand for natural resources in sectors
such as food, transportation, energy, material and chemical production (Crenna et al., 2019).
Within this work, we have attempted to address the serious global issue of “food waste” in the
context of India. Minimizing food waste would cut ozone-harming substance outflows,
moderate the obliteration of nature through land change and contamination, improve the
accessibility of food and consequently diminish hunger and save money. Therefore, the study
is based on content analysis to detect the motivating factors for food waste reduction at the
household consumer level. In total, 12 motivating factors are identified across extensive
literature reviews along with opinions of experts. A total of 95 household experts expressed
their views on identified motivation factors of food waste reduction, and a decision matrix has
been developed based on that. Findings indicate that PBC is the most influential motivating
factor for food reduction at the household consumer level. Results also showed that
knowledge and skills about proper food management at home are the least affected factor
among the others. Reducing food waste at the consumer and household level can benefit both
people and the environment in multiple ways. Educational efforts should be used by
policymakers to enhance household awareness of food waste.

7.1 Limitations and future scope

Though the current study has identified 12 motivating factors, still it cannot be concluded
that no other than these factors can affect food waste reduction behaviour. Other motivators
can also be identified other than these and carried out the study using experimental design.
Next, the current study findings are dependent on the opinion of the experts; therefore, the
selection of experts and their inputs needs careful observation. The present study focuses on
food waste at the household consumer level, so the motivators can vary for different levels,
such as supply chain level, manufacturer level, etc. At household consumer level, a large-scale
survey can be carried out to achieve more robust results by comparing and validating the
results with present findings. Since the findings are based on the opinions of a set of
respondents from a particular region, so its findings cannot be generalized for the household
APJBA consumers of other regions and other levels of the food value chain. As the present study is
limited to food wastage at the household consumer level, future studies can be covered social
gatherings and weddings. For consideration of interrelationships between motivating
factors, the same study can be extended by utilizing fuzzy DEMATEL with either the same or
different sets of motivators. The results can also be compared with other fuzzy MCDM (Multi-
criteria decision-making) techniques, like fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference
by Similarity to Ideal Solution), fuzzy PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization

Method for Enrichment Evaluation), fuzzy ELECTRE (ELimination et Choix Traduisant la
REalite) or fuzzy VIKOR (VIekriterijumsko KOmpromisno Rangiranje). Also, the motivation
factors can be identified in the future for the food waste reduction on supply chain and
manufacturer level. The authors believe that the present study contributes significantly to
making the food waste reduction motivating strategies through prioritization and causal
relationship of the motivation factors.

References
Abeliotis, K., Lasaridi, K. and Chroni, C. (2014), “Attitudes and behaviour of Greek households
regarding food waste prevention”, Waste Management and Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 237-240.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Aktas, E., Sahin, H., Topaloglu, Z., Oledinma, A., Huda, A.K.S., Irani, Z. and Kamrava, M. (2018), “A
consumer behavioural approach to food waste”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 658-673.
Ali, S.M., Moktadir, M.A., Kabir, G., Chakma, J., Rumi, M.J.U. and Islam, M.T. (2019), “Framework for
evaluating risks in food supply chain: implications in food wastage reduction”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 228, pp. 786-800.
Antony, J. and Fergusson, C. (2004), “Six Sigma in the software industry: results from a pilot study”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1025-1032.
Antony, J. and Sony, M. (2020), “An empirical study into qualifications and skills of quality
management practitioners in contemporary organizations: results from a global survey and
agenda for future research”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. doi: 10.1109/
TEM.2021.3050460.
Antony, J., Lizarelli, F.L., Fernandes, M.M., Dempsey, M., Brennan, A. and McFarlane, J. (2019), “A
study into the reasons for process improvement project failures: results from a pilot survey”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1699-1720.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., De Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T. and Oostindjer, M. (2015), “Consumer-
related food waste: causes and potential for action”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 6457-6477.
Bai, C. and Satir, A. (2020), “Barriers for green supplier development programs in manufacturing industry”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 158, p. 104756, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104756.
Bansal, M.K., Garg, P., Gupta, N. and Agarwal, M. (2021), “Optimal placement of renewable energy
based distributed generation units using MCDM technique”, International Journal of
Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1199-1213.
Benabdallah, C., El-Amraoui, A., Delmotte, F. and Frikha, A. (2020), “An integrated rough-DEMATEL
method for sustainability risk assessment in agro-food supply chain”, 2020 5th International
Conference on Logistics Operations Management (GOL), IEEE, pp. 1-9.
Borrello, M., Lombardi, A., Pascucci, S. and Cembalo, L. (2016), “The seven challenges for transitioning
into a bio-based circular economy in the agri-food sector. Recent pat”, The Journal
of Food, Nutrition and Agriculture, Vol. 8, pp. 39-47.
Brook Lyndhurst (2007), Food Behaviour Consumer Research: Quantitative Phase, available at: http://
www.wrap.org.uk/content/food-behaviour-consumer-research-quantitative-phase.
Chandon, P. and Wansink, B. (2006), “How biased household inventory estimates distort shopping and Food waste
storage decisions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 118-135.
reduction
Couper, M.P. and Miller, P.V. (2008), “Web survey methods: introduction”, Public Opinion Quarterly,
Vol. 72 No. 5, pp. 831-835.
Crenna, E., Secchi, M., Benini, L. and Sala, S. (2019), “Global environmental impacts: data sources and
methodological choices for calculating normalization factors for LCA”, The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1851-1877.
Darnton, A., Verplanken, B., White, P. and Whitmarsh, L. (2011), Habits, routines and sustainable
lifestyles: a summary report to the department for environment, food and rural affairs, AD
Research and Analysis for Defra, London, pp. 1-44.
De Coverly, E., McDonagh, P., O’Malley, L. and Patterson, M. (2008), “Hidden Mountain: the social
avoidance of waste”, Journal of Macro Marketing, Vol. 28, pp. 289-303.
De Koning, J.I.J.C., Crul, M.R.M., Wever, R. and Brezet, J.C. (2015), “Sustainable consumption in
Vietnam: an explorative study among the urban middle class”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 608-618.
Dissanayake, D.G.K. and Weerasinghe, D. (2021), “Towards circular economy in fashion: review of
strategies, barriers and enablers”, Circular Economy and Sustainability, pp. 1-21.
do Carmo Stangherlin, I. and De Barcellos, M.D. (2018), “Drivers and barriers to food waste reduction”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 120 No. 10, pp. 2364-2387.
Doron, N. (2012), “A clear plate means a clear conscience”, in Doron, N. (Ed.), Revaluing Food, Fabian
Society, London, available at: http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/
Revaluing-Food WEB.pdf.
European Commission (2017), “Communication from the commission to the European Exodus”, We
Don’t Waste Food: A Householder Survey, available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/
We don’t waste food - A household survey mar07.db6802f9.6397.pdf.
Falcone, P.M. and Imbert, E. (2017), “Bringing a sharing economy approach into the food sector: the
potential of food sharing for reducing food waste”, Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation,
Springer, Cham, pp. 197-214.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1981), Forest Resources Assessment Project 1980, FAO, Rome.
FAO (1996), Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, World
Food Summit, Rome, pp. 13-17, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm.
FAO Fisheries Department, “Fishery information, data and statistics unit. 2019”, FishStatJ, a Tool for
Fishery Statistics Analysis, Release: 3.5.0, Universal Software for Fishery Statistical Time Series.
Global Aquaculture Production: Quantity 1950-2017; Value 1950-2017; Global Capture
Production, FAO, Rome, pp. 1950-2017.
Farooque, M., Zhang, A. and Liu, Y. (2019), “Barriers to circular food supply chains in China”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 677-696.
Fielding, K.S., Russell, S., Spinks, A. and Mankad, A. (2012), “Determinants of household water
conservation: the role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables”,
Water Resources Research, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 1-12.
Forgas, J.P. (1994), “Sad and guilty? Affective influences on the explanation of conflict in close
relationships”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 1, p. 56.
Gardas, B.B., Raut, R.D. and Narkhede, B. (2018), “Evaluating critical causal factors for post-harvest
losses (PHL) in the fruit and vegetables supply chain in India using the DEMATEL approach”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 199, pp. 47-61.
Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S.N., de Carvalho, M.M. and Evans, S. (2018), “Business models and supply
chains for the circular economy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 190, pp. 712-721, doi: 10.
1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.1599.
APJBA Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C. and Ulgiati, S. (2016), “A review on circular economy: the expected transition
to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 114, pp. 11-32.
Gjerres, M. and Gaiani, S. (2013), “Household food waste in Nordic countries: estimations and ethical
implications. Etik i Praksis (Nord”, The Journal of Ethics, Vol. 7, pp. 6-23, doi: 10.5324/eip.v7i1.1786.
Global Hunger Index (2020), available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/global-health-index-
2020-india-6757899/ (accessed 3 July 2021).
G€obel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P. and Ritter, G. (2015), “Cutting food waste through
cooperation along the food supply chain”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1429-1445.
Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C. and Sparks, P. (2014), “Identifying motivations and barriers to
minimising household food waste”, Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, Vol. 84, pp. 15-23.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk and Meybeck, A. (2011), “Global food losses
and food waste”, in Jenny Gustavsson, D., Cederberg, C. and Sonesson, U. (Eds), Save Food
Congress, SIK – The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology.
Hamilton, J., Fawson, S., May, J., Andrade, J. and Kavanagh, D.J. (2013), “Brief guided imagery and
body scanning interventions reduce food cravings”, Appetite, Vol. 71, pp. 158-162.
Indian Express (2021), India Has a Food Wastage Problem. Here’s How Individuals Can Make a
Difference, available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/food-waste-index-
report-india-coronavirus-hunder-index-7261909/.
Kenny, S.T., Runic, J.N., Kaminsky, W., Woods, T., Babu, R.P., Keely, C.M., Blau, W. and O’Connor,
K.E. (2008), “Up-cycling of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) to the biodegradable plastic PHA
(polyhydroxyalkanoate)”, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 42, pp. 7696-7701.
Khanna, K. (2016), “Thought for food: using participatory theatre with Indian youth to curb food
wastage”, Journal of Content, Community and Communication, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 60-66.
Ki, C.W., Chong, S.M. and Ha-Brookshire, J.E. (2020), “How fashion can achieve sustainable
development through a circular economy and stakeholder engagement: a systematic literature
review”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27, pp. 2401-2424,
doi: 10.1002/csr.1970.
Kl€ockner, C.A. (2013), “A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—a
meta-analysis”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 1028-1038.
Koivupuro, H.-K., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Heikintalo, N., Reinikainen, A.
and Jalkanen, L. (2012), “Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and attitudinal factors
on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish household”, International Journal
of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 183-191.
Kosseva, M.R. (2013), “Introduction: causes and challenges of food wastage”, Food Industry Wastes,
Elsevier, pp. xv-xxiv.
Lanfranchi, M., Calabro, G., De Pascale, A., Fazio, A. and Giannetto, C. (2016), “Household food waste
and eating behavior: empirical survey”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 12, pp. 3059-3072.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), “Cognition and motivation in emotion”, American Psychologist, Vol. 46 No. 4, p. 352.
Lerner, J.S. and Keltner, D. (2000), “Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on
judgement and choice”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 473-493.
Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Waite, R., Searchinger, T., Lomax, J. and Kitinoja, L. (2013), Reducing Food
Loss and Waste, World Resources Institute.
Liska, A.E. (2004), “A critical examination of the casual structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen attitude
behaviour model”, Social Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 61-74.
Mallinson, L.J., Russell, J.M. and Barker, M.E. (2016), “Attitudes and behaviour towards convenience
food and food waste in the United Kingdom”, Appetite, Vol. 103, pp. 17-28.
Mangla, S.K., Bhattacharya, A., Yadav, A.K., Sharma, Y.K., Ishizaka, A., Luthra, S. and Chakraborty, Food waste
R. (2021), “A framework to assess the challenges to food safety initiatives in an emerging
economy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 284, p. 124709. reduction
Martindale, W. and Schiebel, W. (2017), “The impact of food preservation on food waste”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 119 No. 12, pp. 2510-2518.
Marzouk, O.A. and Mahrous, A.A. (2020), “Sustainable consumption behavior of energy and water-
efficient products in a resource-constrained environment”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 5, pp. 335-353.
Matharu, M., Jain, R. and Kamboj, S. (2020), “Understanding the impact of lifestyle on sustainable
consumption behaviour: a sharing economy perspective”, Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 20-40.
McCarthy, B. and Liu, H.B. (2017), “Food waste and the ‘green’ consumer”, Australasian Marketing
Journal (AMJ), Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 126-132.
Mirosa, M., Liu, Y. and Mirosa, R. (2018), “Consumers’ behaviors and attitudes toward doggy bags:
identifying barriers and benefits to promoting behavior change”, Journal of Food Products
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 563-590.
Moreno, M., de los Rios, C., Rowe, Z. and Charnley, F. (2016), “A conceptual framework for circular
design”, Sustainability, Vol. 8, p. 937.
Nations, U. (2015), Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World, available at:
https://www. un. org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/ (accessed 14 June 2021).
Ouellette, J.A. and Wood, W. (1998), “Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by
which past behavior predicts future behavior”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 1, p. 54.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. and Macnaughton, S. (2010), “Food waste within food supply chains:
quantification and potential for change to 2050”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 365 No. 1554, pp. 3065-3081.
Porat, R., Lichter, A., Terry, L.A., Harker, R. and Buzby, J. (2018), “Postharvest losses of fruit and
vegetables during retail and in consumers’ homes: quantifications, causes, and means of
prevention”, Postharvest Biology and Technology, Vol. 139, pp. 135-149.
Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D. and Parry, A.D. (2013a), “Spaghetti soup: the complex world of
food waste behaviours”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 79, pp. 43-51.
Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D. and Parry, A.D. (2013b), “Spaghetti soup: the complex world of
food waste behaviours”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 79, pp. 43-514.
Richter, B. and Bokelmann, W. (2017), “Explorative study about the analysis of storing, purchasing
and wasting food by using household diaries”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 125,
pp. 181-187.
Rothschild, M. (1999), “Carrots, sticks and promises: a conceptual framework for the management of
public health and social issues behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 24-37.
Russell, K.C., Gillis, H.L.L. and Kivlighan, D.M. Jr (2017), “Process factors explaining psycho-social
outcomes in adventure therapy”, Psychotherapy, Vol. 54 No. 3, p. 273.
Saini, C.P. and Gupta, N. (2020), “Interrelated factors driving the purchase of over-the-top television
subscription services: a study using exploratory factor analysis and the decision-making trial
and evaluation laboratory method”, Applied Marketing Analytics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 73-84.
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K. and G€ozet, B. (2018), “Food waste matters-A systematic review of household
food waste practices and their policy implications”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 182,
pp. 978-991.
Schmidt, K. and Matthies, E. (2018), “Where to start fighting the food waste problem? Identifying most
promising entry points for intervention programs to reduce household food waste and
overconsumption of food”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 139, pp. 1-14.
APJBA Sharma, Y.K., Mangla, S.K., Patil, P.P. and Uniyal, S. (2018), “Sustainable food supply chain
management implementation using DEMATEL approach”, Advances in Health and
Environment Safety, Springer, Singapore, pp. 115-125.
Singh, R.K., Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K. and Uniyal, S. (2019), “Applications of information and
communication technology for sustainable growth of SMEs in India food industry”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 147, pp. 10-18, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.014.
Soma, T., Li, B. and Maclaren, V. (2021), “An evaluation of a consumer food waste awareness
campaign using the motivation opportunity ability framework”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 168, p. 105313.
Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2012), “Six Sigma, organizational learning and innovation: an integration and
empirical examination”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29
No. 8, pp. 915-936.
Stancu, V., Haugaard, P. and L€ahteenm€aki, L. (2016), “Determinants of consumer food waste
behaviour: two routes to food waste”, Appetite, Vol. 96, pp. 7-17.
Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A.A. and L€ahteenm€aki, L. (2013), “Avoiding food waste by
Romanian consumers: the importance of planning and shopping routines”, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 375-381.
Stuart, T. (2009), Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal, Penguin Books, London.
Triandis, H.C. (1977), “Cross-cultural social and personality psychology”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 143-158.
van Geffen, L., van Herpen, E. and van Trijp, H. (2020a), “Household food waste—how to avoid it? An
integrative review”, Food Waste Management, pp. 27-55, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-20561-4_2.
van Geffen, L., van Herpen, E., Sijtsema, S. and van Trijp, H. (2020b), “Food waste as the consequence
of competing motivations, lack of opportunities, and insufficient abilities”, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. X No. 5, 100026.
Verplanken, B. and Holland, R.W. (2002), “Motivated decision making: effects of activation and self-
centrality of values on choices and behavior”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 82 No. 3, p. 434.
Vinodh, S. and Swarnakar, V. (2015), “Lean Six Sigma project selection using hybrid approach based
on fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 313-338.
Visschers, V.H.M., Wickli, N. and Siegrist, M. (2016), “Sorting out food waste behaviour: a survey on
the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in households”, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 66-78.
Watson, M. and Meah, A. (2013), “Food, waste and safety: negotiating conflicting social anxieties into
the practices of domestic provisioning”, The Sociological Review, Vol. 60, pp. 102-120.
WRAP (2009a), Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK, Final report, available at: http://www.
wrapcymru.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household%20food%20and%20drink%20waste%20in%
20the%20UK%20-%20report.pdf.
WRAP (2009b), Down the Drain. Final Report, available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/
Down%20the%20drain%20-%20report.pdf.
WRAP (2010), Helping Consumers Reduce Food Waste – A Retail Survey, available at: http://www.
wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/240412%20Retailer%20review%202011.pdf.
Yadav, V.S., Singh, A.R., Gunasekaran, A., Raut, R.D. and Narkhede, B. (2021), “A systematic
literature review of the agro-food supply chain: challenges, network design, and performance
measurement perspectives”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 29, January 2022,
pp. 685-704.
Further reading Food waste
de Morais, L.H.L., Pinto, D.C. and Cruz-Jesus, F. (2021), “Circular economy engagement: altruism, reduction
status, and cultural orientation as drivers for sustainable consumption”, Sustainable Production
and Consumption, Vol. 27, pp. 523-533.
European Commission (2015), “Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the
council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions”, Closing
the Loop - An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, p. 614, COM (2015).
Ki, C.W., Park, S. and Ha-Brookshire, J.E. (2021), “Toward a circular economy: understanding
consumers’ moral stance on corporations’ and individuals’ responsibilities in creating a circular
fashion economy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 1121-1135.
Pizzi, S., Leopizzi, R. and Caputo, A. (2021), “The enablers in the relationship between entrepreneurial
ecosystems and the circular economy: the case of circularity. com”, Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 26-43.

Appendix
Sample questions asked to the experts are as follows:
Q1. Attitude of the person influence how much when compared to perceived behavioural control?
Q2. Attitude of the person influence how much when compared to having experienced scarcity?
Similarly, questions were asked for each motivator on a scale of 0–4, where 0 means “no influence”,
1 means “low influence”, 2 means “medium influence”, 3 means “high influence” and 4 means “very high
influence”.

Motivators M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

M1 0
M2 0
M3 0
M4 0
M5 0
M6 0
M7 0
M8 0
M9 0
M10 0
M11 0
M12 0

Corresponding author
Neha Gupta be contacted at: ngngupta4@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats