Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/jclepro

The role of collaboration in tackling food loss and waste: Salient

stakeholder perspective
Ebru Surucu-Balci a, *, Okan Tuna b
a
School of Management, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, United Kingdom
b
Department of Logistics Management, Maritime Faculty, Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemeš While studies indicate that collaboration between stakeholders plays a prominent role in reducing food loss and
waste (FLW), they have not specified which stakeholder group’s collaboration will be more effective in reducing
Keywords: FLW. To fill this gap in the literature, this paper aims to identify and classify fruit and vegetable supply chain
Collaboration-related strategies (FVSC) stakeholders according to their salience level and offer mitigation strategies for different salient stake­
Fruit and vegetable supply chain
holder groups to tackle FLW. The study was conducted in Turkish FVSC because fruit and vegetable loss
Food loss and waste
accounted for 53% of the total food loss. A multi-method approach was utilised to achieve the aim. First, 26 semi-
Stakeholder mapping. food loss and waste
drivers structured interviews were conducted with Turkish FVSC experts to determine FVSC stakeholders and FLW
Turkey drivers. Second, to identify and classify salient stakeholders, stakeholder mapping was undertaken.
Collaboration-related mitigation strategies are offered high salient stakeholders and other stakeholder groups to
reduce the amount of fruit and vegetable loss and waste. According to content analysis results, 25 supply chain
actors are identified as stakeholders, and 15 are classified as salient stakeholders who can be more effective in
tackling FLW. In addition, based on the results, 26 FLW drivers are identified according to different supply chain
stages. Collaboration-based mitigation strategies were developed to diminish the impact of FLW causes at
different stages. This study is one of the early attempts to classify food supply chain stakeholders according to
saliency level. This study offers collaboration-related mitigation strategies to eliminate FLW drivers that cause
loss and waste between specific stages of the FVSC.

1. Introduction and region. Although the amount of FLW is similar in developed and
developing countries, 670 and 630 million tons (Mts), they differ per
Food security is a fundamental human right that states that each capita (FAO, 2015). More than 160kg/capita of food is thrown away
person should have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, annually from agricultural production to retail, while the actual amount
safe, and nutritious food, considering their needs and preferences for changes from region to region (Amicarelli et al., 2020). The highest loss
active and healthy life (Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO, 2002). occurs in Latin America with 200kg/capita, while the lowest loss occurs
Food loss and waste (FLW) is a severe threat to ensuring food security in South and Southeast Asia (100 kg/capita) (Amicarelli et al., 2020).
(Ishangulyyev et al., 2019). Each year, 1.3 billion tons of food is lost or Like earlier stages, the amount of FLW varies in the consumption stage;
wasted, one-third of all produced globally (FAO, 2013). If a quarter of for instance, the highest waste amount is recorded in Europe and North
the FLW is cut, the world’s undernourished population can be offered America with 95–115 kg per capita year, while the lowest is in
sufficient food (United Nations, 2016). The monetary equivalent of the sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia with 6–11 kg capita year
loss and waste equals USD 1 trillion, the environmental cost is USD 700 (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Considering the severity of the FLW on food
billion, and the social cost is approximately USD 900 billion (FAO, security, United Nations (UN) has committed to ending hunger,
2020). Alongside economic impact, the environmental effects of FLW achieving food security and improving nutrition, and promoting sus­
are also destructive. Six percent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission tainable agriculture by 2030 by establishing Sustainable Development
comes from landfilling the wasted food (Ritchie, 2020). Goals (SDGs), precisely SDG 2 (zero hunger) (United Nations, 2015).
FLW amount varies according to the food supply chain (FSC) stage As the importance of the FLW phenomenon has increased in recent

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [Link]@[Link] (E. Surucu-Balci), otuna@[Link] (O. Tuna).

[Link]
Received 7 January 2022; Received in revised form 30 June 2022; Accepted 11 July 2022
Available online 13 July 2022
0959-6526/Crown Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ([Link]
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

years, so does the researchers’ interest. Several studies were conducted information about the study’s theoretical underpinning, which is the
to identify the drivers of FLW for different supply chains stages. For theory of stakeholder identification and salience (TSIS). The method­
instance, Surucu-Balci and Tuna (2021) investigated logistics-related ology is explained in Section 3, while the results and discussion are
food loss drivers in the fruit and vegetable supply chain. de Moraes provided in Section 4. The mitigation strategies are discussed in Section
et al. (2020) conducted research to identify food waste drivers in retail. 5. The study finishes with the conclusion section, which includes future
Emana et al. (2017) investigated the causes of pre-and post-harvest research ideas and limitations of the study.
losses in the tomato supply chain. Parallel to the increased number of
studies, FLW mitigation strategies to tackle FLW has also increased. 2. Theory of stakeholder identification and salience
Several mitigation strategies are suggested, such as improving trans­
portation infrastructure (Gardas et al., 2018), improving cooling sys­ Mitchell, Agle, and Wood developed TSIS in 1997. According to this
tems in storage and vehicles (Emana et al., 2017), and implementing theory, organisations assign value to stakeholders and classify them
IT-based demand forecasting systems (de Moraes et al., 2020). One based on their priority, considering their salience. Stakeholder salience
commonly suggested mitigation strategy is improving collaboration, is “the degree to which managers prioritise competing stakeholder
coordination, and communication between stakeholders of the food claims” (Mitchell et al., 1997). A fundamental assumption of this theory
supply chain (FSC). Bhattacharya and Fayezi (2021) indicated that is that as the number of attributes increases, the stakeholder salience
multi-stakeholder collaboration could mitigate loss and waste, while increases. SIST has three critical attributes to characterise stakeholders:
Surucu-Balci and Tuna (2021) recommended that collaboration between power, legitimacy, and urgency (Wood et al., 2018).
stakeholders helps tackle loss. However, the suggested mitigation stra­ Power is defined as “the probability that one actor within a social
tegies are generic and mean that the improvements should be estab­ relationship would be in a position to carry out his own will despite
lished between manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, resistance” (Weber, 1947). Power is not a continuous attribute but can
in other words, among members to diminish FLW (Canali et al., 2017). be gained or lost over time (Mitchell et al., 1997). The second attribute is
Only a handful of research mentioned a couple of specific stakeholders. legitimacy and is defined as “a generalised perception or assumption
For instance, Surucu-Balci and Tuna (2021) and Aschemann-Witzel et al. that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within
(2017) noted that collaboration with food banks could help to reduce some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and defini­
FLW, while Mena et al. (2011) stated that close collaboration should be tions” (Suchman, 1995). The last attribute is urgency, defined as “the
established between retailers and suppliers to reduce FLW. degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention”
The importance of improving the collaboration, coordination, and (Mitchell et al., 1997). The urgency has two characteristics, time
communication of stakeholders tackling the FLW is articulated in the sensitivity and criticality (Mitchell et al., 1997). Time sensitivity is when
literature. Bhattacharya and Fayezi (2021) stated that tackling loss and stakeholders cannot accept a delay in participating in a claim or rela­
waste requires collaboration in the FSC while Matzembacher et al. tionship. In contrast, criticality is related to prioritising the claim/­
(2021) pinpointed that complex causes of loss and waste need collabo­ relationship to the stakeholder (Mitchell et al., 1997).
ration and coordination efforts of the different stakeholders. However, Alongside these three attributes, Mitchell et al. (1997) identified
the literature does not identify which stakeholders play a more critical several additional assumptions to ensure the dynamism of the theory,
role. More specifically, it is unknown which stakeholders have more which are (i) stakeholder attributes are variable, not steady-state, (ii)
power, urgency, and legitimacy to tackle FLW. Therefore, it becomes stakeholder attributes are socially constructed, not objective, reality,
essential to identify the salient stakeholders who might have more and (iii) consciousness, and wilful exercise may or may not be present.
impact on diminishing FLW. To our knowledge, no previous study has Based on the attributes and assumptions, Mitchell et al. (1997) formed
identified stakeholders according to their salience, which has a more an inclusive typology of stakeholders and a dynamic model, implying
substantial influence on reducing FLW in the FSC. Therefore, this study that stakeholder status is not fixed (Suherman et al., 2019). Fig. 1 shows
aims to fill this gap in the literature by identifying and classifying fruit the model of stakeholder identification and salience.
and vegetable supply chain (FVSC) stakeholders according to their Possessing the number of attributes specifies the stakeholder’s clas­
salience level and offering mitigation strategies for salient stakeholders sification. The classification framework is summarised in Table 1.
to reduce FLW. To fulfil the research aim, the study has five research Dormant stakeholders, discretionary stakeholders, and demanding
objectives, (1) identify the FVSC stakeholders; (2) reveal the structure of stakeholders are considered latent stakeholders. Latent stakeholders
FVSC with major stakeholders; (3) identify food loss and waste drivers in have only one attribute and are regarded as a low salience group. Latent
FVSC; (4) classify the FVSC stakeholders based on salience level on stakeholders are not able to influence the relations. Dominant stake­
reducing FLW. A mixed-method approach was applied to fulfil the holders, dangerous stakeholders, and dependent stakeholders consist of
research aim and objectives; (5) suggest collaboration-related mitiga­ expectant stakeholders. Expectant stakeholders, who have two attri­
tion strategies for stakeholders. To achieve these objectives, first, we butes, are considered a moderate-salience group. They might influence
conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 experts from Turkish
FVSC. Second, stakeholder mapping was conducted to identify salience
levels. Third, collaboration-related mitigation strategies were offered for
salient stakeholders and other stakeholder classifications considering
FLW drivers.
As the seventh-largest agricultural producer globally, Turkish FVSC
was investigated in this study. In 2020, Turkey produced 31.2 million
tons (Mt) of vegetables and 23.6 Mt of fruits (OECD, 2020; TUIK, 2020).
In addition, Turkey exported around 4.344 Mt of fruit and vegetable in
2020 (AKIB, 2021). However, loss and waste amounts are also high.
Selisik (2021) stated that fruit and vegetable loss and waste account for
53% of the overall FLW in Turkey. Salihoglu et al. (2018) revealed that
nearly 9 Mt of fruits and vegetables were lost during production, while 4
Mt was wasted during post-harvest handling and storage. 2.7 Mt of fruit
and vegetable became lost in the food industry, and 1.10 Mt of fruit and
vegetable is wasted at the consumption stage in the Turkish FVSC. Fig. 1. The model of stakeholder identification and salience
The rest of the study is structured as follows: Section 2 gives Resource: Mitchell et al. (1997).

2
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

Table 1 Judgmental (purposive) sampling was adopted to ensure interviewers

Typology of stakeholders. are experienced in FVSC and knowledgeable about FLW points (Flick,
Stakeholder classification Identified stakeholders 2014). The interviewers were intentionally selected from different
stages of the FVSC with having other relationships with various stake­
Latent stakeholders (possessing Dormant stakeholder: Possess power and lacks
one attribute) legitimacy and urgency holders. A total of 26 interviews were conducted to identify stakeholders
Discretionary stakeholder: Possess legitimacy and FLW drivers and understand the framework of the FVSC. Interviews
and lacks power and urgency were completed with senior managers and middle-range managers. The
Demanding stakeholder: Possess urgency and selected managers for interviews are in active communication with
lacks power and legitimacy
Expectant stakeholders Dominant stakeholder: Possess power and
other stakeholders in the FVSC and are aware of the dynamics within the
(possessing two attributes) legitimacy and lacks urgency company. Interviews were conducted with farmers, food processors and
Dangerous stakeholder: Possess power and manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, logistics service providers (LSPs),
urgency but lacks legitimacy and food service providers (FSPs). The demographics of the interviewees
Dependent stakeholder: Possess legitimacy and
are provided in Appendix 1. In addition to semi-structured interviews,
urgency but lacks power
Salient stakeholder (possessing Definitive stakeholder: Possess legitimacy, the same sample was used to collect data for stakeholder classification.
three attributes) urgency, and power
Non-stakeholder Possess none of the attributes 3.2. Semi-structured interview - data collection and analysis
Resource: adapted from Mitchell et al., (1997)..
The data were collected through semi-structured interviews with the
selected experts of Turkish FVSC. The interview guide (Appendix 2)
relationships. Salient stakeholders possess three attributes and are the
summarised two critical issues of the framework: stakeholders and their
most influential group in relations. If a stakeholder does not have any
relationships and FLW reasons. The interview method is appropriate for
attributes, it is considered a non-stakeholder or potential stakeholder in
understanding the relationship between actors and FLW drivers. The
the future.
interview guide enabled to obtain essential information from the in­
There is a paucity of research on adopting TSIS in the FSC, and very
terviewees and can be outlined as follows:
few studies were conducted for Greek and Spanish agri-food supply
chains. Tsoulfas et al. (2019) employed TSIS for the Greek agri-food
• A brief description of the fruit and vegetable supply chain that the
supply chain; the theory was used to identify the salient stakeholder
interviewees operate
groups essential for achieving sustainability (Tsoulfas et al., 2019). They
• An overview of the relationship between the actors (stakeholders)
found that majority of the stakeholders are classified as salient. Pedro­
• Food loss and waste reasons that actors tackle in their supply chains
sa-Ortega et al. (2019) adopted TSIS to Spanish agri-food supply chains
to investigate how stakeholders in the supply chain affect the manager’s
Fourteen interviews were completed face-to-face, while twelve were
decisions and perceptions. The authors added another attribute (dura­
completed via phone due to distance restrictions. Each interview took
bility) to the model alongside power, urgency, and legitimacy attributes.
time between 45 and 55 min. All interviews were tape-recorded, and all
Results revealed that the order of the attributes changes according to the
recordings were transcribed verbatim. By transcribing the recordings,
type of company in Spanish agri-food supply chains. Accordingly, the
we have ensured communicative validity by allowing us to gain
legitimacy attribute has more influence than power and urgency in
perception after the interviews (Sandberg, 1995).
Spanish agri-food supply chains. Alongside the studies that focused on
An iterative process analysed the collected data. A content analysis
FSC, another study applied TSIS to identify and classify stakeholders
was utilised by identifying interview themes or patterns (Hsieh and
who can play an essential role in solving household solid waste man­
Shannon, 2005). Content analysis is considered a transparent research
agement in Indonesia and found that most stakeholders are dominant,
method (Bryman and Bell, 2011) that requires a systematic approach
dependent, and definitive.
that enables other researchers to replicate the study (Krippendorff,
However, no study has adopted TSIS to identify and classify stake­
2012). Transparency of the content analysis has enabled the method to
holders more salience in tackling FLW on FSCs. Therefore, to fill this
be considered objective (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
gap, TSIS was employed. In this study, legitimacy is considered the de­
Manifest content analysis was used to identify stakeholders since the
gree to of an organisation is the core, legit and contractual member of
required information is clear, easily findable, and countable in the
the food supply chain and can have moral or financial claims. Urgency,
provided responses (Berg, 2001). At the first stage of the analysis, the
in our study, is identified as the extent to which stakeholder claims
responses were coded considering the research questions and the in­
require rapid response while tackling FLW. Power is defined as how a
terviewees’ answers. Later, each response in different interviews with
stakeholder uses its physical, material, prestige, and social resources to
the same meanings was coded similarly.
enforce measures to tackle FLW in this study.
In addition, latent content analysis was also employed to identify
FLW drivers because it was necessary to understand the underlying
3. Methodology
reason for the answer given in the data set (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
Then, the responses with the same meaning were analysed and coded by
A mixed-method approach was applied to offer FLW mitigation
latent content analysis in each interview. For both manifest and latent
strategies to salient stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews are a
content analysis, we have compared the codes constantly and unified the
convenient data collection tool for openly designed situations (Flick,
similar codes into categories. In case of disagreement between the
2014). For this purpose, we used semi-structured interviews and clas­
codings occurred, the coders addressed this situation by discussing the
sified stakeholders based on their salience level. The semi-structured
discrepancies together, as Seuring and Gold (2012) suggested.
interviews were conducted to identify stakeholders, understand the
framework of the FVSC and identify the FLW drivers on each stage of the
3.3. Stakeholder classification – data collection and analysis
FVSC. The stakeholder classification was performed to categorise
stakeholders using TSIS. Fig. 2 shows the research process.
Two approaches can be implemented while classifying stakeholders:
top-down “analytical categorisations” or bottom-up “reconstructive
3.1. Sample selection methods” (Dryzek and Berejikian, 1993). The analytical categorisation
is the classification made by the researcher by analysing the data ob­
The study sample consisted of experts from Turkish FVSC. tained for stakeholder classification, underpinning a theoretical point of

3
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

Fig. 2. Research process.

view (Hare and Pahl-Wostl, 2002). Such analysis generally uses matrices identified FVSC stakeholders and stakeholders’ attributes (legitimacy,
or Venn diagrams, and the categorisation can be based on interest and urgency, power). The experts were asked to complete the stakeholder
influence, cooperation and threat (Savage et al., 1991), and urgency, attribution chart with values between 0 and 4 to determine the degree of
legitimacy, and influence (Mitchell et al., 1997). In reconstructive ownership of the stakeholder attributes, which helped them tackle FLW
methods, the classification is based on the parameters determined by the owned by the stakeholders.
stakeholders (Hare and Pahl-Wostl, 2002). In reconstructive methods, Zero (absent) means the stakeholder does not possess the attribute.
the stakeholder classification is based on an empirical analysis of One (low) means the stakeholder has a low level of possession of the
stakeholder perceptions rather than a theoretical basis. attribute. Two (medium) means stakeholders have a medium level of
The analytical categorisation was implemented for stakeholder possession of the attribute. Three (high) means stakeholders have a high
classification, and TSIS was employed for theoretical underpinning. In level of possession of the attribute, and four (very high) means stake­
analytical categorisation, the classification is based on stakeholders’ holders have a very high level of possession. In this study, legitimacy is
possession of attribution; in other words, a discrete scale (yes/no) is used defined as an organisation’s degree of being a legitimate and contractual
to classify stakeholders (Balci and Balci-Surucu, 2021). However, in member of the FVSC and can have moral or financial claims. Urgency
reality, the possession level of attributes may vary for each stakeholder. means the extent to which stakeholder claims require rapid response
Therefore, a stakeholder attribution chart was created, including all while tackling FLW. Power is the extent to which a stakeholder uses its

4
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

physical, material, prestige, and social resources to enforce measures to Based on the interview results and content analysis, 26 FLW drivers
tackle FLW. were classified according to different supply chain stages. Table 2 shows
For instance, if an expert completed the form for agricultural farmers the identified FLW drivers and SC stages leading to loss and waste.
with 4/1/3, respectively, legitimacy, power, and urgency attributes, the Agricultural farmers are the primary producers of FV in Turkey; how­
expert thinks that agricultural farmers are very legitimate and contrac­ ever, being a farmer is considered a predecessor job and inherited in
tual members of the FVSC (legitimacy is 4). However, agricultural Turkey. Hence, farmers use old-fashioned growing techniques/harvest­
farmers have a low power to deal with the FLW among the entire FVSC ing methods and have limited knowledge about recent technological
(power is 1), but farmers need urgent help to deal with the food loss developments, resulting in poor production output and loss. When
(urgency is 3). farmers are encountered high transportation costs, they can decide to
Once the data collection period is over, the median value of stake­ leave crops on the field since the income does not bear the cost. Inter­
holder’s attribution was chosen. The median was preferred to the mean view results showed that unexpected environmental conditions such as
because the data was skewed. When the data is not distributed normally, bad weather, diseases, or disasters might lead to loss and waste, espe­
the mean cannot reveal the best central location, while the median can cially in production. Aesthetic standards set by the retailers are another
demonstrate. Thus, the median value of stakeholder attributes was uti­ FLW reason at the production stage (de Hooge et al., 2018). Specific size,
lised while conducting classification analysis. The classification process colour, and shape standards force farmers to harvest crops between
was based on possessing the attributes of the identified stakeholders. aesthetic standards and leave the rest on the field. In Turkey, the gov­
Therefore, it was classified as latent stakeholder having one attribute, ernment does not put any quota on growing any fruit or vegetable. Thus,
expectant stakeholder having two attributes, and salient stakeholder farmers tend to sow crops that had a high-income previous year. This
having three attributes. unplanned production leads to piling up on fruit and vegetables each

4. Results and discussion

Table 2
Identified FLW drivers and SC stages where they lead to loss and waste.
4.1. Interview results
FVSC Stage Production Processing Distribution Consumption

We have asked the questions provided in the Interview Guide to 26 Food loss and waste
industry experts. Each of them answered queries for their stage and drivers
entire supply chain. After finishing the interviews, the results were Uneducated farmers x
analysed the stakeholders participating in the generic framework of the Lack of technological x
FVSC were identified. Then, the drivers, which lead to loss and waste in growing and
harvesting methods
different stages of the FVSC, were identified. A total of 25 stakeholders High transportation x
and 26 FLW drivers were identified. Appendix 3 shows the list of costs
stakeholders and their primary responsibilities. Unexpected x
While some stakeholders directly deal with fruit and vegetables, environmental
conditions (bad
some have supportive or regulative roles in the FVSC. Stakeholders
weather, diseases,
directly dealing with the fruit and vegetable are agricultural farmers, disasters)
agricultural cooperatives, freshly harvested fruit and vegetable collec­ Aesthetics standards x x x x
tion centres, market halls, processors, manufacturers, importers, ex­ Unplanned x
porters, wholesalers, LSPs, retailers, traditional market players such as production
Delays in x x
supermarkets, local markets, convenience stores, greengroceries, ba­ transportation
zaars, households, and FSPs such as restaurants, cafes, canteens, food Improper x
banks, and employees. transportation
Turkish FVSCs start with input suppliers. Input suppliers provide conditions
Lack of cold chain x x x
seed varieties, fertilisers, and insectile and farm equipment to stake­
transportation
holders in the production stage. Although these stakeholders sell the equipment
necessary equipment for agriculture, they do not involve fruit and Lack of cold storage x x x x
vegetable production. The production stage of Turkish FVSC consists of infrastructure
agricultural farmers, a market hall, importers, agricultural cooperatives Lack of dry storage x x x
infrastructure
and a freshly harvested fruit and vegetable collection centre. The pro­ Improper storage x x x x
cessing stage includes FV processors and food manufacturers. The FV Poor handling x x x
distribution stage consists of exporters, retailers, wholesalers, tradi­ Lack of x x x
tional markets (supermarkets, local markets, convenience stores, communication
Lack of coordination x x x
greengrocery), and bazaars. Bazaars are unique in the Turkish FVSC,
Lack of collaboration x x x
where farmers can directly sell fresh fruit and vegetables to final cus­ Inaccurate demand x x
tomers. FSPs, households and food banks generate the consumption forecasting
stage of the FVSC. The food bank, which became a stakeholder in the Improper packaging x
FSC with the legislation in 2004 in Turkey, is another important stake­ material
Damages during x
holder in the FVSC (Tider, 2021). Alongside providing food to packaging
food-insecure people, food banks have become prominent while Lack of stringent x
combating loss and waste. Food banks are supplied by processors, inventory policy
manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and traditional markets. Em­ Damaged packaging x x
Inappropriate x
ployees work in each stage of the FVSC, and the FVSC is linked with
package size
LSPs. Employees and LSPs work at each stage to ensure smooth opera­ Date labelling x
tions and transfer of raw, semi- and finished FV products. Research in­ misunderstandings
stitutes, financial institutes, and packaging companies provide Behaviours & habits x
supportive services. The government is an essential stakeholder who Ordering too much x
Human error x x x x
regulates and ensures food safety and security across the FVSC.

5
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

year, which results in a loss. Quality and quantity loss starts right after the package leads to waste at the consumption stage, which is unaware
the harvest. Therefore, new harvested fruit and vegetables must be of the differences between sell-by and use-by dates. Furthermore, indi­
transferred or stored at the proper temperature. Hence, delays in vidual habits such as ordering too much food at the restaurant, insuffi­
transportation, lack of cold chain transportation equipment and cold cient purchase planning, and buying and cooking too much also cause
and dry storage infrastructure lead to FLW at the production stage. If the waste at the consumption stage. Results showed that human error leads
perishable fruits and vegetables (suitable for consumption) cannot be to loss and waste at all stages of the FVSC.
sold on time and returned to the processors/manufacturers on time, fruit
and vegetables become waste in the distribution stage. Improper 4.2. Stakeholder classification
transportation conditions such as not immobilising pallets or piling
products on top of each other also cause loss at the production stage. After collecting data, the stakeholder identification and classification
Processed fruit and vegetables must be stored and transported while were completed based on the above rules. Table 3 shows the stakeholder
ensuring a temperature regime. Therefore, the lack of cold chain types and their salience while tackling food loss.
transportation equipment and cold and dry storage infrastructure cause Input suppliers, financial institutes, and packaging companies are
FLW in the processing and distribution stages. FV needs to be stored classified as latent stakeholders. They only have one attribute, legiti­
considering moisture, temperature, and hygiene requirements (Sur­ macy, and because of that, they are named discretionary stakeholders
ucu-Balci and Tuna, 2021). Similarly, if the products are not stored in since they are legit partners of the FVSC. According to classification,
the required temperature regime, it will lead to loss at the consumption these stakeholders do not have the power to influence other stakeholders
stage. If the FV products are not stored considering these factors, or the urgency to reduce actions about FLW.
products might be contaminated, or their shelf life might be shortened. Seven stakeholders were classified as expectant stakeholders: im­
Therefore, improper storage leads to a loss in every stage of the supply porters, exporters, bazaars, food banks, research institutes, LSPs and
chain. Interview results revealed that poor handling at the storage and employees. However, possession of the attributes differs for five of the
transportation is another FLW driver in FVSC. Because wrong handling stakeholders. Importers, exporters, LSPs, research institutes and em­
implementations, such as failing to comply with reefer container loading ployees possess legitimacy and power. Because of having legitimacy and
requirements, lead to mechanical bruises, which accelerate ripening and power attributes, these stakeholders are named dominant stakeholders.
diminish the product life or spoilage. Furthermore, bruised and Importers, exporters, LSPs, research institutes and employees (dominant
damaged -yet safe to consume- FV is not preferred at the consumption stakeholders) have the power to affect other stakeholders, yet their
stage due to the aesthetic standards of final customers (de Moraes et al., claims are not considered urgent; hence they do not involve other
2020). stakeholders in terms of taking actions to reduce FLW. Bazaars and food
Interview results displayed that lack of communication, coordination banks possess legitimacy and urgency, named dependent stakeholders.
and collaboration cause FLW at the production, manufacturing and As dependent stakeholders do not have power, they count on other
distribution stages. Communication is vital for supply chains to ensure stakeholders’ support regarding taking actions to diminish FLW. How­
operations are run smoothly. Deficiencies in communication, such as ever, they can be among the most influential stakeholders in reducing
lack of information sharing, may mislay the optimal decision ability. the FLW.
Lack of coordination and collaboration within the supply chain leads to Fifteen stakeholders are classified as salient stakeholders. The salient
disconnections which inaccuracies generate loss and waste. Interview stakeholders are agricultural farmers, freshly harvested fruit and vege­
results showed that inaccurate demand forecasting at the manufacturing table collection centres, market halls, agricultural cooperatives, food
and distribution stages leads to improper production planning and order processors, food manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, supermarkets,
implementation, leading to loss and waste, especially for short shelf-life local markets, convenience stores, greengroceries, FSPs, households and
products. the government. Fig. 3 shows the generic Turkish FVSC framework with
The packaging material is an essential element that affects the salient stakeholders at each stage.
product’s shelf-life (Kowalska, 2017), yet it can be expensive. Interview Considering the stakeholder classification, agricultural farmers,
results showed that to reduce the costs, sometimes manufacturers can agricultural cooperatives, market halls and freshly harvested fruit and
prefer cheaper packaging material that does not provide the full func­ vegetable collection centres are salient stakeholders in the production
tions of packaging. Therefore, improper packaging materials increase stage. Both stakeholders in the processing stage are classified as salient
the risk of contamination and spoilage and decrease shelf-life. Interview stakeholders. In addition, retailers, wholesalers, and traditional markets
results showed that fruit and vegetables could be deformed during (supermarkets, local markets, convenience stores and greengroceries)
packaging. The packaging materials are ordered in pre-determined sizes, are classified as salient stakeholders in the distribution stage. At the
while the fruit and vegetables can be in different sizes and verge on the consumption stage, FSPs and households are classified as salient stake­
margins. Therefore, if the fruit and vegetable do not fit into the package, holders. Importers (expectant stakeholders) feed the market halls in the
it can destroy the product’s wholeness or cause a risk of contamination. production stage. Salient stakeholders of the production stage have
Hence, interviews revealed that producers throw away the product to direct relations to salient stakeholders of processing, distribution and
eliminate hazards. consumption stages and expectant stakeholders (exporter and bazaars)
According to interview results, stakeholders in the distribution stage in these stages. Although food banks are part of the FVSC, not all
can order more than the actual order amount to reach economies of scale stakeholders work with food banks, and therefore, the interaction be­
or get higher discounts. However, this implementation can be detri­ tween food banks and other stakeholders is limited. Hence, the rela­
mental to perishable fruit and vegetables. If the surplus products are not tionship between food banks and other stakeholders is demonstrated
sold on time or transported/stored under the proper temperature, with dotted arrows in Fig. 3.
products will spoil and turn into waste. Damaged packaging is another
FLW driver revealed during the interviews that cause waste at the dis­ 5. Collaboration-based mitigation strategies to reduce FLW
tribution and consumption stages. Since consumers do not prefer to buy amount
products whose packages are damaged (do Carmo Stangherlin et al.,
2019), distributors and retailers are also reluctant to procure these types Suggesting collaboration-based mitigation strategies for reducing
of products. FLW is a delicate task considering the complexity of the FVSC. However,
Interview results highlighted that inappropriate package size causes classifying stakeholders based on their salience level, which has more
waste in the consumption stage because consumers buy more than they impact on reducing FLW, can help offer mitigation strategies for FLW
need, which eventually becomes waste. Labelling misunderstandings on drivers. Therefore, in this study, stakeholders were classified based on

6
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

Table 3
Classification of FVSC.
Stakeholder Legitimacy Power Urgency Stakeholder Type Stakeholder Salience

Input supplier High (3) Absent (0) Absent (0) Discretionary Latent
Agricultural farmer Very high (4) Medium (2) Very high (4) Definitive Salient
Exporter Medium (2) Low (1) Absent (0) Dominant Expectant
Importer High (3) Medium (2) Absent (0) Dominant Expectant
Freshly harvested fruit and vegetable collection centre High (3) Very high (4) Low (1) Definitive Salient
Market Hall High (3) Very high (4) Medium (2) Definitive Salient
Agricultural cooperative High (3) Low (1) Low (1) Definitive Salient
Food processor Very high (4) High (3) High (3) Definitive Salient
Food manufacturer Very high (4) High (3) High (3) Definitive Salient
Wholesaler High (3)) Very high (4) High (3) Definitive Salient
Retailer Very high (4) Very high (4) Very high (4) Definitive Salient
Supermarket Very high (4) Very high (4) Very high (4) Definitive Salient
Local market Very high (4) Medium (2) Medium (2) Definitive Salient
Convenience store Very high (4) Medium (2) Medium (2) Definitive Salient
Greengrocers Very high (4) Low (1) Medium (2) Definitive Salient
Bazaar High (3) Absent (0) Medium (2) Dependent Expectant
FSPs Very high (4) High (3) High (3) Definitive Salient
Household Very high (4) Very high (4) Very high (4) Definitive Salient
LSPs Very high (4) Low (1) Absent (0) Dominant Expectant
Food bank High (3) Absent (0) Medium (2) Dependent Expectant
Research institute Medium (2) Low (1) Absent (0) Dominant Expectant
Financial institution High (3) Absent (0) Absent (0) Discretionary Latent
Packaging company High (3) Absent (0) Absent (0) Discretionary Latent
Government Very high (4) Very high (4) Very high (4) Definitive Salient
Employee High (3) Low (1) Absent (0) Dominant Expectant

Fig. 3. Generic Turkish fruit and vegetable supply chain with salient stakeholders grouped at each stage
Resource: Compiled by authors.

their salience level, and 15 stakeholders were identified as salient are explained. It is expected that the first group of proposed mitigation
stakeholders. Since salient stakeholders have more power, legitimacy, strategies may get quicker results compared to the second group of
and urgency attributes than latent and expectant stakeholders, salient mitigation strategies because, in the second group, mitigation strategies
stakeholders can lead strategies to tackle FLW. include expectant stakeholders.
We developed collaboration-based mitigation strategies on the in­
terviews and content analysis results to diminish the impact of FLW 5.1. Collaboration-based mitigation strategies between salient
causes at different stages. Collaboration-based mitigation strategies stakeholders
were given in two groups. First, the collaboration-related mitigation
strategies between salient stakeholders are provided. Afterwards, the Collaboration between salient stakeholders of production and processing
mitigation strategies which need to be initiated by salient stakeholders stages: Unplanned production has emerged as one of the loss drivers as

7
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

the result of interviews. To prevent this, salient stakeholders of the increases. Therefore, it is critical to raise awareness among households.
production stage (farmers) and the processing stage (processors/man­ To create this awareness, the government can run campaigns. These
ufacturers) can collaborate. This collaboration can be established be­ campaigns should explain to individuals that aesthetic standards are not
tween farmers and processors/manufacturers through a contract before necessary for nutritional value and that behaviours (such as buying,
the production season begins. Manufacturers can secure their raw ma­ cooking, and storage) significantly impact the amount of food loss.
terial with a contractual relationship while closely monitoring the
growing process to ensure food security and requirements. At the same 5.2. Collaboration-based mitigation strategies need to be initiated by
time, farmers provide that their crops will not turn into a loss. Such salient stakeholders
collaboration can reduce the impact of FLW drivers, specifically lack of
communication, lack of coordination and lack of collaboration (Sur­ Collaboration between salient stakeholders and dependent stakeholders
ucu-Balci and Tuna, 2021). Furthermore, such collaboration can be a (food banks): According to stakeholder classification results, food banks
solution for FLW drivers, such as lack of cold chain transportation are identified as dependent stakeholders. Food banks, which can have
equipment and cold and dry storage infrastructure. In most cases, in significant benefits in preventing food loss, do not have power in Turkey.
Tukey, it is an expensive investment for stakeholders in the production Therefore, salient stakeholders of the FVSC should take the lead and
stage to have cold chain transportation equipment and cold storage establish collaborations with food banks. The government, one of the
infrastructure. However, if such a contractual relationship or collabo­ salient stakeholders, can play an important role and carry out campaigns
ration can be agreed upon, financially more stable stakeholders in the to increase awareness among the public to increase the importance of
processing stage (processor and manufacturer) and production stage food banks. Additionally, the government can work closely with other
(cooperatives) may help farmers. salient stakeholders to establish collaboration between them and the
Collaboration between salient stakeholders of production, distribution food banks.
and consumption stages: Interview results showed that in Turkey, the Collaboration between salient stakeholders and dominant stakeholders
aesthetic standards of customers for the fruits and vegetables, which is (LSPs): According to interview results, lack of cold chain equipment,
also identified in the literature (Canali et al., 2017: Aschemann-Witzel lack of cold storage infrastructure, and lack of storage are identified as
et al., 2017), lead to FLW. The lack of demand for these products, which causes of food loss. It is possible to strengthen the infrastructure and
do not comply with aesthetic standards but are safe to consume, diverts build new facilities to reduce the amount of food loss, but these solutions
the stakeholders at the distribution stage not to prefer these products. are long-term. In the short term, cooperation with LSPs can be imple­
This situation increases the loss by forcing the products that do not mented to minimise drivers’ impact. Alongside transportation, LSPs can
comply with aesthetical standards to remain in the field. Furthermore, if provide storage (both cold and dry) and equipment (cold chain equip­
these products are not consumed on time, they become lost while in the ment, etc.). This cooperation with LSPs can help salient stakeholders to
field. Therefore, a collaboration between salient stakeholders of the reduce loss in the short term.
distribution stage (retailers) and salient stakeholders of the production Collaboration between salient stakeholders and discretionary stake­
stage (farmers) can reduce food loss. As there are examples in different holders (packaging companies): According to the interview results,
countries (UK-Morrisons-wonky vegetable box), fruits and vegetables, although the packaging of fresh vegetables and fruits in Turkey is less
which do not conform to aesthetic standards, can be packaged sepa­ common than in Europe, food loss still occurs due to packaging. Fresh
rately and sold to customers at a discount. In addition, it is necessary to fruits and vegetables are classified and packaged according to their sizes.
increase the awareness of the customers to ensure that products, which However, if the fruits and vegetables are within the upper limit in size,
do not comply with the aesthetical standards but comply with food they could get damaged due to inconsistency between product and
safety standards, are preferred by the customers (Surucu-Balci and package sizes. And this situation can lead to food loss since the risk of
Berberoglu, 2022). For this reason, campaigns to raise awareness can be contamination occurs due to damaged packaging. Therefore, a collab­
organised. oration between the salient stakeholders of the processing stage (pro­
Collaboration between salient stakeholders of the production stage and cessor and manufacturer) and the packaging stakeholders can provide
government: Interview results revealed that using old technologies and specific solutions to this problem. However, this collaboration needs to
methods for growing crops and harvesting and uneducated farmers lead be initiated by the salient stakeholders since they obtain the three
to loss. Sustainable farming implementations and Industry 4.0 technol­ attributes.
ogies have improved productivity and worldwide food security (Kumar
et al., 2021). Transferring these innovations to Turkey and enabling 6. Conclusion
them to be used by the majority can positively impact food loss.
Therefore, a government (salient stakeholder) led an initiative to FLW, a threat to food security, occurs in different stages of FSCs.
modernise the equipment. Alongside such initiatives, the government Food supply chains are complex structures involving many stakeholders
can also incentivise salient stakeholders in the production stage to adopt from separate locations. However, it is unlikely that all stakeholders in
new technologies. Moreover, education campaigns for farmers to teach the supply chain will have the same degree of effectiveness in FLW
sustainable farming implementations may help improve efficiency and reduction activities. Therefore, to reduce FLW, it is essential to identify
reduce loss. In addition, unplanned production is one of the prominent stakeholders who can have a more significant say in reduction activities
FLW drivers following the interview results. To mitigate the impact of and propose collaboration-related mitigation strategies according to
this FLW driver, as a salient stakeholder, the government should plan these stakeholders. For this reason, this study aimed to identify the
fruit and vegetable production, export and import amounts for each salient stakeholders and determine collaboration strategies for them. For
fiscal year. Furthermore, the government may put quotas for production this purpose, semi-structured interviews and stakeholder classification
to eliminate the excessive production of any fruit and vegetable. were conducted.
Collaboration between government and salient stakeholders of the con­ According to content analysis results, twenty-five stakeholders
sumption stage: As revealed during the interviews and supported by the participate in the Turkish FVSC, and twenty-six FLW drivers cause loss
literature, individual behaviours (Canali et al., 2017) and habits such as and waste at the different stages of the Turkish FVSC. According to
cooking, shopping, storing (Russell et al., 2017) are among the FLW stakeholder classification analysis, fifteen stakeholders were classified
drivers. Therefore, a collaboration between the government and salient as salient, and the rest were classified as latent and expectant.
stakeholders of the consumption stage (households) is necessary. Adel Collaboration-related mitigation strategies were provided. These stra­
et al. (2021) stated that if a household is aware of the environmental tegies are divided according to stakeholder saliency level. In the first
damage caused by their food waste, its desire to take preventive actions group of mitigation strategies, the collaboration occurs between salient

8
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

stakeholders. It can be expected that collaboration-related mitigation supply chains, such as dairy or meat, can help tackle FLW. Therefore,
strategies in this group can yield faster results. The second group of additional studies can be conducted for other supply chains. Second, the
mitigation strategies occur between salient and expectant stakeholders. study was conducted with stakeholders in the fruit and vegetable supply
These strategies need to be initiated by the salient stakeholders. chain in Turkey, so the results of this study can be generalised to
This study has several contributions to the literature. This study is developing countries. However, similar research can identify salient
one of the earliest pioneer studies identifying salient stakeholders in the stakeholders in a developed country context to generalise the results for
FVSC by underpinning TSIS theory. Our view is that the collaboration- a developed country context. Third, various numbers of interviews were
related mitigation strategies will be successful if the salient stake­ completed with seven stakeholder groups. Another study can be carried
holders lead the mitigation strategies. This study also contributes to food out by increasing the number of interviews from each stakeholder group.
waste reduction literature as this was the first study to conduct stake­
holder mapping analysis within the FVSC. In addition, by adopting a CRediT authorship contribution statement
holistic perspective, this study is the first to show the salient stake­
holders in the Turkish FVSC and their relationship in a comprehensive Ebru Surucu-Balci: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal­
framework. Moreover, this study focuses on identifying loss and waste ysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Visualization, Writing –
drivers in the Turkish FVSC while adopting a holistic perspective. In original draft, Writing – review & editing. Okan Tuna: Supervision,
addition, this study is the first to propose collaboration-related mitiga­ Validation, Writing – review & editing.
tion strategies involving a salient stakeholder to reduce the causes of loss
after determining the salient stakeholders and the drivers causing the
loss and waste. Declaration of competing interest
This paper also offers managerial implications for FVSC stake­
holders. Our study revealed that not all stakeholders have the same level The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
of legitimacy, power and urgency. Since the competencies of latent, interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
expectant and salient stakeholders are at different levels, managers of the work reported in this paper.
salient stakeholders should play a more active role in implementing
suggested strategies to reduce loss. This study identified 26 FLW drivers, Data availability
which cause different levels of loss and waste for different stages of the
FVSC. Adopting strategies by salient stakeholder managers can ensure The authors do not have permission to share data.
faster elimination of loss factors. Strengthening communication between
stakeholders is necessary to implement the proposed collaboration Acknowledgement
strategies. New technologies such as the Internet of Things and Block­
chain can be adopted to improve communication. The research was supported by The Scientific & Technological
This study is subject to several limitations. First, this study focused Research Council of Turkey (Tübitak 2211-A project no:
on the FVSC. However, identifying salient stakeholders in different 1649B031503919).

Appendix 1. The demographics of the interviewees

Interviewee Type of Supplier Title of the interviewee Term of employment within the firm Term of employment within the food industry
(year) (year)

Farmer 1 Producer Owner 45 45

Farmer 2 Producer Owner 15 15
Farmer 3 Producer Owner 8 25
Farmer 4 Producer Owner 23 23
FV1 Food processor Foreign trade expert 1,5 7,5
FV2 Food processor Owner 4,5 20
FV3 Food processor General manager 1 14
FV4 Food processor General manager 15 40
FV5 Food processor Sales manager 15 25
FV6 Food processor Deputy manager 5 15
FV7 Food processor General manager 17 20
FV8 Food processor Owner 25 25
FV9 Food processor Total quality manager 3 10
FV10 Food manufacturer Procurement manager 7 7
FV11 Food manufacturer Sales manager 4 9
FV12 Food manufacturer General manager 13 27
FV13 Food manufacturer Procurement manager 8 25
W1 Wholesaler Supply chain manager 1 20
R1 Retailer Procurement manager 2 10
R2 Retailer Supply chain deputy manager 4 4
LSP1 Logistics service Operations executive (air cargo) 1 4
provider
LSP2 Logistics service Operations executive (sea – reefer 1 7
provider cargo)
LSP3 Logistics service Operation manager (cold chain) 1,5 20
provider
FSP1 Food service provider Owner 25 25
FSP2 Food service provider General manager 4 6
FSP3 Food service provider General manager 6 11

9
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

Appendix 2. Interview Guide

Demographic questions (interviewee)

1. Current position:
2. Experience in the current firm (years):
3. Experience in the food industry (years):

Demographic questions (firm)

1. Date of establishment:
2. The number of personnel:
3. Do you have a logistics department?

Product-related questions

1. Please describe your product.

2. Can it be spoiled?
3. What is the shelf life of the product?
4. Is there any special requirement for storing the product?
5. Does the product require special temperature regime while transporting and storing?

Stakeholder identification

1. Please describe your company’s supply chain, from production to end customer.
2. Who is the initial supplier of your supply chain?
3. Who (which stakeholders) are your suppliers?
4. How can you describe your relations with your suppliers?
5. Who (which stakeholders) are your customers?
6. How can you describe your relations with your customers?
7. Do you think that packaging companies, LSPs, deal with food loss and waste?
8. Do you collaborate with any research centre or institutions/financial institutions/unions? If yes, in which aspects, you collaborate with these
institutions?

FLW drivers

1. Considering the supply chain, you’ve just described, at which stages food loss and waste occurs more? (Production, manufacturing, distri­
bution, consumption).
2. What are the reasons for food loss at the production stage?
3. What are the reasons for food loss at the processing stage?
4. What are the reasons for food loss at the distribution stage?
5. What are the reasons for food loss at the consumption stage?
6. Do you experience food loss during shipments? (From supplier to your facilities/From your facilities to your customers’ facilities) What could
be the reasons for this loss?
7. Do you experience any food loss occur during storing? What could be the reasons for this loss?
8. Do you experience any food loss during the packaging/labelling of the product? What could be the reasons for this loss?
9. Do you experience food loss due to lack of communication? What could be the reasons for this loss?
10. Do you experience food loss because of demand-related issues? If yes, please explain them.
11. Do you make any request to your partners to reduce their food loss? Do you receive such a request?
12. Is there a regulation/process that you need to comply with that is regulated by your chamber of commerce or by the ministry regarding food
loss?

Appendix 3. List of Turkish FVSC stakeholders and their responsibilities

Name of the Stakeholder Responsibility in the Turkish FVSC

Input supplier To provide seeds, equipment, and agricultural pesticides to agricultural farmers to initiate fruit and vegetable growing
Agricultural farmer To grow fruits and vegetables for themselves or on behalf of processors.
Importer To import FV (generally, FV cannot be produced in Turkey) from different countries
Freshly harvested fruit and vegetable As intermediaries, accumulate freshly harvested fruits and vegetables and transfer them to other stakeholders such as food
collection centre processors, wholesalers, or markets.
Market hall To supply FV to exporters, retailers, traditional markets, bazaars, and FSPs
Agricultural cooperatives To support the farmer and to help the farmer reach production inputs. In recent years, cooperatives have started direct selling to FSPs
and households.
Food processor To process raw food materials, including sorting, cleaning, cutting, freezing, drying, etc.
Food manufacturer To transform raw or processed food into a new food, such as ready-to-eat manufacturing meals.
Exporter To sell raw, semi- and finished FV products to other countries.
(continued on next page)

10
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

(continued )
Name of the Stakeholder Responsibility in the Turkish FVSC

Wholesaler To buy FV in bulk conditions and sell in bulk/small volumes to retailers and traditional markets.
Retailer To sell frozen/fresh/canned/processed/manufactured food in small quantities for use or consumption.
Supermarket To sell frozen/fresh/canned/processed/manufactured food and beverages to customers by self-service.
Local market To sell everyday items including frozen/fresh/canned/processed/manufactured food.
Convenience store To sell everyday items, including processed/manufactured food.
Greengrocery To sell fresh fruit and vegetables.
Bazaar (mobile street market) To sell fresh fruit and vegetables, generally open marketplaces.
Employees To work at each stage for continuous operation of the FVSC.
Household (consumer) To buy food from a retailer, supermarket, local, or convenience market.
Food banks (food rescue organisations) To distribute food to people who have difficulty purchasing enough to avoid hunger and help to reduce food loss and waste.
Food service provider (FSP) To prepare and cook a meal for eating outside.
Logistics service provider (LSP) To store and transport raw/semi-finished/finished food materials among stakeholders at a national and international level.
Research institutions To do research for improving production efficiency and harvesting methods, eliminating FLW, etc.
Financial institutions To provide financial services.
Packaging company To provide packaging material for raw, semi- or finished FV products to eliminate the risk of contamination or increase food’s shelf
life.
Government To govern the Turkish FVSC considering the hygiene and safety rules.

References SAVE FOOD! at Interpack2011, Dusseldorf/Germany. FAO, Rome. [Link]/d

ocrep/014/mb060e/[Link], 23/04/2022.
Hare, M., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2002. Stakeholder categorisation in participatory integrated
Adel, A.M., Dai, X., Roshdy, R.S., 2021. Investigating consumers’ behavioural intentions
assessment. Integrated Assess. 3, 50–62.
toward suboptimal produce: an extended theory of planned behaviour – a cross-
Hsieh, H.F., Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual.
cultural study. Br. Food J.
Health Res. 15, 1277–1288.
AKIB, 2021. Yaş sebze meyve sektörü Türkiye geneli değerlendirme raporu. http
Ishangulyyev, R., Kim, S., Lee, S.H., 2019. Understanding food loss and waste – why are
s://[Link]/files/documents/2021/2.%20Raporlar/Ocak-Aral%C4%B1k%
we losing and wasting food? Foods 8 (8), 1–23.
202020%20YMS%20%C4%B0hracat%20De%C4%9Ferlendirme%[Link],
Kowalska, A., 2017. The issue of food losses and waste and its determinants. Sci. J. Logis.
12/10/2021.
13 (1), 7–18.
Amicarelli, V., Bux, C., Lagioria, G., 2020. How to measure food loss and waste? A
Krippendorff, K., 2012. Content Analysis: an Introduction to its Methodology. SAGE
material flow analysis application. Br. Food J. 123 (1), 67–85. [Link]
Publications, Los Angeles.
10.1108/BFJ-03-2020-0241.
Kumar, S., Raut, R.D., Nayal, K., Kraus, S., Yadav, V.S., Narkhede, B.E., 2021. To identify
Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I.E., Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M.B., Grohnoj, A.,
industry 4.0 and circular economy adoption barriers in the agriculture supply chain
Oostindjer, M., 2017. Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain
by using ISM-ANP. J. Clean. Prod. 293, 126023.
initiatives tackling consumer-related food waste: a multiple case study. J. Clean.
Matzembacher, D.E., Vieira, L.M., de Barcellos, M.D., 2021. An analysis of multi-
Prod. 155, 33–45.
stakeholder initiatives to reduce food loss and waste in an emerging country-Brazil.
Balci, G., Balci-Surucu, E., 2021. Blockchain adoption in the maritime supply chain:
Ind. Market. Manag. 93, 591–604.
examining barriers and salient stakeholders of containerised international trade.
Mena, C., Adenso-Diaz, B., Yurt, O., 2011. The causes of food waste in the supplier-
Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 156, 102539.
retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55,
Berg, B.L., 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, fourth ed. Allyn&
648–658.
Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Towards a theory of stakeholder
Bhattacharya, A., Fayezi, S., 2021. Ameliorating food loss and waste in the supply chain
identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really count.
through multi-stakeholder collaboration. Ind. Market. Manag. 93, 328–343.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 21 (4), 853–886.
Braun, B., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3
OECD, 2020. Agriculture and Water Policies: Main Characteristics and Evolution from
(2), 77–101.
2009 to 2019. [Link]
Bryman, A., Bell, E., 2011. Business Research Methods, third ed. Oxford Publishing, New
ocuments/[Link], 12/12/2021.
York.
Pedrosa-Ortega, C., Hernandez-Ortiz, M.J., Garcia-Marti, E., Vellojo-Martos, M.C., 2019.
Canali, M., Amani, P., Aramyan, L., Gheoldus, M., Moates, G., Östergren, K.,
The stakeholder salience model revisited: evidence from agri-food cooperatives in
Silvennoinen, K., Waldron, K., Vittuari, M., 2017. Food waste drivers in Europe, from
Spain. Sustainability 11, 574.
identification to possible interventions. Sustainability 9 (37), 1–33.
Ritchie, H., March 18, 2020. Food Waste Is Responsible for 6 % of Global Greenhouse Gas
de Hooge, I.E., van Dulm, E., van Trjip, H.C.M., 2018. Cosmetic specifications in the food
Emissions. [Link] waste
waste issue: supply chain consideration and practices concerning suboptimal food
is responsible for 6%25 of global greenhouse gas emissions,-by Hannah Ritch
products. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 698–709.
ie&text=Our World in Data presents,against the world’s largest problems, 09/11/
de Moraes, C.C., de Oliveira Costa, F.H., Pereira, C.R., da Silva, A.L., Delai, I., 2020.
2021.
Retail food waste: mapping causes and reduction practices. J. Clean. Prod. 256,
Russell, S.V., Young, C.W., Unsworth, K.L., Robinson, C., 2017. Bringing habits and
120124.
emotions into food waste behaviour. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 125, 107–114.
do Carmo Stangherlin, I., Ribeiro, J.L.D., Barcellos, M., 2019. Consumer behavior
Salihoglu, G., Salihoglu, N.K., Ucaroglu, S., Banar, M., 2018. Food loss and waste
towards suboptimal food products: a strategy for food waste reduction. Br. Food J.
management in Turkey. Biosres. Technol. 248, 88–99.
121 (10), 2396–2412.
Sandberg, J., 1995. How do we justify knowledge produced by interpretative
Dryzek, J.S., Berejikian, J., 1993. Reconstructive democratic theory. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.
approaches?. In: Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Business Studies.
87, 48–60.
Copenhagen Business School, pp. 405–416.
Emana, B., Afari-Sefa, V., Nenguwo, N., Ayana, A., Kebede, D., Mohammed, H., 2017.
Savage, G.T., Nix, T.W., Whitehead, C.J., Blair, J.D., 1991. Strategies for assessing and
Characterisation of pre- and post-harvest losses of tomato supply chain in Ethiopia.
managing organisational stakeholders. Acad. Manag. Exec. 5 (2), 61–75.
Agric. Food Secur. 6 (3), 1–11.
Selisik, A., April 28, 2021. Gıda kayıplari ve israfin önlenmesi. [Link]
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002. The State of Food Insecurity in the
tr/tarimgida/files/1aysegul_selisik.pdf (28/10/2021.
World 2001. Rome.
Seuring, S., Gold, S., 2012. Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews on
FAO, 2013. Food Wastage Footprint. Impacts on Natural Resources. [Link]
supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 17 (5), 544–555.
org/3/i3347e/[Link] (07/12/2021.
Suchman, M., 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad.
FAO, 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. FAO, Rome. [Link]
Manag. Rev. 20, 571–611.
int/sites/[Link]/files/resources/[Link] (23/04/2022.
Suherman, V.S., Franco-Garcia, M.L., Abdoellah, O.S., Kurniadie, D., Hidayati, Y.A.,
FAO, 2020. Food Loss and Food Waste. [Link]
2019. Circularity of wastes: stakeholders identity and salience for household solid
emes/food-loss-food-waste/en/(09/11/2021.
waste management in cimahi city, west java province, Indonesia. In: Franco-
Flick, U., 2014. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, fifth ed. Sage, London.
García, M.L., Carpio-Aguilar, J., Bressers, H. (Eds.), Towards Zero Waste. Greening of
Gardas, B.B., Raut, R.D., Narkhede, B., 2018. Evaluating critical causal factors for post-
Industry Networks Studies, vol. 6. Springer, Cham.
harvest losses in the fruit and vegetables supply chain in India using the DEMATEL
Surucu-Balci, E., Tuna, O., 2021. Investigating logistics-related food loss drivers: a study
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 199, 47–61.
on fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 318, 128561.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste:
Surucu-Balci, E., Berberoglu, B., 2022. Wasted pumpkins: a real Halloween horror story.
Extent, Causes and Prevention. Study Conducted for the International Congress
Br. Food J. [Link] ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-
print.

11
E. Surucu-Balci and O. Tuna Journal of Cleaner Production 367 (2022) 133126

Tider, 2021. Gida bankaciliginda Turkiye’nin Cati Kurulusu: Tider, 03/11/2021. htt United Nations, 2016. Make #notwasting a Way of Life. [Link]
ps://[Link]/tur/gida-bankaciligi. org/3/C0088e/[Link] (12/12/2021.
Tsoulfas, G.T., Marinagi, C., Trivellas, P., Reklitis, P., 2019. Sustainable agri-food supply Weber, M., 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. Free Press, New
chains in Greece: the role of stakeholders. In: 2nd International Conference on York.
Management, Economics and Finance, pp. 15–17. November 2019. Wood, D.J., Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Bryan, L.M., 2018. Stakeholder Identification and
Tuik, ., 2020. (December 28, 2020). Crop Production. [Link] Salience after 20 Years: Progress, Problems and Prospects. Business & Society,
tr/Bulten/Index?p=Crop-Production-2020-33737&dil=2 (12/12/2021. pp. 1–50.
United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. A/RES/70/1. New York. [Link]
asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (14/10/2021.

12