Next Article in Journal
Safety Evaluation of Turbo-Roundabouts with and without Internal Traffic Separations Considering Autonomous Vehicles Operation
Next Article in Special Issue
The Three E’s Revisited: How Do Community-Based Organizations Define Sustainable Communities and Their Role in Pursuit of?
Previous Article in Journal
Opportunities for and Limits to Cooperation between School and Families in Sustainable Public Food Procurement
Previous Article in Special Issue
Gender Wage Gaps in Brazilian Companies Listed in the Ibovespa Index: A Critical Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 16
10.3390/su13168809
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Synergistic Interactions of SDGs in Food Supply Chains: A Review of Responsible Consumption and Production

by
Jubin Jacob-John
1,*,
Clare D’Souza
1,
Tim Marjoribanks
2 and
Stephen Singaraju
1
1
Department of Economics, Finance & Marketing, La Trobe Business School, College of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce, La Trobe University, Melbourne 3086, Australia
2
School of Business, Law, and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne 3122, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(16), 8809; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13168809
Submission received: 24 June 2021 / Revised: 28 July 2021 / Accepted: 3 August 2021 / Published: 6 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In light of the significance of Food Supply Chains (FSCs) in attaining the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a greater focus on synergistic interactions between these SDGs is called for. Although there is research within this area, the impact on the interactions of responsible consumption and production for supply chains is either fragmented or inconclusive. Implementing supply chain solutions to achieve one goal could potentially support or inhibit progress in other goals; thus, before implementing such solutions, a better understanding of the interrelationships between SDGs is required. A systematic review is conducted to evidence the current nature of the understanding of these interrelationships within the food supply chain context by focusing on Responsible Consumption and Production, which refers to SDG number 12. This review is conducted through a filtering process, where 171 peer-reviewed articles addressing different SDGs were analysed and synthesized. In addition to a detailed summary of the recent literature on the SDGs and their interrelationships, as addressed in the literature, this paper establishes the limitations in the existing literature and research challenges surrounding the SDGs. This article contributes a conceptual framework that identifies stakeholder and consumer pressures as enablers of synergistic interactions between SDGs, thus directing managerial and regulatory interventions through a holistic perspective of SDGs. Finally, the review discusses contradictory findings on SDGs and provides future research avenues.

1. Introduction

In the Anthropocene Epoch, the planetary capacity to support humanity has reached a tipping point, thereby necessitating a change to more sustainable food systems to feed an ever-growing population. Food consumption patterns have been altered globally and the production of cereal grains, for example, should increase significantly while minimizing food wastage to ensure that all members of the society have equitable access to food [1]. Stewart and Lal [2] illustrate the congruity between population and food production as a significant issue in sustainability, thereby mandating a fundamental change in global food systems. The United Nations proposed the 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets, which is a blueprint for a plan of action for people, the planet, and prosperity (UN, 2015), potentially impacting sustainable access to food and nutrition (Table 1). This is further evidenced in Spiker et al. [3], who suggest that nutrition is interrelated to all 17 SDGs and their targets, thereby implying the importance of the food industry in attaining SDGs. Consequently, the food supply chain, as a pivotal element of the food industry, can significantly influence multiple SDGs [4,5,6,7]. Govindan [6] illustrates that the consumption and production patterns with respect to natural ecosystems and societal responsibilities can directly influence the achievement of SDG 12. In essence, improvisation in the current food supply chain can improve food quality and food security [4,6], thereby evidencing the interrelationship between SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). By focusing on food waste, Principato et al. [8] opine that reducing food waste through better consumption and production systems can contribute to the achievement of the UN’s SDGs, thereby suggesting a potential synergy between the availability of nutrition (addressed in SDGs 2 and 3) and sustainable production and consumption patterns (addressed in SDG 12).

Synergy

The term synergy, derived from the Greek word ‘Synergos’, literally translates into ‘co-operate’ or working together, and is associated with Aristotle’s cliché of “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” [9]. Strategies aimed at achieving the SDGs rarely act in isolation; in contrast, they interact with other SDGs in complex ways, thereby evidencing synergies, trade-offs, and contradictions between SDGs [10,11]. Kroll, Warchold, and Pradhan [10] define these interactions between SDGs as ‘synergies’ if the progress in one goal supports progress in other goals and ‘trade-offs’ when progress in one goal hinders progress in others. Numerous studies explore these interrelationships between SDGs and evidence synergies and trade-offs between multiple SDGs [9,10,12]. However, the state of research addressing these interrelationships and synergistic interactions between multiple SDGs remains underexplored in the literature, and due to the pivotal role of food systems on all the SDGs [13], it is important to understand how the interrelationships between various SDGs are explored in the current literature on FSCs. Against this backdrop, this study aims to address this gap in the literature and present a systematic review of the literature that evidences the state of research on SDGs and their synergistic interactions.
The contributions of our paper are threefold. First, we objectively report on the current SDGs addressed in the FSC literature. Second, we provide a historical overview of the application of SDGs and the synergistic interrelationships between the SDGs within FSCs through a qualitative assessment of the literature about SDGs. Lastly, we provide a platform for information for researchers that will enable them to identify, justify, and refine the strategic approaches concerning synergies between SDGs and Responsible Consumption and Production.

2. Background

Food scarcity contributes to hunger and malnutrition, and due to its complexity and vicious nature, this results in a trap from which people cannot easily escape, thereby further complicating sustainable development. To address these issues, SDG 2 aims to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. As a logical solution, increases in agricultural production could mitigate hunger and food insecurity by improving the availability of food [14]. However, due to limitations associated with arable land and issues associated with increased production of food using scientific conventional methods, increasing food production as opposed to addressing food waste might result in adversely affecting sustainable development. This necessitates more sustainable methods of food production and consumption, as addressed in SDG 12.
SDG 12 is “about doing more and better with less”, and from a food management context pertains to minimizing food loss and food waste, which is addressed in SDG target 12.3 [15]. Target 12.3 aims to “halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains by 2030”, thereby ensuing greater availability of food [16]. Govindan [6] explored this in an FSC context by defining consumption in terms of respect for sustainable patterns of food utilization and production, which, in turn, respects natural ecosystems. This can be considered as a precursor to SDG 12, which addresses sustainable consumption and production, and suggests a synergistic interrelationship between SDG 2 and 12 as responsible production systems can improve food security. However, these synergistic interactions are underexplored in the current FSC literature, thereby necessitating a review of the current literature to identify how researchers address this synergy in an FSC context.
Although supply chain inefficiencies contributing to food waste are more pronounced in the developing world [17], it can also impact residents in the developed world, wherein the consumption stage is the key contributor to food waste [17,18,19]. Residents in high-income developed countries are more prone to wasting food [20], but this can also negatively impact the achievement of SDGs. For example, non-sustainable consumption patterns can result in a decrease in the availability of healthier food options in developed nations, thereby negating efforts to achieving the SDGs associated with better health. This suggests that strategies aimed at more sustainable production and consumption systems (addressed in SDG 12) can potentially improve the availability of food and healthier alternatives, thereby implying synergies between target 12.3, SDG 2, and SDG 3, as the progress in one goal (SDG 12) favours progress in others (SDG 2 and 3).
From a generic research (non-supply chain) context, several studies illustrate synergistic interactions and trade-offs between SDGs [9,10,11]. However, these synergies in SDGs can be dependent on other variables, as evidenced by Mainali, Luukkanen, Silveira, and Kaivo-Oja [9], who suggest differences in synergies based on location. In the context of responsible consumption and production, food loss and waste is a significant issue that has economic, environmental, and social consequences within the associated supply chain in developing countries [21]. Even though this has been explored in the literature through the three dimensions of sustainability, there is still the issue of the interconnections between SDGs and food production and, due to its impact on hunger and malnourishment [22], these problems do not appear to be mitigated further. One of the likely rationales could be the differing stakeholder goals [23] and given that sustainable food production and consumption can contribute positively towards multiple SDGs [4], it raises specific perspectives that have never been investigated systematically. To our knowledge, there has not been a systematic compilation of these SDGs within the context of FSCs; therefore, this study aims to identify and ascertain the impact of these relationships between SDGs. We address the primary research question, “How are 16 SDGs inextricably interrelated with SDG 12 in the context of an FSC”. Using current literature studying the impact of the FSC on SDGs, this research question explores the synergies between SDGs as evidenced in the current literature and, thereby, proposes a conceptual framework to achieve synergistic interactions between SDG 12 and SDG 2. Given that the scope of this study is limited to the FSC, the synergistic interactions will be explored by focusing on SDG 12 (Sustainable consumption and production) as this SDG is strongly associated with production and consumption systems [6,24].

3. Theoretical Foundation

To achieve the SDGs, a coordinated approach involving multiple stakeholder collaboration is necessary [25,26], thereby implying the pivotal role of stakeholders in achieving SDGs. Stakeholder theory posits that both internal and external groups will influence organizational practices as they have a “stake” in the organization and this easily extends to the supply chain as supply chain actors will influence the supply chain [6,27]. Freeman and McVea [27] define stakeholders as “any group or individual that can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s objectives” and several academic papers use Stakeholder Theory as a theoretical lens to explore the influence of stakeholders on SDGs [6,25,28,29]. Within the FSC, several stakeholders influence the achievement of SDGs, including farmers, producers, processors, certification agencies, traders, retailers, distributors, and final consumers [30]. As these stakeholders (supply chain actors) influence the supply chain’s ability to achieve SDGs, stakeholder theory is an ideal theoretical lens in this study and using this theoretical perspective, this section delves into the roles and responsibilities of multiple stakeholders in minimizing food waste in the supply chain.
Although consumer pressures for sustainability can positively influence the entire supply chain [31], non-sustainable consumption habits, especially in high-income countries, is a significant contributor to food waste, thereby suggesting the influence of the consumer as a stakeholder. The policymaker is another significant stakeholder wielding a direct impact on food waste [32], as evidenced by the French government’s policy on donating unsold foods to retailers, thereby directly minimizing food waste [33]. However, a non-holistic perspective of stakeholder’s actions when designing and implementing policies and regulations can negatively influence SDGs.
As evidenced in the Indian and Chinese contexts, supply chain actors have a major influence on food waste, especially within the developing world [17,19]. Although more pronounced in low-income countries due to ineffective supply chains, food waste is not limited to low-income countries but can occur at any stage of the supply chain [34,35]. Within the foodservice sector, food service employees, including managers, can impact consumption habits, thereby contributing to food waste [36].
Conspicuous consumption habits, especially among the rich urban residents, are significant contributors to food waste [37,38]. However, in comparison to previous decades, this is evidenced in traditionally low-income countries as well due to an increase in wealth among the urban elite in traditionally low-income countries, thereby posing as a barrier to SDG 12.3 [38,39]. An exploratory study on the amount of food waste generated in Lhasa HORECA (HOtels, REstaurants, and CAfés) evidenced an increasing trend in food waste. These conspicuous consumption habits can be due to dining culture, as evidenced by Wang et al. [40], describing the principle of ‘mianzi’ in Chinese culture, which considers over-ordering as a kind of hospitality. Liao et al. [41] attribute this to the influence of Confucian culture on face-saving and group conformity. Such studies evidence the pivotal role of consumers and their actions in achieving SDG 12, 12.3, and SDG 2. This shows the various stakeholders’ influence on the supply chain’s sustainability orientation, and as an extension, the ability to achieve certain SDGs.
Although not from a supply chain context, multiple studies address synergies and trade-offs between SDGs [10,12,42,43]. Kroll, Warchold, and Pradhan [10] illustrate synergistic interrelationships between SDGs 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 and Mainali, Luukkanen, Silveira, and Kaivo-Oja [9] illustrate synergistic interactions between SDG 2 and SDGs 1, 6, and 7. Mainali, Luukkanen, Silveira, and Kaivo-Oja [9] illustrate synergistic interactions by citing the importance of ending hunger and guaranteeing food security in developing economies. This suggests a relationship between SDG 2 and the availability of water. In a similar vein, Pradhan, Costa, Rybski, Lucht, and Kropp [12] suggest SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production) is most often associated with trade-offs with other SDGs.
However, a key limitation of these studies is the generic focus of these studies exploring the interactions between the SDGs, which mandates further research that explores the interactions of the SDGs within a specific research context. Due to increasing global trade, the food supply chain has a significant impact on SDGs, but current research does not explore the impact of food supply chains on SDGs. Although literature reviews address the current nature of the knowledge on SDGs [44,45], far too little attention has been paid to the synergies between the SDGs and food supply chain. The focus of this study intends to address this gap in the current literature by analysing the impact of food supply chain operations conducted to evidence the current nature of understanding of these interrelationships within the food supply chain context by focusing on responsible consumption, and Production (SDG 12).

4. Materials and Methods

This study aims to identify the interrelationships between the SDGs from an academic context through a comprehensive review of the SDGs in an FSC context. For this, we employed a structured literature review using the process explicated in recent studies of the supply chain [26,46] (See Figure 1).
Papers published from 2015 to 2020 were collected through four databases to identify the interrelationships between the SDGs through a comprehensive review of academic journal articles to interpret, understand, and explore concepts within the current literature in FSCs. Due to the academic and managerial value of this field of research, this paper goes beyond a summarization of what is currently written about SDGs by modelling the synergistic interrelationships between the SDGs and creating a conceptual model that contributes to the synergistic interactions between SDG 12 and SDG 2.
This SLR involved four steps, which included:
  • Identification of research questions;
  • Designing of inclusion and exclusion criteria;
  • Conducting the review through the selection of relevant databases, collecting of academic studies using specific search strings;
  • Quality analysis and synthesizing the data.
Steps 1 and 2—Research question identification and criteria design
Although the overarching research question pertains to the interrelationships between multiple SDGs, there were multiple gaps this study attempts to address, which include:
  • Publication timeline, geographic scope, and methodologies used in academic journal articles;
  • Interrelationships between multiple SDGs as evidenced in academic journal articles;
  • Contribution of academic articles in FSC on achieving the goals and synergistic relationships between key SDGs (SDG 12 and SDG 2).
Multiple inclusion criteria were employed to identify studies that focused on SDGs proposed by the United Nations, and these include:
  • Year—the United Nations published the SDGs in 2015 and previous studies on SDGs might not address the specific SDGs formulated in the United Nations’ 2030 SDGs;
  • FSC relevance;
  • Scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles;
  • Studies addressing SDGs.
The exclusion criteria aimed to disqualify journal articles based on the following criteria:
  • Language—studies published in other languages were excluded;
  • Journal articles—books, book reviews, conference papers, and other academic publications were excluded from the review process;
  • Duplications.
Four databases—Elsevier, ProQuest, Emerald, and WSI—were used to identify scholarly peer-reviewed articles addressing SDGs using specific keywords. Multiple searches were conducted based on article titles to ensure the most relevant studies were identified in this review, thereby resulting in specific keywords that were employed. These keywords included “Food Supply Chain”, “Sustainable Development Goals”, and “United Nations”, which ensured that only studies addressing The United Nations’ SDGs within the context of the FSC were retrieved by the researchers. After eliminating duplicates, 171 full-text articles were sourced for further data synthesis and a classification framework using Microsoft Excel was designed by extracting and recording the following:
  • Authors;
  • Year of Publication;
  • Journal title;
  • Title of the article;
  • Methodology;
  • Geographical scope;
  • Keywords;
  • SDGs addressed.
Due to the nature of the databases, only credible, high-quality academic publications were retrieved and analysed. In addition to the impact factor, the purpose of the study, and the relevance to SDGs, one of the criteria employed in the classification framework involved recording the SDGs addressed in every study that we reviewed. However, SDGs were not evidenced explicitly in some studies as several studies do not specifically use numbers to dictate which SDG or target is explored. This necessitated the principal researcher to manually quantify the non-numerical targets/SDGs into the numerical SDGs or targets.
A qualitative content analysis using NVIVO was performed on the 171 peer-reviewed journal articles that were retrieved in Step 2. This mode of analysis is useful for answering the “why” questions and the findings are relevant to resolving a specific problem, thereby making it ideal in this research context [47]. An inductive content analysis led to a process of clustering abstractions based on the relevance and the implication of addressing SDGs in an academic research. This technique of content analysis develops themes by relying on inductive reasoning and the themes emerged from the raw data (selected academic studies) through repeated examination and comparison of the studies. Additionally, multiple authors reviewed the content of the studies that met the eligibility criteria to minimize conflicts that could have occurred during the review process. This methodology of qualitative content analysis, double coded by the fourth author, resulted in a conceptualization of synergistic interrelationships of SDGs in academic FSC research, thereby building a model enabling synergistic interactions between SDG 12 and SDG 2.

5. Results

Sustainable FSC practices have a significant impact on SDGs, as evidenced in the current literature [4,46], and the following sections describe this in further detail.

5.1. Descriptive Findings

This section briefly describes the characteristics of the studies included in this study of the literature on SDGs in FSCs published between 2015 and 2020. The trends in publications illustrate an increase in academic interest in addressing SDGs (Figure 2). A total of 171 studies were analysed, of which 71 were empirical studies, followed by 47 literature reviews or conceptual papers, 27 mathematical modelling papers, and 26 quantitative secondary data analyses usually involving food consumption and waste data.
As illustrated in Figure 3, SDG 12 is the most widely cited SDG within academic research on food supply chains and SDGs and this could be due to the direct impact of sustainable supply chain management practices on sustainable production and consumption (SDG 12). Several studies evidence the impact of inefficiencies within supply chains as a key barrier to the achievement of sustainable production and consumption, thereby hampering the achievement of SDG 12 [6,17,21]. As evidenced in the literature, these barriers are not specific to any single tier within the supply chain and can be due to the focal company [28]; food retailers, including restauranteurs [38,48]; post harvesting, storage, or marketing stages [49]; and processing and production [8]. Lemaire and Limbourg’s review addressing SDG 12 evidence supply chain-based solutions, including business process redesign, as well as integration of the supply chain models, redistribution, recovery, and disposal as solutions to the systemic challenges within FSCs [50]. Similarly, Diaz-Ruiz et al. [51] proposed preventative solutions, including diet valuations, awareness, and redistribution methods that address supply chain inefficiencies. This suggests that improvements in the FSCs that address inefficiencies within the supply chain can contribute to achieving SDG 12. Sustainable operations within the FSC can directly contribute to achieving SDG 12 and this is evidenced through the number of papers addressing the interrelationships between SDG 12 and the operations of the FSC.
In addition to SDG 12, 47 studies identified the impact of the FSC on SDG 2, thereby suggesting that SDG 2 is also widely addressed in the current academic literature. The impact of FSC operations on food security and food availability is evidenced in the literature [34,52,53] and several studies focused on the triple bottom line impact of the FSC and its impact on SDG 2, thereby providing tangible solutions to achieving SDG 2 [54]. These solutions include effective stakeholder partnerships [55], policy improvement [55,56], improved agricultural systems [2,54], and sustainable supply chain operations [28,57]. Although SDG 3 and SDG 13, addressing good health and well-being, and climate change, were addressed 11 times in the reviewed literature, due to the relevance of SDG 12 and SDG 2, the rest of the paper will focus on these SDGs in contrast to other SDGs.
Analysing the geographic scope of the studies showed that most studies were conducted in developed economies: 60 papers were conducted within a single developed country, followed by 48 papers that either did not focus on any specific geographic region or had a global focus, and 30 papers focused on developing regions. Other studies focused on multiple developed economies (17 articles), multiple developing economies (10 articles), and, finally, six studies focused on both developed and developing economies (Table 2).
After analysing the geographic scope of the papers reviewed, it is evident that most papers focus on high-income developed countries, which can be considered a significant limitation due to the global nature of the FSC. Since this review considered papers over a 6-year period, to ascertain any potential changes to this limitation in the current research, the trends in the geographic scope of the publications were analysed. This analysis shows that although there is an increasing trend in research in the developing world context, the emphasis of academic research exploring SDGs in FSCs is within the developed economies, thereby suggesting a significant limitation to the current nature of the literature (Table 3 and Figure 4).
A total of 102 papers address SDG 12 and 47 studies addresses SDG 2, and due to this overemphasis of these two SDGs, studies citing these SDGs were analysed further in this study. Based on the analysis, it is evident that SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), addressing food security, is studied more in a developing world context compared to studies in the developed world (Table 4 and Figure 5). SDG 2 aims to eradicate hunger, as this could be a more significant problem in a developing world context [3]. However, the consumption habits of the inhabitants in the developed world can influence food security in developing economies, thereby suggesting the non-siloed nature of food waste and food security [58]. Moreover, SDG 12 is studied more in a developed world setting compared to studies focusing on a developing world context. The implications of this finding are further explicated in the direction for future studies section.
The study reviewed 171 articles focusing on SDGs and FSCs and 102 of these articles addressed SDG 12, of which 83 papers specifically addressed target 12.3. The strongest relationship between the SDGs based on the number of publications was evidenced between SDG 12 and SDG 2 (19 papers address both SDG2 and SDG 12). Specifically, eight academic studies addressed both target 12.3 and SDG 2 and four of these studies specifically addressed target 2.4.

5.2. Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12) and Other SDGs

Several studies address the interrelationships between Sustainable Production and Consumption (SDG 12) and other SDGs [28,53,59]. Pohlmann’s [28] study on poultry supply chains evidence interrelationships between SDG 12 and SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17. The sustainable production systems in poultry supply chains contribute to creating new jobs, thereby impacting poverty levels (SDG 1) and, as an extension, results in the lower cost of poultry meat and increased availability of protein in underdeveloped countries (contributing to SDGs 2 and 3) [28,34]. Asian, Hafezalkotob, and John [4] illustrate the impact of a sharing economy-based model in agricultural supply chains in achieving SDG 12 and other SDGs, including SDG2 and SDG3, due to improved accessibility and availability of healthier food products in developing economies. These studies illustrate a synergistic interaction between SDG12 and other SDGs, and the current nature of the literature on these interactions is illustrated in Table 5 and Figure 6.
The interrelationships between target 12.3, addressing food waste, and other SDGs were evidenced in multiple tiers of the FSC [8,28,32,53]. For example, a literature review by Carino et al. [60] identified food loss and waste as one of the most widely explored barriers to environmental sustainability within food services in the hospital and evidenced that effective food service management directly impacts the industry’s ability to achieve SDGs 11, 12 (including 12.3), and 13. This suggests the implications of SDG 12.3 on SDGs 11,12, and 13 and, as an extension, the environmental impact of food services in hospitals. Another study highlighted the impact of food sharing models as an alternative distribution system, thereby helping to achieve the poverty and food waste reduction goals of the United Nations (SDG 1 and target 12.3) [61]. These studies illustrate the potential synergies between multiple SDGs within the FSC, as illustrated in Figure 6.

5.3. Synergies between Sustainable Production and Consumption (SDG 12) and Zero Hunger (SDG 2)

A stronger link and potential synergistic interactions between SDG 2 and SDG 12 are evidenced by the number of papers focusing on both SDG 2 and SDG 12 (19 studies). More specifically, 9 papers addressed SDG 12.3 and SDG 2, thereby implying a relationship between food waste and hunger, addressed in target 12.3 and SDG 2.
Hunger and food waste are inextricably linked, as suggested by Ellis, Kwofie, and Ngadi [49], as wasting food results in food insecurity, thereby resulting in increased levels of poverty and hunger. Several studies depict the synergies between sustainable food production systems (SDG 12) and different SDGs [4,46,53], thereby contradicting Pradhan, Costa, Rybski, Lucht, and Kropp [12] on the trade-offs associated with SDG 12.
A direct relationship between food waste and food insecurity is evident as a higher level of food wastage increases food insecurity, especially in developing nations [21,49,52,55]. However, Ponis, Papanikolaou, Katimertzoglou, Ntalla, and Xenos [34] suggest the detrimental impact of food waste is evidenced in developed economies as well. For example, food waste leads to a decrease in availability and increase in the costs of healthier food, thereby contributing to increased consumption of cheaper ultra-processed food. This consumption pattern (of unhealthy products) results in health detriments including obesity, thereby evidencing strong interrelationships between SDGs 2, 3, 12, and target 12.3. Blesh, Hoey, Jones, Friedmann, and Perfecto [52] conducted an integrated literature review on SDG 2 using a food systems lens and propose that adaptive, effective, and participatory solutions can be a pathway towards SDG 2. After comprehensively reviewing the existing literature and its impact on SDG 2, Blesh et al. [52] explicate the relationships between SDG 2 and other SDGs, including SDGs 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12 (specifically 12.3 on halving food waste), 13, and 15. Guidance on how to coordinate actions to achieve these goals is important and a siloed approach to achieving these goals individually might undermine current sustainability-based approaches [52]. These studies suggest a synergistic interrelationship between SDG 12 and SDG 2 and propose solutions addressing SDGs must account for these interrelationships as SDGs do not act in isolation and may have potential synergies or trade-offs.

Synergies between Target 12.3 and Target 2.4

Analysis of the interrelationships between multiple targets shows an interesting relationship between SDG target 12.3 and target 2.4. The most common target addressed in SDG 2 that addressed target 12.3 is target 2.4, and this was explored in four academic research papers [29,52,53,55]. Target 2.4 aims to ensure food production systems that maintain ecosystems while strengthening climate change adaptation capacity and improving land and soil quality, thereby suggesting a synergy with target 12.3, which focuses specifically on food waste management, as a precursor to sustainable production and consumption (SDG 12). A review by Teigiserova, Hamelin, and Thomsen [53] on contributors to food loss and waste in food residue biorefineries propose several guiding criteria that helped attain SDGs. Although the key targets accounted for in the study were 8.2, 9.5, and 12.3, the first guiding criteria that aim to preserve quality is coherent with both targets 2.4 and SDG 12.3, among others. Blesh et al. [52] suggest these targets, and the interactions between them, are not studied extensively in the literature, thereby necessitating further empirical research on the synergistic interrelationships between SDG target 12.3 and 2.4. Though underexplored in the literature, these studies suggest a synergistic interrelationship between SDG 12.3 and SDG 2.4 within the FSC context and warrant further empirical research identifying enablers to such synergistic interactions between targets 12.3 and 2.4.

5.4. The Conceptual Model for Achieving Synergistic Interactions between SDG 2 and 12

Pradhan, Costa, Rybski, Lucht, and Kropp [12] identified non-synergistic trade-offs between SDG 12 and 2 and this review of the literature focusing on the FSC contradicts Pradhan et al.’s (2017) findings by illustrating synergistic relationships between SDG 12 and 2 in an FSC context. This section conceptualizes a synergistic framework based on the reviewed studies that addressed SDG 12 and SDG 2. This involves the identification of enablers of synergies explicated in the current literature (Table 6) and creating a conceptual model based on these enablers (Figure 8).
Studies addressing both SDG 12 and SDG 2 indicate the importance of effective policy design for achieving SDGs, and a reformulation of existing policies can contribute to the achievement of SDGs [28,65,69]. For example, national dietary guidelines promote the consumption of ruminant meat for better protein intake; however, increased meat intake might have a negative environmental impact, thereby necessitating changes to such guidelines. In addition to policies, frameworks to implement these changes, effective stakeholder education and management, and supply chain integration are critical to achieving SDGs [69]. In some cases, this may involve a rework of ineffective and sometimes complementary policies, thereby suggesting effective policy as an enabler to synergistic interactions between SDGs [32]. Such policies aimed at consumption practices, as evidenced in the Chinese government’s policies on ‘Clean Plate’ and ‘Operation Empty Plate’, can contribute to the minimization of food waste and, thereby, achieving SDG 12.3. Such initiatives can influence consumer psychology and, as an extension, the achievement of SDGs (Figure 7).
Many studies address the influence of technology in achieving multiple SDGs, including 2 and 12 [4,53,66,68]. Lillford and Hermansson [66] explore the role of technology (specifically, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning) in addressing both SDG 2 and target 12.3 and suggested that using technology can influence SDG 12.3 and, as an extension, SDG 2. As Asian, Hafezalkotob, and John [4] illustrate, an improvement in operations using technologies that enhance the sharing economy can improve the availability of food through improved production systems, thereby suggesting a synergistic relationship between SDG 2 and 12. Even within a consumption context, technological innovations in neurogastronomy, gastrophysics, molecular gastronomy, the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence can result in changes in food consumption habits and preferences, thereby resulting in healthier diets and potentially less wasteful behaviour [70].
Several studies address the importance of sustainable supply chain practices in achieving SDG 2 and 12 [64,68]. Studies suggest that redesigning FSCs to account for the environment can contribute to achieving SDG 2 and 12, thus suggesting sustainable supply chain design as an enabler [28,57]. The impact of collaboration on SDGs is evidenced in other articles [21] and the study by Adenle, Azadi, and Manning [55] exploring poverty and food insecurity within the African context demonstrates the influence of sustainable agriculture in mitigating poverty and food insecurity. This implies that sustainable agricultural practices can enable synergies between SDGs.
Exacerbated by ineffective supply chains, food insecurity can be a systemic problem in developing countries, thereby contributing to food insecurity [17,19]. As another enabler, Karki, Bennett, and Mishra [24] studied the impact of supply chain relationships in attaining SDG 12.3 and SDG 2 and propose that a coordinated effort between supply chain actors is a significant driver to these SDGs. In the context of stakeholder management, in addition to supply chain stakeholders, the consumers and their consumption habits can be significant barriers to SDGs [38,40]. Novel solutions to achieve sustainable food consumption practices by improving awareness through education can influence the lowering of food waste generation, thereby contributing to food security (achieving target 12.3 and SDG 2), and suggesting synergies between the two SDGs [34,62]. The impact of such awareness improvement strategies has been explored further [38], suggesting that nation-wide campaigns aiming to improve awareness of food waste and consumption patterns can improve perception towards food waste.
However, studies have shown the importance of a multi-stakeholder view whereby governments and the international community should be involved in strategies that mitigate food insecurity and poverty (SDGs 1, 2, and 3) [55]. Achieving SDGs requires the active participation of stakeholders and involves the engagement of multiple stakeholders, including the public and private sectors and the consumers [66]. A philosophical change in consumption patterns, through awareness management and other strategies, can be a significant pressure for sustainability, and such stakeholder pressures are a precursor to SDGs as illustrated in the conceptual model. As illustrated in Figure 8, sustainable FSC management through the implementation of responsible operations, as evidenced in the reviewed literature, can influence SDG 12 and SDG 2, thereby creating synergistic interactions between them.

6. Implications and Future Research Directions

The key outputs of a systematic literature review are the production of research-based knowledge through the interpretation of research findings and the identification of gaps in the current literature [26]. We evidence this through the design of a conceptual model and identifying the gaps in current research, thereby guiding future studies exploring SDGs in FSCs, and this section explicates these gaps in the current literature.
As Porter, Reay, Bomberg, and Higgins [32] suggest, though there are synergistic interactions between the SDGs, some SDGs may be at odds with others due to competing trade-offs. Prior research has shown that regulatory policies can drive sustainability within supply chains [71,72] and, as an extension, creating legislation that addresses these synergies and trade-offs between SDGs is critical to the achievement of the SDGs. Policies that do not address these trade-offs can adversely affect the achievement of SDGs, as evidenced in the fresh produce sector in the EU [32]. For policy makers, this mandates the reformulation of agricultural policies to ensure sustainable development [55], and as Pohlmann, Scavarda, Alves, and Korzenowski [28] illustrate, revised legislation must align with the SDGs. Through this study, we propose that policymakers take it one step further and align legislation with multiple SDGs while being cognizant of their interrelationships, which may differ globally.
Trade-offs can be evidenced through the contradiction between the impact of the processing of food products on social and environmental perspectives. For example, increased processing of food products can prolong the shelf life, thereby minimizing the propensity to waste, but may also lower the nutritional value of the product, thereby suggesting a non-synergistic interaction (trade-offs) between target 12.3 and SDG 3 [56,65]. Such issues involving sustainability trade-offs are evidenced in terms of stakeholder prioritizations [32] but their impact on SDGs and other enablers is currently underexplored in an FSC context. Supply chain managers have to account for these synergies and design business models that emphasize greater collaboration and improved stakeholder engagement and awareness [28]. If aware of the synergies and trade-offs between SDGs, these business models can bolster the achievement of multiple SDGs, rather than creating fragmentary solutions that achieve one SDG, albeit, at the expense of another. This necessitates further empirical research on the enablers of synergistic and non-synergistic interactions between SDGs from a consumption and production context.
Although some studies identify and suggest piecemeal consumption-based solutions for these issues, they have not focused on the non-synergistic interactions between SDGs from a holistic supply chain context [73,74]. Future research must explore both synergistic and non-synergistic interactions between multiple SDGs and create holistic solutions addressing the complex barriers impacting trade-offs between SDGs. Such studies could enrich the current state of the literature and provide practitioners with novel perspectives on the interrelationships between multiple SDGs in an FSC context. Improved knowledge of these synergistic and non-synergistic interactions can bolster managerial interventions to achieve these SDGs by accounting for multiple SDGs and their interactions.
We identified the synergies between food waste (target 12.3) and sustainable food production systems (target 2.4) but, as evidenced in the study, this relationship is currently underexplored in the supply chain literature. Future studies should further explore the relationship between SDG 12.3 and SDG 2.4 and identify drivers and barriers to achieving synergies between targets 12.3 and 2.4. Although institutional factors can be a significant barrier to SDGs [21], research on SDGs using institutional theory as a theoretical lens is limited even though there are significant institutional isomorphic pressures within this context. Therefore, future studies can use institutional theory as a theoretical lens to explore synergistic interactions between targets 12.3 and 2.4 and explore the implications of various institutional pressures in achieving these targets.
Food waste drivers in affluent economies can lower the economic access to food in non-affluent settings and the literature suggests increased globalization of the FSCs, as primary producers might be usually in low-income countries and consumers in high-income, developed countries [3,58]. However, studies that account for both developing and developed countries are significantly limited and this is a critical gap in the current literature. Although there may be difficulties in studying the impact of SDGs in multiple locations due to the interrelationships and complexities within the global FSC, there is a need for empirical studies addressing both developing and developed countries’ contributions towards SDGs. Synergies between SDGs are dependent on location [9], and as the studies exploring the FSC’s impact on SDGs are within a developed economic context, this is a significant limitation in the current research. Although some studies address this [17,75,76], future studies should focus on SDGs in both developing and developed region contexts. For this, we suggest further research into the dynamics between stakeholders in developing and developed economies and their impact on achieving SDGs.

7. Conclusions and Limitations

This structured systematic review explores the nature of the current literature exploring the United Nations’ SDGs and the synergistic interactions between these SDGs. Within an FSC context, SDG 12, which focuses on sustainable production and consumption practices, is the most widely explored SDG, followed by SDG 2 aiming for Zero Hunger. The main contribution of this study is a snapshot of the existing gaps in the literature addressing SDGs in FSCs, which can guide future studies on the nature of the synergistic interactions between the SDGs to address future research. The conceptual model based on studies that addressed SDG 12 and SDG 2 show the impact of sustainable practices on the achievement of these two SDGs, as evidenced in the current literature. As with any study, this study has some limitations. Two of the key limitations of this study involved the use of only four databases and a limited focus of SDG research in FSCs. Future studies must account for studies on SDGs in the broader supply chain context and not limit the scope to a specific supply chain.

Author Contributions

J.J.-J.—conceptualization, visualization, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation; C.D.—conceptualization, supervision, writing—review and editing; T.M.—supervision, writing—review and editing; S.S.—validation, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Machovina, B.; Feeley, K.J.; Ripple, W.J. Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 536, 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Stewart, B.A.; Lal, R. Increasing World Average Yields of Cereal Crops. Adv. Agron. 2018, 151, 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  3. Spiker, M.L.; Knoblock-Hahn, A.; Brown, K.; Giddens, J.; Hege, A.S.; Sauer, K.; Enos, D.M.; Steiber, A. Cultivating Sustainable, Resilient, and Healthy Food and Water Systems: A Nutrition-Focused Framework for Action. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2020, 120, 1057–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Asian, S.; Hafezalkotob, A.; John, J.J. Sharing economy in organic food supply chains: A pathway to sustainable development. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 218, 322–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Caldeira, C.; De Laurentiis, V.; Corrado, S.; van Holsteijn, F.; Sala, S. Quantification of food waste per product group along the food supply chain in the European Union: A mass flow analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Govindan, K. Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Le Blanc, D. Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 23, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Principato, L.; Ruini, L.; Guidi, M.; Secondi, L. Adopting the circular economy approach on food loss and waste: The case of Italian pasta production. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 144, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mainali, B.; Luukkanen, J.; Silveira, S.; Kaivo-Oja, J. Evaluating synergies and trade-offs among sustainable development goals (SDGs): Explorative analyses of development paths in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kroll, C.; Warchold, A.; Pradhan, P. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies? Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Menton, M.; Larrea, C.; Latorre, S.; Martinez-Alier, J.; Peck, M.; Temper, L.; Walter, M. Environmental justice and the SDGs: From synergies to gaps and contradictions. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1621–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Pradhan, P.; Costa, L.; Rybski, D.; Lucht, W.; Kropp, J.P. A systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earths Future 2017, 5, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Rockström, J.; Sukhdev, P. How Food Connects All the SDGs. Available online: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2016-06-14-how-food-connects-all-the-sdgs.html (accessed on 28 February 2021).
  14. Namany, S.; Govindan, R.; Alfagih, L.; McKay, G.; Al-Ansari, T. Sustainable food security decision-making: An agent-based modelling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Sustainable Consumption and Production Policies. Available online: https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/sustainable-consumption-and-production-policies (accessed on 10 February 2021).
  16. United Nations (UN). Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed on 8 February 2021).
  17. Hu, G.; Mu, X.; Xu, M.; Miller, S.A. Potentials of GHG emission reductions from cold chain systems: Case studies of China and the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Garcia-Herrero, I.; Hoehn, D.; Margallo, M.; Laso, J.; Bala, A.; Batlle-Bayer, L.; Fullana, P.; Vazquez-Rowe, I.; Gonzalez, M.J.; Durá, M.J.; et al. On the estimation of potential food waste reduction to support sustainable production and consumption policies. Food Policy 2018, 80, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Raut, R.; Gardas, B.B. Sustainable logistics barriers of fruits and vegetables. Benchmark. Int. J. 2018, 25, 2589–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, C.; Chaudhary, A.; Mathys, A. Nutritional and environmental losses embedded in global food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 160, 104912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bustos, C.; Moors, E.H.M. Reducing post-harvest food losses through innovative collaboration: Insights from the Colombian and Mexican avocado supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 1020–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Bech-Larsen, T.; Ascheman-Witzel, J.; Kulikovskaja, V. Re-distribution and promotion practices for suboptimal foods—Commercial and social initiatives for the reduction of food waste. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2019, 14, 186–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nunes, M.F.; Lee Park, C.; Paiva, E.L. Can we have it all? Sustainability trade-offs and cross-insurance mechanisms in supply chains. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2020, 40, 1339–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Karki, S.T.; Bennett, A.C.; Mishra, J.L. Reducing food waste and food insecurity in the UK: The architecture of surplus food distribution supply chain in addressing the sustainable development goals (Goal 2 and Goal 12.3) at a city level. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 93, 563–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lombardi, M.; Costantino, M. A Social Innovation Model for Reducing Food Waste: The Case Study of an Italian Non-Profit Organization. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Özbük, R.M.; Coşkun, A. Factors affecting food waste at the downstream entities of the supply chain: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  27. Freeman, R.E.; McVea, J. A stakeholder approach to strategic management. In The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management; Blackwell Publishers: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2001; pp. 189–207. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pohlmann, C.R.; Scavarda, A.J.; Alves, M.B.; Korzenowski, A.L. The role of the focal company in sustainable development goals: A Brazilian food poultry supply chain case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sharif, A.M.; Irani, Z. Policy making for global food security in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world. Transform. Gov. People Process. Policy 2017, 11, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sharma, R.; Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, A. A systematic literature review on machine learning applications for sustainable agriculture supply chain performance. Comput. Oper. Res. 2020, 119, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jacob-John, J. Adherence to responsibility in organic dry food supply chains. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2018, 30, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Porter, S.D.; Reay, D.S.; Bomberg, E.; Higgins, P. Production-phase greenhouse gas emissions arising from deliberate withdrawal and destruction of fresh fruit and vegetables under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 631–632, 1544–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Giordano, C.; Falasconi, L.; Cicatiello, C.; Pancino, B. The role of food waste hierarchy in addressing policy and research: A comparative analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ponis, S.T.; Papanikolaou, P.-A.; Katimertzoglou, P.; Ntalla, A.C.; Xenos, K.I. Household food waste in Greece: A questionnaire survey. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 1268–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Redlingshöfer, B.; Coudurier, B.; Georget, M. Quantifying food loss during primary production and processing in France. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Principato, L.; Pratesi, C.A.; Secondi, L. Towards Zero Waste: An Exploratory Study on Restaurant managers. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 74, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, J.; Peng, C.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, L.; An, J.; Yang, X.; Fang, H.; Fan, P.; Liu, M. Food Waste Behaviours at Buffet Restaurants in China. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Proceedings of the 2020 International Symposium on Water, Ecology and Environment, Beijing, China, 6–8 December 2020; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 690, p. 012016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Filimonau, V.; Zhang, H.; Wang, L.-E. Food waste management in Shanghai full-service restaurants: A senior managers’ perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, C.; Mao, C.; Bunditsakulchai, P.; Sasaki, S.; Hotta, Y. Food waste in Bangkok: Current situation, trends and key challenges. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 157, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, L.; Liu, G.; Liu, X.; Liu, Y.; Gao, J.; Zhou, B.; Gao, S.; Cheng, S. The weight of unfinished plate: A survey based characterization of restaurant food waste in Chinese cities. Waste Manag. 2017, 66, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liao, C.; Hong, J.; Zhao, D.; Zhang, S.; Chen, C. Confucian culture as determinants of consumers’ food leftover generation: Evidence from Chengdu, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 14919–14933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Breuer, A.; Janetschek, H.; Malerba, D. Translating sustainable development goal (SDG) interdependencies into policy advice. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Schmidt, H.; Gostin, L.O.; Emanuel, E.J. Public health, universal health coverage, and Sustainable Development Goals: Can they coexist? Lancet 2015, 386, 928–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Meschede, C. The sustainable development goals in scientific literature: A bibliometric overview at the meta-level. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sweileh, W.M. Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on “sustainable development goals” with emphasis on “good health and well-being” goal (2015–2019). Glob. Health 2020, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thomé, K.M.; Cappellesso, G.; Ramos, E.L.A.; de Lima Duarte, S.C. Food Supply Chains and Short Food Supply Chains: Coexistence conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Baxter, J. Content Analysis. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd ed.; Kobayashi, A., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 391–396. [Google Scholar]
  48. Filimonau, V.; Todorova, E.; Mzembe, A.; Sauer, L.; Yankholmes, A. A comparative study of food waste management in full service restaurants of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ellis, E.; Kwofie, E.M.; Ngadi, M. Economic and nutritional implications of losses and contributing factors along the bean value chain. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 87, 101582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lemaire, A.; Limbourg, S. How can food loss and waste management achieve sustainable development goals? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 1221–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Diaz-Ruiz, R.; Costa-Font, M.; López-i-Gelats, F.; Gil, J.M. Food waste prevention along the food supply chain: A multi-actor approach to identify effective solutions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Blesh, J.; Hoey, L.; Jones, A.D.; Friedmann, H.; Perfecto, I. Development pathways toward “zero hunger”. World Dev. 2019, 118, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Teigiserova, D.A.; Hamelin, L.; Thomsen, M. Review of high-value food waste and food residues biorefineries with focus on unavoidable wastes from processing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Caputo, P.; Zagarella, F.; Cusenza, M.A.; Mistretta, M.; Cellura, M. Energy-environmental assessment of the UIA-OpenAgri case study as urban regeneration project through agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 138819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Adenle, A.A.; Azadi, H.; Manning, L. The era of sustainable agricultural development in Africa: Understanding the benefits and constraints. Food Rev. Int. 2017, 34, 411–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Galli, A.; Moreno Pires, S.; Iha, K.; Alves, A.A.; Lin, D.; Mancini, M.S.; Teles, F. Sustainable food transition in Portugal: Assessing the Footprint of dietary choices and gaps in national and local food policies. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 749, 141307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jonkman, J.; Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P.; Bloemhof, J.M. Integrating harvesting decisions in the design of agro-food supply chains. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019, 276, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Galli, F.; Cavicchi, A.; Brunori, G. Food waste reduction and food poverty alleviation: A system dynamics conceptual model. Agric. Hum. Values 2019, 36, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tucho, G.T.; Okoth, T. Evaluation of neglected bio-wastes potential with food-energy-sanitation nexus. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Carino, S.; Porter, J.; Malekpour, S.; Collins, J. Environmental Sustainability of Hospital Foodservices across the Food Supply Chain: A Systematic Review. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2020, 120, 825–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Michelini, L.; Principato, L.; Iasevoli, G. Understanding Food Sharing Models to Tackle Sustainability Challenges. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 145, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Abdella, G.M.; Kucukvar, M.; Onat, N.C.; Al-Yafay, H.M.; Bulak, M.E. Sustainability assessment and modeling based on supervised machine learning techniques: The case for food consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Canadas, R.; Gonzalez-Miquel, M.; Gonzalez, E.J.; Diaz, I.; Rodriguez, M. Overview of neoteric solvents as extractants in food industry: A focus on phenolic compounds separation from liquid streams. Food Res. Int. 2020, 136, 109558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, T.L.; Kim, H.; Pan, S.Y.; Tseng, P.C.; Lin, Y.P.; Chiang, P.C. Implementation of green chemistry principles in circular economy system towards sustainable development goals: Challenges and perspectives. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 716, 136998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Galli, F.; Prosperi, P.; Favilli, E.; D’Amico, S.; Bartolini, F.; Brunori, G. How can policy processes remove barriers to sustainable food systems in Europe? Contributing to a policy framework for agri-food transitions. Food Policy 2020, 96, 101871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lillford, P.; Hermansson, A.-M. Global missions and the critical needs of food science and technology. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 111, 800–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nedelciu, C.E.; Ragnarsdottir, K.V.; Stjernquist, I.; Schellens, M.K. Opening access to the black box: The need for reporting on the global phosphorus supply chain. Ambio 2020, 49, 881–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Sala, S.; Anton, A.; McLaren, S.J.; Notarnicola, B.; Saouter, E.; Sonesson, U. In quest of reducing the environmental impacts of food production and consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Soussana, J.-F.; Lutfalla, S.; Ehrhardt, F.; Rosenstock, T.; Lamanna, C.; Havlík, P.; Richards, M.; Wollenberg, E.; Chotte, J.-L.; Torquebiau, E.; et al. Matching policy and science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000-soils for food security and climate’ initiative. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 188, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pérez-Rodrigo, C.; Aranceta-Bartrina, J. Role of gastronomy and new technologies in shaping healthy diets. In Gastronomy and Food Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 19–34. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ji, G.; Gunasekaran, A.; Yang, G. Constructing sustainable supply chain under double environmental medium regulations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 147, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in China: Drivers and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 472–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cooreman-Algoed, M.; Huysveld, S.; Lachat, C.; Dewulf, J. How to integrate nutritional recommendations and environmental policy targets at the meal level: A university canteen example. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 21, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Thamagasorn, M.; Pharino, C. An analysis of food waste from a flight catering business for sustainable food waste management: A case study of halal food production process. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 845–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bouzembrak, Y.; Marvin, H.J.P. Impact of drivers of change, including climatic factors, on the occurrence of chemical food safety hazards in fruits and vegetables: A Bayesian Network approach. Food Control 2019, 97, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fοx, D.; Ioannidi, E.; Sun, Y.-T.; Jape, V.W.; Bawono, W.R.; Zhang, S.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. Consumers with high education levels belonging to the millennial generation from Denmark, Greece, Indonesia and Taiwan differ in the level of knowledge on food waste. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2018, 11, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 08809 g001 550
Figure 1. Structured literature review process.
Figure 1. Structured literature review process.
Sustainability 13 08809 g001
Sustainability 13 08809 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of papers published yearly.
Figure 2. Number of papers published yearly.
Sustainability 13 08809 g002
Sustainability 13 08809 g003 550
Figure 3. SDGs addressed in the reviewed literature.
Figure 3. SDGs addressed in the reviewed literature.
Sustainability 13 08809 g003
Sustainability 13 08809 g004 550
Figure 4. Number of studies based on geographic scope and year.
Figure 4. Number of studies based on geographic scope and year.
Sustainability 13 08809 g004
Sustainability 13 08809 g005 550
Figure 5. Number of studies exploring SDG 2 and SDG 12.
Figure 5. Number of studies exploring SDG 2 and SDG 12.
Sustainability 13 08809 g005
Sustainability 13 08809 g006 550
Figure 6. Interrelationships with SDG 12 identified in the literature.
Figure 6. Interrelationships with SDG 12 identified in the literature.
Sustainability 13 08809 g006
Sustainability 13 08809 g007 550
Figure 7. Example of policy as an enabler for SDGs.
Figure 7. Example of policy as an enabler for SDGs.
Sustainability 13 08809 g007
Sustainability 13 08809 g008 550
Figure 8. Conceptual model for achieving synergies between SDGs.
Figure 8. Conceptual model for achieving synergies between SDGs.
Sustainability 13 08809 g008
Table
Table 1. The UN’s SDGs.
Table 1. The UN’s SDGs.
GOAL 1: No PovertyGOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 2: Zero HungerGOAL 10: Reduced Inequality
GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-beingGOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
GOAL 4: Quality EducationGOAL 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
GOAL 5: Gender EqualityGOAL 13: Climate Action
GOAL 6: Clean Water and SanitationGOAL 14: Life Below Water
GOAL 7: Affordable and Clean EnergyGOAL 15: Life on Land
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic GrowthGOAL 16: Peace and Justice Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships to achieve the Goal
Table
Table 2. Number of studies based on geographic scope.
Table 2. Number of studies based on geographic scope.
RegionNumber of Publications
Developed economies (DD)60
Developed and Developing (DDDG)6
Developing (DG) 30
Global or No Region (GLNA)48
Multiple Developed (MDD)17
Multiple Developing (MDG)10
Grand Total171
Table
Table 3. Number of studies based on geographic scope and year.
Table 3. Number of studies based on geographic scope and year.
Year of PublicationDDDDDGDGGLNAMDDMDGTotal
2015 1 12
20161 12
20174 34 11
2018151547436
20191925116144
202021317284376
Grand Total60630481710171
Table
Table 4. Number of studies exploring SDG 2 and SDG 12.
Table 4. Number of studies exploring SDG 2 and SDG 12.
Region of StudyStudies Addressing SDG2Studies Addressing SDG12
Developed economies (DD)745
Developed and Developing (DDDG)24
Developing (DG) 1014
Global or No Region (GLNA)2223
Multiple Developed (MDD)213
Multiple Developing (MDG)43
Table
Table 5. The SDGs and targets in the reviewed studies addressing SDG 12.
Table 5. The SDGs and targets in the reviewed studies addressing SDG 12.
SDGSDG1SDG22.12.22.32.42.52.a2.b
Studies6191224111
SDGSDG3SDG4SDG5SDG6SDG77.aSDG88.28.4
Studies1022541411
SDGSDG99.29.5SDG10SDG11SDG1212.112.212.3
Studies311131022381
SDG12.412.512.612.712.812.a12.b12.cSDG13
Studies232222229
SDG13.2SDG14SDG1515.215.3SDG16SDG17
Studies1362113
Table
Table 6. Studies addressing SDG 12 and SDG 2 in the FSC literature.
Table 6. Studies addressing SDG 12 and SDG 2 in the FSC literature.
AuthorUnit of StudyKey Enabler IdentifiedKey Contribution to SDG Literature
Abdella et al. [62]VariousNovel approaches to assess sustainability orientationModelled an approach to present the environmental impact of various supply chains.
Adenle, Azadi, and Manning [55]UnspecifiedSustainable agriculture and policiesReformulation of agricultural policies to ensure sustainable development
Asian, Hafezalkotob, and John [4]Organic FSCTechnology underpinning the sharing economyPeer to Peer sharing enable financial gains with improved sustainable development
Blesh, Hoey, Jones, Friedmann, and Perfecto [52]UnspecifiedPlace-based, adaptive, participatory solutions for SDGsIdentified limitations in literature and mandate place-based, adaptive, participatory solutions addressing local institutional capacities, agroecosystem diversification and ecological management, and the quality of local diets.
Canadas et al. [63]Food
industry 		Advancements in green chemistryNeoteric solvents as a greener alternative to improve environmental, animal, and human health
Chen et al. [64]UnspecifiedGreen Chemistry, Circular Economy, Policies, Cross Departmental
Collaboration, Cleaner Production, Integrated
Chemical Management Systems, Education, and Sustainable Business Models 		Illustrate current issues in Green Chemistry and circular economy and propose integrated strategies for GCP implementation.
Galli et al. [65]Agri-food systemsAgricultural and food-related policiesIdentified and illustrated policy processes’ contribution to sustainable food systems in Europe
Jonkman, Barbosa-Póvoa, and Bloemhof [57]Sugar beet supply chainSupply chain redesignMathematical Modelling of a redesigned sugar beet supply chain improve economic and environmental performance
Lillford and Hermansson [66]Unspecified Food Science and Technology (FS&T), continuing investment, and improved awareness Improvements in FS&T and awareness improvement strategies can improve both production and consumption patterns globally and locally.
Nedelciu et al. [67]Global phosphorus supply chainSustainability reportingImproved sustainability reporting processes contribute to evaluation of sustainability commitments and sustainable development.
Pohlmann, Scavarda, Alves, and Korzenowski [28]Poultry supply chainImproved legislations, better business models, improved measurement of supply chain impacts,
collaboration,
stakeholder engagement, and improvement in awareness		The importance of revising environmental legislation to align with SDGs
Ponis, Papanikolaou, Katimertzoglou, Ntalla, and Xenos [34]Household consumption patternsStrategies to improve household purchasing and consumption and awareness improvementHousehold behaviours of shopping and consuming food products contribute to food waste
Porter, Reay, Bomberg, and Higgins [32]Fresh produce in EUImproved policies, food loss mitigation systems, and improve alternative use of foodThe negative impact of EU CAP withdrawal mechanisms on avoidable food losses.
Sala et al. [68]UnspecifiedLife cycle
thinking (LCT) and assessment (LCA),
identification of hotspots, FSC optimization, technological improvements and behavioural changes		Present the impact of LCT and LCA approaches in identification of hotspots, FSC optimization, technological
improvements and behavioural changes
Sharif and Irani [29]UnspecifiedPolicy Recommended a morphological grid of food security scenarios based on the VUCA framework.
Soussana et al. [69]Global soil managementSoil management initiatives The 4 per 1000 initiative can potentially achieve multiple SDGs
Teigiserova, Hamelin, and Thomsen [53]Repurposed food waste using biorefineriesInnovative technology and methods Highlighted the role of technological innovations in the valorisation of the studied feedstock
Thomé, Cappellesso, Ramos, and Duarte [46]FSCs and Short FSCs Interest convergence, value addition Developed a coexistence conceptual framework based on the convergence of interests and value addition driven by sustainability pressures.
Tucho and Okoth [59]University food and wasteClosed-loop nutrient circulationsAnalysis of food consumption and waste generation in a university setting based on the food–energy–sanitation nexus.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jacob-John, J.; D’Souza, C.; Marjoribanks, T.; Singaraju, S. Synergistic Interactions of SDGs in Food Supply Chains: A Review of Responsible Consumption and Production. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8809. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13168809

AMA Style

Jacob-John J, D’Souza C, Marjoribanks T, Singaraju S. Synergistic Interactions of SDGs in Food Supply Chains: A Review of Responsible Consumption and Production. Sustainability. 2021; 13(16):8809. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13168809

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jacob-John, Jubin, Clare D’Souza, Tim Marjoribanks, and Stephen Singaraju. 2021. "Synergistic Interactions of SDGs in Food Supply Chains: A Review of Responsible Consumption and Production" Sustainability 13, no. 16: 8809. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13168809

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop