Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

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

Review Article

Technological solutions and consumer behaviour in mitigating food waste:

A global assessment across income levels
Bosompem Ahunoabobirim Agya
Department of Engineering, Nordhausen University of Applied Sciences, Nordhausen, Germany

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

Editor: Dr Vinicius Picanco Rodrigues Food waste remains a critical global challenge, exacerbating food insecurity, environmental degradation, and
economic inefficiencies. This scoping review examines the interplay between technological innovations and
Keywords: consumer behaviour across high-, middle- and low-income contexts. The research identifies key patterns and
Food waste mitigation relationships in food waste generation and mitigation strategies. It explores advanced technological solutions,
Technological solutions
such as AI-driven supply chain optimisation, smart packaging, and blockchain, alongside consumer-level in­
Consumer behaviour
terventions like education campaigns and food labelling improvements. Importantly, the study stratifies findings
Sustainable food consumption
Socio-economic contexts by income level, offering a nuanced understanding of the socioeconomic disparities influencing food waste
reduction. Results highlight the potential of integrating tailored technologies with behavioural nudges to address
waste effectively, particularly when supported by robust policy frameworks and multi-stakeholder collaboration.
By aligning its findings with Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, this research provides actionable insights for
reducing global food waste by half by 2030. The study concludes with recommendations for equitable, scalable
interventions that cater to diverse socio-economic contexts, emphasising the critical role of public-private
partnerships and consumer education in achieving sustainable food systems.

1. Introduction food waste is responsible for approximately 10 % of global greenhouse

gas emissions, making it a critical area of focus for achieving global
Waste is a multifaceted global issue with significant environmental, sustainability goals, including the United Nations Sustainable Develop­
economic, and social challenges. According to the United Nations Food ment Goals (SDG) 12.3, which aims to halve global food waste by 2030
and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2011), approximately one-third of (Goodwin et al., 2022; FAO, 2024).
all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally, Economic impacts are similarly profound. Globally, food waste
amounting to around 1.3 billion tonnes per year. This extensive food amounts to an estimated economic loss of $940 billion annually (USEPA,
wastage occurs throughout the entire food supply chain, from agricul­ 2024). Spang et al. (2019) reported that these losses are particularly
tural production to post-harvest handling, processing, distribution, burdensome in low-income and middle-income countries, where limited
retail, and finally, at the consumer level (Parfitt et al., 2010; Stathers and resources exacerbate the challenge of food waste reduction. Further­
Mvumi, 2020). Aslam et al. (2024) mentioned that the ramifications of more, food waste has social implications, particularly regarding global
this waste are far-reaching, contributing not only to global food inse­ food insecurity. While significant quantities of food are wasted, nearly
curity but also to environmental degradation, resource inefficiencies, 690 million people worldwide go hungry, highlighting a stark disparity
and economic losses. in food distribution and accessibility (World Health Organization,
From an environmental standpoint, food waste significantly con­ 2020).
tributes to climate change (Lin et al., 2013; Varjani et al., 2024). Ac­ According to Morone et al. (2019), addressing food waste requires a
cording to Aziz et al. (2020) and Zhao et al. (2019), it releases methane multi-dimensional approach incorporating technological innovation,
when food waste decomposes in landfills. This greenhouse gas is 25 policy interventions, and behavioural change. Trevisan and Formentini
times more potent than carbon dioxide over 100 years. Additionally, the (2023) and Cappelletti et al. (2022) also stated that technological so­
resources expended in food production—including land, water, energy, lutions, such as smart packaging, digital food management platforms,
and labour—are also wasted when food is discarded. It is estimated that and improved cold chain logistics, have emerged as potential tools to

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2025.02.020
Received 1 November 2024; Received in revised form 17 February 2025; Accepted 20 February 2025
Available online 22 February 2025
2352-5509/© 2025 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

reduce food loss across the supply chain. These technologies can education to enhance adoption and impact. Additionally, the study ex­
enhance efficiency, optimize food storage and transportation, and pro­ amines technological adoption in resource-constrained settings, identi­
vide consumers with real-time information about food products' shelf fying conditions for success and strategies to bridge accessibility gaps.
life and nutritional quality. However, the effectiveness of these solutions While high-income countries benefit from AI-driven solutions, middle-
is often contingent on consumer behaviour, highlighting the need to and low-income regions require cost-effective, locally adapted in­
understand how individuals across various socio-economic strata terventions. By integrating technological and behavioural perspectives,
perceive and interact with food waste mitigation strategies (Zheng, this research provides a comprehensive framework for sustainable food
2022). waste reduction, ensuring equitable and effective solutions across
Setti et al. (2018) stated that consumer behaviour is pivotal in food diverse socio-economic contexts.
waste generation, particularly at the retail and household levels. In high-
income countries, consumer-level food waste accounts for the largest 2. Methodology
share of overall food loss, often driven by factors such as over-
purchasing, improper storage, and a lack of awareness about food 2.1. Research strategy
expiration and spoilage (Sawaya, 2017; Yahia and Mourad, 2020). In
contrast, Rolker et al. (2022) reported that food waste predominantly This scoping review (O'Flaherty and Phillips, 2015; Munn et al.,
occurs in low- and middle-income countries during the earlier stages of 2018) followed a structured approach to systematically identify, cate­
the supply chain, such as post-harvest handling and processing, due to gorize, and thematically synthesize existing literature on technological
inadequate infrastructure and technology. Nevertheless, consumer solutions and consumer behaviour in mitigating food waste across
behaviour in these regions is equally important, as cultural norms, different income levels globally. The review process was designed to
purchasing habits, and food management practices directly influence ensure a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of relevant studies,
the degree of food wastage at the household level (Apolonio, 2020; reports, web data and policy documents that inform the understanding
Moldovan et al., 2022). of how these factors contribute to food waste reduction across different
Therefore, the intersection of technology and consumer behaviour is income levels. The review was streamlined to five key staged frame­
critical to understanding and addressing global food waste. A compre­ work: (1) identifying research studies based on keywords, (2) initial
hensive assessment of how technological solutions can complement screening to eliminate irrelevant studies based on the study's objectives,
consumer-driven strategies is necessary to design effective interventions (3) study selection, (4) synthesizing the data, and (5) collating, sum­
tailored to the specific needs of populations across different income marising and reporting the results for discussion (Fig. 1.)
levels (Zhang, 2016). This scoping review seeks to explore the techno­
logical innovations and consumer behaviour patterns that contribute to 2.2. Identifying research studies for selection
food waste mitigation globally, with a particular focus on how these
factors vary across high-, middle-, and low-income countries. By The literature search was conducted across multiple academic da­
examining the synergies between technology and consumer practices, tabases and grey literature sources to capture a wide range of peer-
this study aims to provide insights into the most effective strategies for reviewed articles, conference papers, reports, and policy documents.
reducing food waste and fostering more sustainable food systems Key databases included Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google
worldwide. Scholar, along with specific repositories for policy documents such as
This review addressed the following key questions: 1) How do the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations, and
technological innovations for food waste mitigation function across World Bank. This comprehensive search strategy ensured that scientific
different stages of the supply chain, and what are their varying impacts and policy-related studies were considered.
across high-, middle-, and low-income countries? 2) What are the major A combination of keywords and phrases was used to structure the
consumer behaviours driving food waste at household and retail levels, search, targeting specific concepts related to food waste, technology,
and how do socio-economic factors shape these behaviours in different consumer behaviour, and income levels. Key terms included: “food
income contexts? 3) What key barriers and enabling factors influence waste,” “food loss,” “technological solutions,” “consumer behaviour,”
the adoption of technological solutions for food waste reduction, “food waste mitigation,” “food systems,” “high-income countries,”
particularly in resource-constrained settings? 4) How can an integrated “middle-income countries,” “low-income countries,” and “socio-eco­
approach combining technology, behavioural interventions, and policy nomic disparities in food waste.” Boolean operators (AND/OR) com­
measures be designed to equitably reduce food waste and support global bined search terms effectively, ensuring a comprehensive collection of
sustainability goals? This research offers a holistic global assessment of relevant studies across different thematic areas.
food waste mitigation efforts by addressing these questions. It provides a
foundation for future research and policy development to reduce food 2.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
waste sustainably and equitably.
A rigorous inclusion and exclusion criterion (Fig. 2), was applied to
1.1. Novelty and contributions of the study filter the identified studies, ensuring relevance, quality, and alignment
with the research objectives (Patino and Ferreira, 2018). Studies were
This study provides a novel interdisciplinary analysis of food waste included if they 1) were published between 2010 and 2024 to ensure the
mitigation by integrating technological innovations and consumer review focused on the most recent technological advances and
behaviour across income contexts. Unlike prior research that examines contemporary consumer behaviour insights; 2) were conducted in any
these factors separately, this study explores their interdependencies to part of the world, thus globally and focusing on those that explicitly
offer scalable, equitable solutions. A key contribution is its comparative provided relevant data stratified by income levels; 3) addressed either
income-stratified analysis, highlighting how socio-economic disparities technological interventions aimed at food waste reduction, consumer
shape food waste patterns and mitigation effectiveness. By categorizing behaviour and attitudes towards food waste, or socio-economic factors
findings across high-, middle-, and low-income countries, it identifies influencing food waste across different income groups; and finally 4)
barriers and enablers of sustainable interventions. This research aligns peer-reviewed articles, policy reports, and relevant case studies were
with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 2 (Zero included to ensure robustness and diversity in the literature base.
Hunger), and SDG 13 (Climate Action), offering actionable insights for Contrarily, studies were excluded if they focused solely on non-
policymakers and industry stakeholders. It emphasises the need for consumer sectors, such as agricultural production without discussing
policy frameworks, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and consumer food waste, duplicate publications or preliminary findings later

243
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

Fig. 1. Summary of research framework.

published as complete studies and studies written in languages other data extraction template was used to capture the author(s) and publi­
than English. cation year to ensure the temporal relevance of the data. The
geographical focus on income level or region under investigation,
characterised as high-, upper-, lower-middle, and low-income countries,
2.4. Data extraction
was considered (World Bank, 2024). However, due to the consistency in
data similarity between the upper- and middle-income countries, data
Once the relevant studies were selected, a structured data extraction
from these income classes were merged into “middle-income” countries.
process was implemented to ensure consistent collection of key infor­
Data were extracted describing technological interventions to
mation across all studies (see Table 2 in the Appendix). A standardised

244
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

Fig. 2. Inclusion criterion applied to filter identified studies.

Fig. 3. Thematic synthesis of food waste mitigation strategies.

245
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

mitigate food waste, such as digital tools, food management systems, or technological advancements have introduced improved storage solu­
packaging innovations. Also, information on consumer practices, atti­ tions that are both cost-effective and sustainable. For example, her­
tudes, and behavioural interventions related to food waste reduction is metically sealed bags create controlled atmospheric conditions that
excerpted. A summary of the main findings of each study, particularly significantly slow down the respiration rate of stored produce, thereby
those relevant to the effectiveness of technological and behavioural reducing the proliferation of spoilage microorganisms. In parallel, low-
solutions in mitigating food waste and key challenges identified in the cost refrigeration systems have been deployed to maintain optimal
adoption of technologies or behaviour change interventions, concerning temperatures, while solar-powered cold storage units offer a viable so­
income level or socio-economic context, were retrieved. lution in regions where access to reliable electricity is limited (Kitinoja,
2013; Mmereki et al., 2024).
2.5. Data synthesis Beyond storage improvements, precision agriculture technologies
are transforming post-harvest management by integrating real-time data
The extracted data were analysed through a thematic synthesis acquisition and advanced analytics. Field sensors now monitor critical
approach, identifying recurring themes, patterns, and relationships parameters such as temperature, humidity, and soil moisture, enabling
across the literature (Thomas and Harden, 2008). The synthesis was farmers to maintain optimal conditions during crop growth and imme­
organised around the two primary themes of the review: (1) techno­ diately post-harvest. The use of drones and GPS systems facilitates
logical solutions to mitigate food waste and (2) consumer behaviour in detailed mapping of crop health and yield distributions, which allows
food waste generation and reduction (Fig. 3). Within each theme, the for more precise application of water and nutrients, thereby reducing
analysis was further stratified by income level, providing insights into both overproduction and subsequent waste. This alignment of produc­
how these factors play out in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. tion with actual market demand not only minimizes spoilage but also
optimizes resource use, leading to a more efficient food supply chain
2.5.1. Technological solutions (Taner, 2024).
This section synthesised findings related to innovations in food
storage, supply chain management, packaging, and digital tools to 3.1.2. Processing and manufacturing innovations
reduce food waste. Technologies were evaluated for their efficacy in Food waste at the processing stage frequently arises from production
different socio-economic contexts, with special attention to their inefficiencies, inadequate quality control, and the generation of unsell­
accessibility and scalability across income levels. able byproducts. To address these challenges, the industry is increas­
ingly adopting innovative technologies that not only enhance efficiency
2.5.2. Consumer behaviour but also contribute to a more sustainable, circular economy.
The second thematic area explored consumer practices, including One major advancement is the integration of AI-powered quality
food purchasing, storage habits, awareness of food waste, and the control systems. These systems utilize sophisticated machine learning
willingness to adopt food-saving technologies. Behavioural in­ algorithms to continuously monitor production lines, rapidly identifying
terventions, such as educational campaigns and food labelling im­ imperfections and anomalies that might otherwise lead to waste. By
provements, were assessed for their impact on reducing waste, automating the inspection process, these technologies significantly
especially at the household and retail levels. reduce human error, ensuring that only high-quality products progress
along the supply chain (Abdiju, 2019; Onyeaka et al., 2023). This
3. Results and discussion technological intervention not only improves product consistency and
safety but also minimizes the rejection rate of batches that might contain
3.1. Technology at the centre of food waste management across the supply minor defects, thereby curtailing unnecessary waste.
chain In parallel, the processing industry is reimagining the use of
byproducts that were traditionally discarded. Materials such as fruit
The global challenge of food waste is deeply embedded across every peels, vegetable pulp, and other residual biomass are now being
stage of the supply chain, from the initial phases of production and post- repurposed into valuable resources. For instance, these byproducts are
harvest handling to processing, distribution, retail, and ultimately the increasingly transformed into animal feed, offering a cost-effective and
consumer level. Each segment of this chain faces distinct hur­ nutritionally viable option for livestock while simultaneously addressing
dles—ranging from inefficiencies in harvest and storage to challenges in waste management challenges. Moreover, innovative processes are
transportation and consumer behaviour—that contribute to significant converting organic residues into bioenergy, thereby providing renew­
losses of edible resources. In this context, technology plays a pivotal role able energy sources that can power operations or be integrated into local
in transforming waste management practices. Advanced solutions such energy grids. Advances in materials science have also paved the way for
as Internet of Things (IoT) sensors enable real-time monitoring of stor­ turning these byproducts into biodegradable packaging materials, of­
age conditions and transportation routes, thereby minimizing spoilage. fering sustainable alternatives to conventional plastics and reducing
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning models improve fore­ environmental pollution (Manzocco et al., 2016).
casting and inventory management, ensuring that supply aligns more These processing and manufacturing innovations, together, demon­
closely with demand, and reducing the likelihood of surplus disposal. strate a commitment to reducing waste and enhancing sustainability. By
Additionally, blockchain technology enhances transparency and trace­ combining precision quality control with creative repurposing of
ability, facilitating more efficient recalls and quality control measures byproducts, the food processing sector is moving towards a more effi­
throughout the supply chain. These targeted technological in­ cient and environmentally responsible model.
terventions, tailored to the unique challenges encountered at each stage,
are essential for mitigating food waste and promoting overall sustain­ 3.1.3. Supply chain and distribution technologies
ability (Martin-Rios et al., 2018). Technological innovations are revolutionizing food distribution by
enhancing the integrity, efficiency, and transparency of the supply
3.1.1. Production and post-harvest technologies chain. Advanced cold chain logistics, incorporating real-time tempera­
In low- and middle-income countries, post-harvest food losses are ture monitoring and energy-efficient refrigeration systems, have become
exacerbated by inefficient harvesting, handling, and storage practices. fundamental in preserving food quality during transit. These systems
Traditional methods and inadequate infrastructure often expose crops to ensure that perishable products remain within optimal temperature
adverse environmental conditions, pest infestations, and rapid spoilage ranges, thereby minimizing spoilage and extending shelf life (Kitinoja,
shortly after harvest (FAO, 2011). To combat these challenges, recent 2013).

246
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

In parallel, smart transportation solutions have emerged as critical contrast, high-income countries are positioned to implement more so­
tools in streamlining distribution networks. AI and machine learning phisticated technologies. Here, advancements such as artificial intelli­
algorithms are now deployed to optimize transport routes in real time, gence and blockchain are being integrated to optimize supply chain
ensuring that deliveries are timely and aligned with market demands. processes and enhance transparency (Fig. 4). These cutting-edge tools
This optimization not only reduces the risk of delays that could result in help streamline operations, detect inefficiencies in real time, and build
waste but also enhances overall logistical efficiency (Grewal et al., trust through immutable records of food provenance and handling.
2024). However, the success of these technological applications does not
Further bolstering the supply chain, blockchain technology is being solely rely on the hardware or software involved; it also hinges on
integrated to establish robust traceability systems. By tracking food complementary educational initiatives designed to foster sustainable
items from farm to table, blockchain creates an immutable record of consumer behaviours. As Setti et al. (2018) note, coupling technology
each transaction along the supply chain. This transparency not only with targeted awareness campaigns ensures that users not only adopt
facilitates swift and targeted recalls when issues arise but also fosters innovative solutions but also adapt their habits towards sustainability.
accountability among all stakeholders, ensuring that each link in the When these context-specific strategies are paired with broad-based
chain adheres to quality and safety standards (Annosi et al., 2021; awareness efforts and tailored policy frameworks, they offer trans­
Cappelletti et al., 2022). formative potential to reduce food waste on a global scale (Martin-Rios
Complementing these technological advancements, innovative in­ et al., 2018).
ventory management solutions are also making an impact. For instance, Addressing the persistent gaps in infrastructure, accessibility, and
Abdiju (2019) has proposed an integrated device that combines a bar­ consumer engagement remains a key challenge. By aligning technolog­
code scanner with a backend system. This tool automates the tracking of ical advancements with local needs and capabilities, stakeholders can
food inventories, enhances user awareness of stock levels, and aids in the create more resilient and sustainable food systems. This approach not
reduction of waste by ensuring that items are managed efficiently only leverages the strengths of each region—be it through the deploy­
throughout their lifecycle. ment of solar cold storage in low-income contexts or the utilization of AI
and blockchain in high-income settings—but also fosters a collaborative
3.1.4. Retail and consumer-level solutions environment where informed consumers and innovative technologies
In high-income countries, the retail and consumer stages have work in tandem to mitigate food waste worldwide.
emerged as critical nodes where food waste is most pronounced. At the
retail level, advanced smart packaging technologies are being deployed 3.2. Consumer behaviour and food waste across income levels
to help both retailers and consumers make informed decisions about
food quality. Innovations such as freshness sensors embedded in pack­ Consumer behaviour significantly influences food waste across in­
aging provide real-time data on product condition, enabling retailers to come levels, with varying drivers and patterns shaped by socio-
identify items approaching the end of their optimal shelf life. Simulta­ economic, cultural, and infrastructural contexts (UNEP, 2024).
neously, the use of biodegradable materials not only reduces environ­ Addressing these behaviours through tailored interventions is critical to
mental impact but also enhances the overall sustainability of packaging reducing food waste effectively at the household and community levels
solutions (Ghoshal, 2018; Hedin et al., 2019). (FAO, 2011; Martin-Rios et al., 2018).
Complementing these technological advancements are digital plat­
forms designed to facilitate the redistribution of surplus food. Services 3.2.1. Consumer behaviour in high-income countries
like “Too Good To Go” create a direct connection between businesses In high-income countries, consumer-driven waste is prevalent,
with excess inventory and consumers seeking discounted products. By particularly at the retail and household levels, where socio-economic
offering a convenient channel for surplus food, these platforms help factors such as disposable income and consumer preferences play a
mitigate waste at the retail level while providing consumers with significant role. Over-purchasing, often influenced by bulk promotions
affordable options (Sgroi et al., 2024). and aesthetic standards for food, leads to excessive food wastage (Fig. 5).
At the consumer end, digital applications are playing an increasingly High-income consumers frequently discard edible food due to confusion
vital role in promoting sustainable food management practices. Apps over expiration labels, such as “best before” and “use by,” which are
that offer features such as inventory tracking and meal planning often misunderstood as indicators of safety rather than quality
empower households to better manage their food supplies. These tools (Heidenstrøm and Hebrok, 2022; Sgroi et al., 2024).
help prevent over-purchasing and minimize waste resulting from poor Portion sizes and dining habits exacerbate the issue. Large portions
storage or mismanagement by providing timely reminders and sugges­ served at home or in restaurants frequently result in discarded leftovers
tions for using existing ingredients. As a result, these consumer-level rather than reused, reflecting cultural norms prioritizing freshness over
solutions contribute significantly to reducing food waste in domestic frugality. Food-sharing platforms, (e.g. Olio), offer promising solutions
settings (Bolwig et al., 2021). by connecting consumers with surplus food at reduced prices, encour­
By integrating smart packaging, digital redistribution platforms, and aging more sustainable consumption patterns (Harvey et al., 2020; de
consumer-focused apps, the retail and consumer segments are being Almeida Oroski and da Silva, 2023; Sgroi et al., 2024). However,
transformed into proactive partners in the fight against food waste. ingrained behaviours and lack of awareness remain substantial barriers
These innovations not only improve the operational efficiency of food to change (FAO, 2011).
retail but also foster more sustainable consumption habits at the
household level. 3.2.2. Consumer behaviour in middle-income countries
Middle-income countries exhibit a blend of consumption behaviours
3.1.5. Context-specific innovations seen in both high- and low-income contexts, influenced by urbanisation
Tailoring technological solutions to the unique socio-economic and shifting socio-economic dynamics. Urban consumers increasingly
conditions of each region is crucial for maximizing their impact on adopt wasteful practices, such as over-purchasing and reliance on con­
food waste reduction. In low-income areas, where infrastructural limi­ venience foods, driven by rising consumerism and the proliferation of
tations often hinder effective food preservation, relatively simple yet supermarkets (Boulet et al., 2021). However, infrastructural challenges,
robust interventions such as solar-powered cold storage systems have including limited refrigeration and inadequate storage facilities, exac­
proven highly beneficial. These systems harness renewable energy to erbate food spoilage at the household level (Hedin et al., 2019).
maintain optimal temperatures, thereby extending the shelf life of Cultural practices rooted in frugality, such as reusing leftovers and
perishable goods despite limited access to conventional electricity. In cooking creatively with available ingredients, help mitigate food waste

247
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

Fig. 4. Summary of different technological approaches in mitigating food waste.

Fig. 5. Factors influencing behavioural patterns in food waste reduction.

in certain regions. Yet, these practices are being undermined by used. Goodwin et al. (2022) further stated that the stages of consumer
changing consumption patterns among wealthier urban populations (Di behaviour that involve planning, shopping, storing, preparing, and/or
Talia et al., 2019). Educational campaigns and food redistribution pro­ consuming might lead to food waste (Fig. 6). Each stage has its own
grams, such as partnerships between retailers and food banks, are peculiar influencing factors. For instance, excessive purchasing or not
emerging as effective strategies to address these challenges (Bolwig noticing household stock before shopping could lead to unplanned
et al., 2021). buying of food items that may spoil before use (Porpino et al. (2015).
Behavioural interventions tailored to specific income contexts are
3.2.3. Consumer behaviour in low-income countries essential for reducing food waste (Martin-Rios et al., 2018). Labelling
In low-income countries, household food waste is less prevalent due reforms, public awareness campaigns, and food-sharing apps have suc­
to economic constraints and cultural norms valuing food as a scarce cessfully changed consumption habits in high-income countries. Middle-
resource. Consumers tend to purchase smaller quantities and strive to income countries benefit from educational initiatives targeting urban
use all available food. However, urbanisation and commercialisation are consumers and investments in cold chain logistics to reduce spoilage. In
gradually increasing waste, as traditional preservation methods and low-income regions, community-based programs emphasising frugality
communal sharing practices give way to more modern, waste-prone and traditional preservation methods offer practical and culturally
consumption patterns (Porpino et al., 2015). relevant solutions (Setti et al., 2018).
Limited access to refrigeration and storage facilities remains a sig­ These interventions address the diverse drivers of food waste across
nificant challenge, leading to spoilage of perishable goods (FAO, 2011). income levels and provide a pathway for more sustainable food systems
Capacity-building programs promoting low-cost preservation tech­ globally. The key to success lies in aligning strategies with local socio-
niques, such as drying and fermentation, are essential interventions in economic realities and cultural practices, ensuring that behavioural
these contexts. Community-level sharing systems, such as cooperatives change is impactful and enduring (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2018).
and communal kitchens, are vital in redistributing surplus food and
minimizing waste (Martin-Rios et al., 2018). 3.3. How different income levels and technology shape food waste
solutions
3.2.4. Behavioural interventions across income levels
Goodwin et al. (2022) remarked that food waste is primarily caused Income disparities significantly influence global food waste mitiga­
by food that is not consumed in a timely manner or leftovers that are not tion strategies (Table 1). High-income countries leverage advanced

248
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

Fig. 6. Household behaviours throughout the food waste journey may contribute to food waste (Goodwin et al., 2022).

Table 1
Comparative overview of income levels, technology access, and food waste mitigation strategies.
Factor High-income countries Middle-income countries Low-income countries Source

Income Levels Advanced technological Transitional socio-economic and Limited resources and access to basic Bolwig et al. (2021); Grewal
infrastructure. urbanising zones. utilities. et al. (2024); Kc et al. (2016).
Access to High access: smart packaging, AI, Emerging access: cold chains, digital Limited access: solar refrigeration, basic Zhang et al. (2022); Kitinoja
Technology digital apps. platforms. tech. (2013); Mmereki et al. (2024).
Barriers Behavioural barriers include over- Infrastructure gaps: inconsistent Structural barriers: inadequate storage, Boulet et al. (2021); Jones-
purchasing and low awareness of electricity, internet connectivity, transportation networks, and utilities. Garcia et al. (2022); Mmereki
food waste impacts. affordability issues for tech. et al. (2024).
Behavioural Abundance culture, low motivation The urban-rural divide in adoption; Traditional practices reduce household Porpino et al. (2015); Setti
Contexts to use tech effectively. traditional practices fading. waste but cannot address supply chain et al. (2018); Aschemann-
losses. Witzel et al. (2018)
Technological High-tech, consumer-focused (e.g., Affordable, scalable solutions (e.g., Basic, locally adapted innovations (e.g., Cappelletti et al. (2022);
Solutions smart refrigerators, apps). improved storage, mobile apps). solar-powered refrigeration, Abdiju (2019); Benyam et al.
fermentation). (2021).
Key Combine technology with Invest in infrastructure, promote Address structural barriers with localized Hedin et al. (2019); UNEP
Interventions education, awareness campaigns, affordable tech, and support urban innovations, capacity-building, and (2024); FAO (2011).
and incentives. initiatives. government/NGO support.
Efficacy Behaviour change and cultural Infrastructure development and urban Access to essential utilities, community Setti et al. (2018); Kc et al.
Influencers norms alongside technology. planning. engagement, and international aid. (2016); Manzocco et al.
(2016).

technologies (e.g., AI, smart packaging) but face behavioural challenges technologies such as AI-powered inventory management, smart re­
like over-purchasing and low awareness (Kitinoja, 2013; Setti et al., frigerators, and food-sharing platforms like Too Good To Go and Olio are
2018). Middle-income nations, amid urbanisation, adopt transitional widely adopted, facilitated by high smartphone penetration and robust
solutions (e.g., cold chains, mobile apps) but grapple with inconsistent technological infrastructures (Harvey et al., 2020; Sgroi et al., 2024).
infrastructure and affordability (Benyam et al., 2021). Low-income Smart packaging solutions and AI-driven demand forecasting further aid
countries rely on basic, localized innovations (e.g., solar refrigeration) retailers in minimizing overstocking and waste (Taner, 2024).
but encounter structural barriers such as inadequate storage and trans­ Despite technological accessibility, behavioural issues such as over-
portation. Effective interventions require context-specific approaches purchasing, improper food storage, and aesthetic preferences remain
(Section 3.1.5): integrating technology with education in high-income significant obstacles (Jones-Garcia et al., 2022). Food's relative afford­
regions, investing in infrastructure for middle-income zones, and ability and cultural norms prioritizing abundance over conservation
addressing systemic gaps through community-driven solutions in low- exacerbate these challenges. Moreover, consumers in affluent societies
income areas (Hedin et al., 2019; UNEP, 2024). Cultural norms, infra­ may lack awareness or motivation to engage fully with waste-reducing
structure development, and international aid are pivotal to efficacy. technologies (Hedin et al., 2019). Effective interventions in high-
income contexts require integrating advanced technologies with
3.3.1. High-income countries: advanced technology and behavioural behavioural nudges, educational campaigns, and incentives to shift
challenges consumer habits.
In high-income countries, food waste is predominantly consumer-
driven and occurs at the retail and household levels. Advanced

249
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

3.3.2. Middle-income countries: emerging technologies and infrastructural instance, Kc et al. (2016) argued that variables related to wealth, agri­
gaps cultural machinery, transportation, and telecommunications signifi­
Due to their transitional socio-economic status, middle-income cantly influence food loss, and improving these factors could potentially
countries experience food waste at multiple stages of the supply chain. reduce food loss by up to 49 %.
Urban areas benefit from growing access to technologies like cold chain Cultural practices often mitigate household-level waste, with left­
logistics, digital food-sharing platforms, and mobile apps for food dis­ overs used for animal feed or composting. However, these measures do
tribution (Bolwig et al., 2021). For example, in countries like Brazil, not address large-scale losses at earlier supply chain stages (Benyam
digital platforms connect surplus food from retailers to consumers or et al., 2021). Innovations such as solar-powered cold storage and low-
food banks, reducing waste while addressing food insecurity (Porpino cost mobile apps tailored for smallholder farmers have shown promise
et al., 2015). but require substantial support from governments and NGOs to scale
However, inadequate infrastructure, including inconsistent elec­ effectively. Capacity-building programs that teach traditional preser­
tricity supply and limited internet connectivity, often undermines the vation methods, like drying or fermentation, offer additional avenues for
effectiveness of these technologies. Affordability remains a challenge, as reducing food loss in resource-constrained settings (Porpino et al.,
many consumers in middle-income nations cannot easily invest in high- 2015).
tech solutions like smart refrigerators or sophisticated food waste apps
(Boulet et al., 2021). Rural areas face even greater barriers, with mini­ 3.3.4. Interplay between income levels and technology adoption
mal technological adoption due to weaker infrastructure and traditional The interplay between income levels and technology adoption un­
consumption patterns that may not align with modern waste reduction derscores the need for context-driven strategies that harmonize inno­
practices. vation with socio-economic realities (Fig. 7). In high-income countries,
To address these challenges, middle-income countries require cost- advanced technologies like AI-driven systems and smart packaging
effective and scalable solutions supported by improved infrastructure (Sgroi et al., 2024) face behavioural hurdles such as over-purchasing
and public-private partnerships. Educational campaigns and govern­ and labeling confusion (Jones-Garcia et al., 2022), necessitating com­
ment subsidies can further enable the adoption of waste-reducing plementary behavioural nudges and policy incentives (Hedin et al.,
technologies among diverse populations (Manzocco et al., 2016). 2019). Middle-income nations grapple with infrastructural gaps (Boulet
et al., 2021), where transitional solutions like cold chains and mobile
3.3.3. Low-income countries: structural barriers and localized innovations apps (Bolwig et al., 2021) require hybrid models to bridge urban-rural
In low-income countries, food loss is most prevalent at the produc­ divides through public-private partnerships (Cappelletti et al., 2022).
tion, post-harvest, and transportation stages due to poor infrastructure Low-income regions, constrained by systemic barriers (Kc et al., 2016),
and limited access to technology. Inadequate cold storage and inefficient rely on localized innovations like solar refrigeration (Kitinoja, 2013) and
supply chains lead to significant spoilage before food reaches consumers traditional preservation (Porpino et al., 2015), which demand NGO and
(Onyeaka et al., 2023; Mmereki et al., 2024). Additionally, limited ac­ government support to scale (FAO, 2011). Critically, equitable access
cess to electricity and internet connectivity hinders the adoption of hinges on aligning technologies with cultural norms (Aschemann-Witzel
essential technologies like cold chain systems or digital tracking plat­ et al., 2018), addressing affordability (Annosi et al., 2021), and priori­
forms (Kitinoja, 2013; Benyam et al., 2021; Cappelletti et al., 2022). For tizing infrastructural synergy to avoid exacerbating inequalities (Martin-

Fig. 7. Systemic integration of income-stratified technology adoption in food waste mitigation.

250
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

Rios et al., 2018). This interplay highlights that effective food waste accompanying measures, such as consumer education and policy
mitigation transcends mere technological deployment, requiring sys­ frameworks, to promote sustainable practices and bridge the gap be­
temic integration of innovation, behaviour, and equity. tween awareness and behaviour. For middle-income countries, the
findings stress the need for scalable, cost-effective solutions, including
3.3.5. Balancing innovation and impact: challenges of technology in food enhanced cold chain logistics, mobile platforms for food distribution,
waste reduction and community food-sharing initiatives. Addressing infrastructural
While beneficial, adopting technology to mitigate food waste is not challenges and affordability barriers is essential for achieving wide­
without its challenges and potential negative ramifications. Across all spread adoption. In low-income countries, the study emphasises
income levels, these drawbacks vary in nature but significantly influence combating food losses at earlier supply chain stages through locally
the efficacy and sustainability of these solutions. One critical issue is the adapted innovations, such as solar-powered refrigeration and traditional
unintended normalisation of food waste due to the presence of certain preservation techniques, supported by capacity-building programs and
technologies. For example, while environmentally beneficial, compost­ infrastructural investments. The research reaffirms the necessity of
ing technologies may inadvertently lead consumers to view food waste multi-stakeholder collaboration, involving governments, private sec­
as acceptable, undermining broader waste-reduction efforts (Mmereki tors, civil society, and consumers, to create inclusive and equitable food
et al., 2024). Similarly, food donation platforms might allow businesses systems. Integrating technology with culturally relevant behavioural
to overstock under the assumption that surplus will be redistributed, interventions offers a transformative pathway to reduce food waste,
thus failing to address the root causes of overproduction. Another align with global sustainability objectives, and enhance food security.
concern is the energy consumption associated with technologies like AI- Achieving these outcomes will require sustained policy support, cross-
powered decision-support apps and smart refrigerators (Amjad et al., sector partnerships, and continuous innovation.
2023). Though effective in managing food inventories, these tools To effectively combat global food waste through maximizing the
contribute to increased energy demand, especially in high-income effectiveness of technological solutions and consumer behaviour,
countries where their adoption is widespread. Again, smart packaging, stakeholders' strategies must be context-driven and multi-dimensional:
designed to improve shelf life and reduce waste, presents recycling
challenges due to embedded sensors and indicators. This complicates • Technologies should be tailored to income levels—prioritizing
waste management systems, potentially leading to increased landfill advanced tools (e.g. smart refrigerators, AI apps) in high-income
contributions if not appropriately managed. Lastly, in low- and middle- nations and low-cost, accessible solutions (such as solar cooling,
income countries, the affordability and accessibility of technologies mobile platforms) in regions with infrastructure gaps.
remain significant barriers. High investment costs and infrastructural • Consumer education must align with local practices, integrating apps
deficits exacerbate inequalities, limiting the widespread adoption of in tech-enabled areas and traditional preservation methods in rural
potentially transformative solutions (FAO, 2011; Annosi et al., 2021). or low-income settings, supported by NGOs and governments.
These challenges underscore the need for a balanced, context-sensitive • Policy frameworks should incentivize waste reduction (e.g., dona­
approach to integrating technology into food waste mitigation tion laws, dynamic pricing) and fund critical infrastructure (e.g., cold
strategies. chains) in underserved regions.
• Collaboration across governments, businesses, and civil society is
3.4. Limitations essential to scale solutions, ensure equity, and align with global goals
like the SDGs.
While this study provides a comprehensive assessment of food waste • Future research must validate these approaches, focusing on scal­
mitigation strategies, certain limitations must be acknowledged. As a ability, behavioural impacts, and policy efficacy across diverse
scoping review, it does not employ meta-analytical techniques, which contexts. By harmonizing technology, education, policy, and part­
may affect statistical comparability across studies. Additionally, reliance nership through research, stakeholders can build resilient food sys­
on English-language sources may exclude critical perspectives from non- tems that minimize waste, enhance food security, and advance
English-speaking regions, particularly in middle- and low-income sustainability.
countries. The heterogeneity of methodologies and regional focuses in
the selected studies further complicates the synthesis of universally CRediT authorship contribution statement
applicable conclusions. Moreover, many studies reviewed rely on small
sample sizes, self-reported data, or lack empirical validation of proposed Bosompem Ahunoabobirim Agya: Writing – review & editing,
solutions. Despite these limitations, this research integrates insights Writing – original draft, Validation, Methodology, Data curation.
across income levels, combining technological and behavioural ap­
proaches to offer a holistic, equitable perspective on global food waste Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the
reduction. writing process

4. Conclusions During the preparation of this work, the author used ChatGPT-4o to
synthesize information from diverse sources and Grammarly for lan­
This study underscores the pivotal role of integrating technological guage editing. After using these tools/services, the author reviewed and
innovations with consumer behaviour interventions to address food edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the publi­
waste across diverse socio-economic settings. It highlights the impor­ cation's content.
tance of tailoring solutions to specific income levels, emphasising that
the root causes and effective mitigation strategies for food waste differ
significantly between high-, middle-, and low-income contexts. In high- Declaration of competing interest
income countries, food waste primarily occurs at the retail and con­
sumer levels, where advanced technologies like smart packaging, AI- The author declares no conflict of interest or any known conflict of
powered apps, and dynamic pricing systems have shown significant financial interest that could have influenced the results and originality
potential. However, the efficacy of these technologies relies on of this paper.

251
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

Appendix A

Table 2
A global synthesis of research outcomes, strategies, and challenges on technological interventions and consumer behaviour for mitigation food waste.

Author(s) and Study country Key Objective (s) Key Findings and Outcomes Technological Consumer Behaviour Limitations
Publication Interventions Aimed at Towards Food Waste
Year Mitigating Food Waste Reduction

Taner (2024) Global Explored technological Emphasises the role of Highlights the potential of Stresses the Limited infrastructure is
Assessment innovations to reduce technological innovations precision agriculture, importance of needed in developing
food waste and their in reducing food waste smart packaging, consumer-centric apps nations to adopt advanced
economic impact. across the supply chain. blockchain, and AI in to influence behaviour technologies.
transforming food systems. towards food waste
reduction
Heidenstrøm Norway/ Examined the Identifies consumer-related Discusses the role of Highlights that Notes that habitual
and Hebrok Europe sustainability potential factors contributing to food awareness campaigns and improved planning behaviours and lack of
(2022) of meal box schemes waste, including planning, educational tools but does and awareness can awareness are significant
and online grocery shopping, storing, and not focus on specific significantly reduce barriers to change.
shopping platforms. cooking behaviours. technological household food waste.
interventions.
Boulet et al. Developed Developed a multi-level Explores consumer Suggests that Positive attitudes Identifies the attitude-
(2021) nations framework for behaviours like overbuying technological solutions towards food waste behaviour gap and lack of
household food waste and not using leftovers, like smart storage can reduction do not motivation as key
and consumer which are key drivers of assist but are not the always translate into challenges.
behaviour. food waste. primary focus. less wasteful
behaviour.
Sgroi et al. Europe/Italy Analysed the impact of This paper highlights the The ‘Too Good To Go’ Discounted prices Challenges include
(2024) the “Too Good To Go” effectiveness of the ‘Too digital platform connects motivate consumers to achieving widespread
platform on food waste Good To Go’ platform in consumers with businesses purchase surplus food, platform adoption,
disposal practices. redistributing food to purchase surplus food at contributing to waste changing consumer
surpluses, thereby reducing reduced prices, facilitating reduction and habits, and addressing
food waste and its efficient redistribution. increased awareness logistical issues in food
associated environmental of food waste issues. redistribution.
and social impacts.
Hedin et al. Global Identified consumer-related Discussed the potential of Highlighted the Noted challenges in
(2019) perspective factors contributing to food smart packaging and importance of changing consumer habits
with emphasis waste and emphasised the mobile applications to consumer awareness and the need for policy
on high- need for targeted reduce food waste. and education in support.
income interventions. reducing food waste.
countries
Bolwig et al. Global Explored green and Green and digital Smart packaging, Increased awareness Need for data on cost
(2021) digital technologies to technologies can drive smartphone apps for food and behaviour change savings and benefits;
reduce consumer food sustainable consumption planning, storage, and through technology challenges in upscaling
waste. patterns and reduce food sharing. use. technologies.
waste.
Urugo et al. Global Reviewed current Innovative approaches, Supply chain technologies, The adoption of Comprehensive data on
(2024) approaches to food including technological waste reduction technology leads to long-term effectiveness
waste reduction. solutions, effectively reduce innovations, smart improved waste and variability across
food waste. packaging. management regions is needed.
practices.
Grewal et al. Global Assessed the role of Increasing food production AI tools, supply chain Technology adoption Further research is needed
(2024) technology in is necessary but not optimisation technologies, improves efficiency on technology's impact
combating food sufficient; technology aids and food preservation and reduces waste. across different income
insecurity and waste. in reducing waste and innovations. levels.
enhancing food security.
Zhang et al. Global Discussed marketing Leveraging digital Digital marketing tools, Enhanced consumer Focus on retail; broader
(2022) solutions for mitigating technologies and marketing consumer engagement awareness and supply chain aspects not
food waste in food knowledge can reduce food platforms, and data behaviour change covered.
retailing. waste in retail and among analytics. through targeted
consumers. marketing.
de Almeida Global Assessed digital food Technology enables surplus Platforms connect surplus Consumer Limited analysis of long-
Oroski and waste-reducing sharing but is insufficient food suppliers with engagement is crucial term effectiveness of
da Silva platforms (FWRPs). alone to reduce waste. potential consumers. for the success of FWRPs.
(2023) FWRPs.
Porpino et al. Brazil Identifies antecedents Identified five major Not specifically addressed. Highlighted that Limited to a small sample
(2015) of food waste among categories leading to food behaviours intended size of 14 households in
lower-middle-class waste: excessive to economise, such as Brazil, which may not be
families. purchasing, over- bulk purchasing and generalisable.
preparation, caring for pets, cooking from scratch,
avoiding leftovers, and inadvertently
inappropriate food increased food waste.
conservation. Strategies to
save money, like bulk
buying, often lead to
increased waste.
(continued on next page)

252
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

Table 2 (continued )
Author(s) and Study country Key Objective (s) Key Findings and Outcomes Technological Consumer Behaviour Limitations
Publication Interventions Aimed at Towards Food Waste
Year Mitigating Food Waste Reduction

Jones-Garcia United Explored consumer The study found that Implement a technology Consumers were The study's limitations
et al. (2022) Kingdom behaviour related to technological tools can probe to monitor and willing to engage with include limited sample
food waste and assess influence consumer provide feedback on food- technology to reduce size and potential biases
the effectiveness of behaviour, reducing food related behaviours to food waste, but in self-reported data.
technological waste. However, the reduce waste. sustained behaviour Further research is needed
interventions in effectiveness of these tools change depended on to generalise findings
mitigating waste. varies based on user the technology's across diverse
engagement and the usability and populations.
technology's design. perceived value.
Setti et al. Italy Explored the Purchasing emerges as the Not specifically addressed. The highlights The study may
(2018) relationships between most critical choice of the The study's focus is on identification of underestimate food waste
the different phases of consumers' food waste cycle consumer behaviours, behavioural patterns due to self-reported biases
food consumption cycle decision-making That has implications and an imbalanced data
and their contribution processes, and the on food waste structure, potentially
to waste behavioural gaps generation underrepresenting the
influencing household impact of food
food waste. preparation and
consumption phases.
Aschemann- Uruguay Explored consumer Food waste was higher The study does not Convenience The study is limited to
Witzel et al. characteristics among price—and explicitly address orientation drives Uruguayan consumers,
(2018) influencing self- convenience-oriented technological food waste behaviours which may affect the
reported food waste at consumers but lower interventions to mitigate both when shopping generalizability of the
home and the choice of among value-conscious food waste. and at home. Value findings to other
price-reduced individuals. Suboptimal consciousness emerging countries.
suboptimal food in food was more likely to be decreases the Additionally, it relies on
stores. chosen by price-oriented likelihood of self-reported data, which
consumers and less likely suboptimal food can be subject to biases.
by convenience-oriented choices for packaged
ones. Gender and age foods, while
influenced wastage and the convenience
choice of suboptimal food. orientation decreases
Perceived norms did not for fresh foods.
play a role, but the
perceived quality of
suboptimal food had a
significant effect.
Benyam et al. Global Investigated the role of ; economic gains and food Smart packaging, The study does not Limited by the availability
(2021) perspective digital agricultural security are primary Blockchain, RFID tags, IoT directly address of data on technology
technologies in adoption drivers, with food devices, and data analytics consumer behaviour adoption and its direct
preventing or reducing loss prevention rarely being are identified as towards food waste impact on food loss and
food loss and waste. the primary motivation. technologies aiding in food reduction. waste, further empirical
loss and waste reduction. research is needed.
Annosi et al. Greece Explored how digital Digital technologies can Implementation of big- The study does not Limited by a lack of
(2021) technologies can enhance collaboration and data management directly address empirical data, primarily
prevent food waste by efficiency in food supply solutions, Internet of consumer behaviour conceptual, suggesting
examining drivers, chains, reducing food Things (IoT) devices, and towards food waste the need for future
barriers, and waste. Key drivers include digital platforms to reduction. empirical research to
collaboration practices technological improve supply chain validate findings.
within food supply advancements and coordination and reduce
chains regulatory pressures; waste.
barriers include high costs
and lack of standardisation.
Abdiju (2019) Sweden Explored new Proposed a device Development of a device There is positive user Limited participant
household food integrating a barcode for automated food interest in adopting sample size; prototype not
inventory management scanner and backend inventory management, technology for better fully developed or tested
methods using modern system to automate food including barcode food management; 7 in real-world settings.
technologies to reduce inventory management, scanning and expiration out of 9 participants
food waste. enhancing user awareness notifications. expressed willingness
and reducing waste. to use the proposed
solution.
Martin-Rios Switzerland Investigated the Implementation of waste Innovations include The study emphasises This study is limited to
et al. (2018) interrelationships of management initiatives process improvements, the role of restaurant managers and
food service provisions varies depending on technological solutions, management experts in Switzerland;
and waste management management's beliefs, and strategic waste awareness and actions the findings may not be
innovations, focusing knowledge, goals, and management practices but does not directly generalisable to other
on incremental and actions. The study tailored to the food service address consumer regions without further
radical innovations. highlights the importance industry. behaviour towards research.
of incremental (processes food waste reduction.
and technologies) and
radical innovations in
reducing food waste.
(continued on next page)

253
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

Table 2 (continued )
Author(s) and Study country Key Objective (s) Key Findings and Outcomes Technological Consumer Behaviour Limitations
Publication Interventions Aimed at Towards Food Waste
Year Mitigating Food Waste Reduction

Onyeaka et al. Global Explored the potential AI technologies can AI applications include The study emphasises The study provides a
(2023) perspective of artificial intelligence enhance resource efficiency monitoring and optimising the role of AI in broad overview but lacks
(AI) in addressing food and minimize food production, supply systemic changes but empirical data and case
waste and promoting a environmental impact by chain management, and does not delve deeply studies to support its
circular economy. optimising food production redistribution of excess into individual conclusions.
and supply chains and food. consumer behaviours.
supporting circular
economy initiatives.
Kitinoja Focuses on Assessed the role of Cold chain systems Cold storage, refrigeration, There is limited focus Limited data from specific
(2013) developing cold chains in reducing significantly reduce food and transport systems to on consumer case studies in developing
countries postharvest food losses spoilage, improve shelf life, maintain low temperatures behaviour; the countries assumes ideal
globally in developing and reduce losses, throughout the food primary focus is on cold chain conditions
countries. particularly in developing supply chain. supply chain without addressing local
countries. interventions. infrastructure challenges.
Mmereki et al. Africa Analysed food losses Sub-Saharan Africa's high Technological The study does not The study's limitations
(2024) and waste (FLW) per capita food waste interventions to mitigate explicitly address include a lack of detailed
management in low- ranges from 6 to 11 kg per food waste include consumer behaviour data on consumer
and middle-income year. composting and towards food waste behaviour and the need
countries (LMICs) converting food scraps into reduction. for more comprehensive
digestate, which can be research to develop
used for energy effective strategies for
production. FLW management in
LMICs.
Manzocco Global focus Explored technological Food waste contributes to Recovery of value-added To reduce waste, It focuses on general
et al. (2016) and consumer global hunger; effective compounds, shelf life consumers must adopt strategies without a
strategies to reduce technological and extension, energy sustainable detailed exploration of
food waste at both consumer strategies are recovery, and innovative behaviours, such as individual regional
industrial and domestic needed to prevent it. food preservation better food storage policies or specific case
levels. Synergistic effects help methods. and consumption studies.
reduce waste. practices.
UNEP (2024) Global Assessed the extent of 1) In 2022, approximately 1) The report emphasises 1) The report 1) Limited data
food waste across retail, 1.05 billion tonnes of the need for improved highlights the availability in certain
food service, and food were wasted data collection and importance of regions and sectors,
household sectors and globally, equal to 19 % measurement consumer particularly in low-
to guide countries to of the food available to methodologies across behaviour in income countries.
track progress towards consumers. sectors to understand reducing food 2) Variability in
SDG 12.3. 2) Food waste levels are and address food waste waste, noting that measurement
similar across countries, better. household food methodologies across
regardless of income 2) It suggests that waste is a countries.
levels. technological significant 3) More comprehensive
3) Household food waste interventions should be component of total data collection is
per capita is more tailored to specific food waste. needed in the retail
consistent worldwide sectors and contexts 2) It suggests that and food service
than previously but does not provide raising awareness sectors.
thought. detailed technological and changing
solutions. consumer
behaviour are
crucial for
reducing food
waste.
FAO (2011) Global Assessed the extent and Approximately one-third of It emphasises improved Highlights the need The study provides a
causes of food losses food produced for human harvesting techniques, for increased broad global overview but
and waste worldwide consumption is lost or better storage facilities, consumer awareness may lack detailed data for
and suggest preventive wasted globally, amounting advanced packaging, and and behavioural specific regions or
measures. to about 1.3 billion tons per efficient supply chain changes to reduce commodities.
year. management to reduce food waste at the
losses. household level.
Kc et al. Developing Examined socio- Variables related to wealth, Investment in agricultural The study is not The study provides a
(2016) countries in economic factors agricultural machinery, machinery, transportation directly addressed; it preliminary assessment
the Global contributing to food transportation, and infrastructure, and focuses on systemic and may not capture all
South loss and identify telecommunications telecommunications to and infrastructural variables influencing food
effective strategies to significantly influence food enhance efficiency and factors rather than loss.
reduce food loss in loss. Improving these reduce losses. individual consumer
developing countries. factors could potentially behaviours.
reduce food loss by up to
49 %.
Cappelletti Not specified; Explored smart Identified the potential of Proposed smart Highlighted the need Lack of empirical data on
et al. (2022) general focus strategies for managing smart technologies in refrigerators, food tracking for increased the effectiveness of
on household household food waste reducing household food apps, and intelligent consumer awareness proposed technologies;
food waste through technology and waste; emphasised the storage solutions. and education to limited consideration of
management consumer engagement. importance of user-friendly utilize technological socio-economic factors
designs and consumer interventions influencing technology
awareness. effectively. adoption.

254
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

References chemicals, materials and fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energ.
Environ. Sci. 6 (2), 426–464. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee23440h.
Manzocco, L., Alongi, M., Sillani, S., Nicoli, M.C., 2016. Technological and consumer
Abdiju, K., 2019. Exploring a new way of food inventory management in households
strategies to tackle food wasting. Food Eng. Rev. 8, 457–467. https://doi.org/
using modern technologies to reduce food waste. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn
10.1007/s12393-016-9149-z.
%3Anbn%3Ase%3Alnu%3Adiva-89391.
Martin-Rios, C., Demen-Meier, C., Gössling, S., Cornuz, C., 2018. Food waste
Amjad, W., Munir, A., Akram, F., Parmar, A., Precoppe, M., Asghar, F., Mahmood, F.,
management innovations in the foodservice industry. Waste Manag. 79, 196–206.
2023. Decentralized solar-powered cooling systems for fresh fruit and vegetables to
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.033.
reduce post-harvest losses in developing regions: a review. Clean Energy 7 (3),
Mmereki, D., David Jr., V.E., Wreh Brownell, A.H., 2024. The management and
635–653. https://doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkad015.
prevention of food losses and waste in low-and middle-income countries: a mini-
Annosi, M.C., Brunetta, F., Bimbo, F., Kostoula, M., 2021. Digitalization within food
review in the Africa region. Waste Manag. Res. 42 (4), 287–307. https://doi.org/
supply chains to prevent food waste. Drivers, barriers and collaboration practices.
10.1177/0734242X231184444.
Ind. Mark. Manag. 93, 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Moldovan, M.G., Dabija, D.C., Pocol, C.B., 2022. Resources management for a resilient
indmarman.2021.01.005.
world: a literature review of eastern European countries with focus on household
Apolonio, R.A., 2020. Behavioral and demographic antecedents to household food waste.
behaviour and trends related to food waste. Sustainability 14 (12), 7123. https://doi.
Int. J. Humanit. Arts Soc. Sci. 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.20469/ijhss.6.20004-1.
org/10.3390/su14127123.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., Ares, G., 2018. Convenience or price orientation?
Morone, P., Falcone, P.M., Lopolito, A., 2019. How to promote a new and sustainable
Consumer characteristics influencing food waste behaviour in the context of an
food consumption model: a fuzzy cognitive map study. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 563–574.
emerging country and the impact on future sustainability of the global food sector.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.075.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 49, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Munn, Z., Peters, M.D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., Aromataris, E., 2018.
gloenvcha.2018.02.002.
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between
Aslam, J., Parray, H.A., Aslam, A., Aslam, R., 2024. Food waste environmental impact
a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18, 1–7. https://
assessment. In: Sustainable Food Waste Management: Anti-corrosion Applications.
doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.
Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp. 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
O’Flaherty, J., Phillips, C., 2015. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a
981-97-1160-4_5.
scoping review. Internet High. Educ. 25, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Aziz, H.A., Rosli, N.A., Hung, Y.T., 2020. Landfill methane emissions. In: Handbook of
iheduc.2015.02.002.
Environment and Waste Management: Acid Rain and Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Onyeaka, H., Tamasiga, P., Nwauzoma, U.M., Miri, T., Juliet, U.C., Nwaiwu, O.,
Control, pp. 397–454. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811207136_0011.
Akinsemolu, A.A., 2023. Using artificial intelligence to tackle food waste and
Benyam, A.A., Soma, T., Fraser, E., 2021. Digital agricultural technologies for food loss
enhance the circular economy: Maximising resource efficiency and Minimising
and waste prevention and reduction: global trends, adoption opportunities and
environmental impact: a review. Sustainability 15 (13), 10482. https://doi.org/
barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 323, 129099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.3390/su151310482.
jclepro.2021.129099.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains:
Bolwig, S., Tanner, A.N., Riemann, P., Redlingshöfer, B., Zhang, Y., 2021. Reducing
quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 365 (1554),
consumer food waste using green and digital technologies. UNEP DTU Partnership.
3065–3081. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126.
https://unepccc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/reducing-consumer-food-wast
Patino, C.M., Ferreira, J.C., 2018. Inclusion and exclusion criteria in research studies:
e-using-green-and-digital-technologies.pdf.
definitions and why they matter. J. Bras. Pneumol. 44, 84. https://doi.org/10.1590/
Boulet, M., Hoek, A.C., Raven, R., 2021. Towards a multi-level framework of household
S1806-37562018000000088.
food waste and consumer behaviour: untangling spaghetti soup. Appetite 156,
Porpino, G., Parente, J., Wansink, B., 2015. Food waste paradox: antecedents of food
104856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104856.
disposal in low income households. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 39 (6), 619–629. https://
Cappelletti, F., Papetti, A., Rossi, M., Germani, M., 2022. Smart strategies for household
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12207.
food waste management. Procedia Comput. Sci. 200, 887–895. https://doi.org/
Rolker, H., Eisler, M., Cardenas, L., Deeney, M., Takahashi, T., 2022. Food waste
10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.286.
interventions in low-and-middle-income countries: a systematic literature review.
de Almeida Oroski, F., da Silva, J.M., 2023. Understanding food waste-reducing
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 186, 106534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
platforms: a mini-review. Waste Manag. Res. 41 (4), 816–827. https://doi.org/
resconrec.2022.106534.
10.1177/0734242X221135248.
Sawaya, W.N., 2017. Impact of food losses and waste on food security. Water Energy
Di Talia, E., Simeone, M., Scarpato, D., 2019. Consumer behaviour types in household
Food Sustainab. Middle East Sustain. Triangle 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/
food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
978-3-319-48920-9_16.
jclepro.2018.12.216.
Setti, M., Banchelli, F., Falasconi, L., Segrè, A., Vittuari, M., 2018. Consumers’ food cycle
FAO, 2011. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Rome
and household waste. When behaviors matter. J. Clean. Prod. 185, 694–706. https://
Available at https://www.fao.org/4/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf. (Accessed 24
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.024.
December 2024).
Sgroi, F., Totaro, T., Modica, F., Sciortino, C., 2024. A digital platform strategy to
FAO, 2024. Technical platform on the measurement and reduction of food loss and
improve food waste disposal practices: exploring the case of“ too good to go”. Res.
waste. FoodLossWaste. [WWW Document]. https://www.fao.org/platform-food-
World Agric. Econ. 5 (1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.341826.
loss-waste/flw-events/events/events-detail/2024-food-loss-and-waste-masterclass–
Spang, E.S., Moreno, L.C., Pace, S.A., Achmon, Y., Donis-Gonzalez, I., Gosliner, W.A.,
the-basics/en. (Accessed 12 October 2024).
Tomich, T.P., 2019. Food loss and waste: measurement, drivers, and solutions. Annu.
Ghoshal, G., 2018. Recent trends in active, smart, and intelligent packaging for food
Rev. Env. Resour. 44 (1), 117–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-
products. In: Food Packaging and Preservation. Academic Press, pp. 343–374.
101718-033228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811516-9.00010-5.
Stathers, T., Mvumi, B., 2020. Challenges and initiatives in reducing postharvest food
Goodwin, L., Blondin, S., Bassett, G., Roberts, M., Wistrand, L., White, H., Swannell, R.,
losses and food waste: sub-Saharan Africa. In: Preventing Food Losses and Waste to
Leib, E.B., Plekenpol, R., Rouse, H., 2022. Champions 12.3: changing behaviour to
Achieve Food Security and Sustainability. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing,
help more people waste less food. A champions 12.3 publication. Available at: https:
pp. 729–786. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429266621.
//champions123.org/publication/champions-123-consumer-guide. (Accessed 24
Taner, O.O., 2024. Sustainable food and agriculture production: reducing food waste
December 2024).
through technological advancements and assessing its economic impact. Res. World
Grewal, D., Guha, A., Noble, S.M., Bentley, K., 2024. The food production–consumption
Agric. Econ. 5 (3). https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v5i3.1276.
chain: fighting food insecurity, loss, and waste with technology. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.
Thomas, J., Harden, A., 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research
52 (5), 1412–1430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-024-01040-x.
in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/
Harvey, J., Smith, A., Goulding, J., Illodo, I.B., 2020. Food sharing, redistribution, and
1471-2288-8-45.
waste reduction via mobile applications: a social network analysis. Ind. Mark.
Trevisan, C., Formentini, M., 2023. Digital technologies for food loss and waste
Manag. 88, 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.019.
prevention and reduction in agri-food supply chains: a systematic literature review
Hedin, B., Katzeff, C., Eriksson, E., Pargman, D., 2019. A systematic review of digital
and research agenda. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1109/
behaviour change interventions for more sustainable food consumption.
TEM.2023.3273110.
Sustainability 11 (9), 2638. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092638.
UNEP, 2024. Reducing Consumer Food Waste Using Green and Digital Technologies.
Heidenstrøm, N., Hebrok, M., 2022. Towards realizing the sustainability potential within
DTU Partnership and United Nations Environment Programme, Copenhagen and
digital food provisioning platforms: the case of meal box schemes and online grocery
Nairobi. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/37352/RCFW.
shopping in Norway. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 29, 831–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/
pdf.
j.spc.2021.06.030.
Urugo, M.M., Teka, T.A., Gemede, H.F., Mersha, S., Tessema, A., Woldemariam, H.W.,
Jones-Garcia, E., Bakalis, S., Flintham, M., 2022. Consumer behaviour and food waste:
Admassu, H., 2024. A comprehensive review of current approaches on food waste
understanding and mitigating waste with a technology probe. Foods 11 (14), 2048.
reduction strategies. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 23 (5), e70011. https://ift.on
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142048.
linelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.70011.
Kc, K.B., Haque, I., Legwegoh, A.F., Fraser, E.D., 2016. Strategies to reduce food loss in
USEPA, 2024. International efforts on wasted food recovery. [WWW Document]. htt
the global south. Sustainability 8 (7), 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070595.
ps://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/international-efforts-wasted-food-re
Kitinoja, L., 2013. Use of cold chains for reducing food losses in developing countries.
covery. (Accessed 13 October 2024).
Population 6 (1.23), 5–60. https://www.academia.edu/download/53643559/Use_
Varjani, S., Vyas, S., Su, J., Siddiqui, M.A., Qin, Z.H., Miao, Y., Lin, C.S.K., 2024. Nexus of
of_cold_chains_in_reducing_food_loss20170623-11851-9ibos6.pdf.
food waste and climate change framework: unravelling the links between impacts,
Lin, C.S.K., Pfaltzgraff, L.A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E.B., Abderrahim, S., Clark, J.
projections, and emissions. Environ. Pollut. 344, 123387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
H., Luque, R., 2013. Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of
envpol.2024.123387.

255
B.A. Agya Sustainable Production and Consumption 55 (2025) 242–256

World Bank, 2024. “World Bank income groups” [dataset]. World Bank, “Income Zhang, J., Wedel, M., Bloem, M.W., 2022. Mitigating food waste in the retail supply
Classifications” [original data]. Retrieved December 15, 2024 from. https://ourwo chain: marketing solutions. J. Sustain. Mark. 3 (2), 87–97. https://doi.org/
rldindata.org/grapher/world-bank-income-groups. 10.51300/jsm-2022-59.
World Health Organization, 2020. The state of food security and nutrition in the world Zhao, H., Themelis, N., Bourtsalas, A., McGillis, W.R., 2019. Methane emissions from
2020: transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets (Vol. 2020). Food & landfills. Columbia University, 71, 233. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hao
Agriculture Org. http://www.fao.org/3/ca9692en/online/ca9692en.html#. kai-Zhao/publication/334151857_Methane_Emissions_from_Landfills/links/5d1a
Yahia, E.M., Mourad, M., 2020. Food waste at the consumer level. In: Preventing Food 8617458515c11c09495d/Methane-Emissions-from-Landfills.pdf. (Accessed 27
Losses and Waste to Achieve Food Security and Sustainability. Burleigh Dodds December 2024).
Science Publishing, pp. 341–366. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429266621. Zheng, J., 2022. Applications of urban informatics in sustainability planning for food
Zhang, P.C., 2016. Developing Consumer Driven Strategies for Imparting Fruit and waste management (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago). https
Vegetable Consumption (Doctoral dissertation, University of Guelph) (Accessed 12 ://search.proquest.com/openview/009ddd80138aac7ea414f41c4fbaa193/1?pq-or
February 2025). https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/bitstreams/efaec557-9db2-477 igsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y. (Accessed 27 December 2024).
2-8c60-edf9306ea9c7/download.

256