KGA207 AT4: System Intervention ReportMarketing Research and Data Analysis
Anonymous Student
Sustainable Consumption & Production: Food Waste System
Organic waste accounts for most of the household waste in Australia (Figure 1) (ABS 2018-19), and most
Australians underestimate their waste generation as well as the environmental, economic, and societal costs
of food waste (Karunasena et al. 2021).
Figure 1. Household waste by waste material 2018-19 (ABS 2018-19).
Given that households continue to be responsible for a significant proportion of food waste (FIAL 2021), I
have chosen to focus most of the suggested interventions at this key junction in the food waste system. It is
vital that all Australians recognise the need of changing their own food behaviours and practices to prevent
wastage (Karunasena et al. 2021). For best results, the suggested intervention points would best be applied in
conjunction with each other (Chappin III et al. 2022).
The attached Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) (Figure 2) attempts to understand the elements, flows, variables,
and factors of food waste systems, as well as the actors and institutions that comprise this system.
Intervention Point 1 (IP1): Food Waste Awareness Building Campaign
The current food waste system is complex and sometimes invisible, which provides a significant leverage
point for system change by raising awareness of how the system currently operates (Stroh 2015). By creating
awareness for a household of its waste it is possible for them to recognise that waste has a cost, both
financially and environmentally. This would improve people’s ability to acquire knowledge through new
information streams (Abson et al. 2017), enabling households to change their perception of waste and shift
mental models, behaviours, and attitudes. Most individuals do not want to waste food, and educating
households that food waste is socially unacceptable will shift social norms and world views away from
consumerism (Chappin et al. 2022).
Figure 2. Casual Loop Diagram of the Food Waste System.
Legend: Green arrows show the flow of food and food waste through the system, + (increase), – (decrease),
blue: economic factors, orange: drivers of household food waste, circles: intervention points, red arrows:
changes to the systems from intervention points.
Intervention Point 2 (IP2): Food Safety & Leftover Use Education Campaign
Another deep leverage point would be a campaign that builds a consumer’s capacity to change their
behaviour (Stroh 2015). A campaign that provides consumers with the knowledge and skills they need to
better plan and shop for their household, such as meal planning suggestions, shopping lists, home inventory
lists, methods to calculate portions, recipes, and suggestions to make use of leftovers, would enable them to
improve their household food management (Karunasena et al. 2021). Providing resources such as fridge
magnets, storage packs to households, and providing advice on storing food and leftovers, would increase
food safety skills and knowledge in households, resulting in less food waste (Karunasena et al. 2021). This
campaign would improve consumers’ access to information, enabling them to change their behaviour and
increase system resilience (Wright & Meadows 2009).
Intervention Point 3 (IP3): Date labelling & Storage Advice Campaign
Developing regulations to standardise date labelling on products, as there is still confusion between ‘use by’
and ‘best before’ date labelling, with some consumers believing that food is not safe to eat past its best-before
date resulting in food that is still edible being discarded (Priefer et al. 2016). By engaging businesses to
support a retailer-led consumer education campaign on date labelling, of changing customers’ mindsets and
behaviours, and improving their access to information by increasing overall transparency, would be a
significant leverage point for change (Chappin III et al. 2022). This would also help to optimise the system’s
functioning and resilience (Wright & Meadows 2009) by decreasing food waste.
Intervention Point 4 (IP4): Voluntary Agreements with Retailers
Another intervention point that engages businesses to support a change for a sustainable food system is to
enter into voluntary agreements with retailers to increase the donation of unsold food to charities by
providing retailers with incentives to donate food, in addition to the use of smart packaging to prevent food
waste (Chappin III et al. 2022), while being careful to avoid the unintended consequence of an increase in
plastic waste (Wright & Meadows 2009). These partnerships can help businesses reduce food waste costs
(Figure 3) (Hanson & Mitchell 2017) while simultaneously enhancing social welfare through charitable food
contributions (Ishanhuyyev et al. 2019).
Figure 3. Financial benefit-cost ratio for company sites (Hanson & Mitchell 2017).
Intervention Point (IP5): Roll Out Food Organics Garden Organics (FOGO) Bins to all Australian
Households
Making it convenient for consumers and removing the psychological and physical barriers to reducing food
waste through FOGO bin composting (Landells et al. 2022). Changing social norms by increasing
community engagement (Chappin III et al. 2022), as well as improving the collection of household food
waste levels, which could then be provided to households in the same way in which energy usage
comparison to other households is provided on their bill. The knowledge gained could then be used to
improve the sustainability of the system, and better inform future interventions (Wright & Meadows 2009).
References:
Abson, DJ, Fischer, J, Leventon, J, Newig, J, Schomerus, T, Vilsmaier, U, von Wehrden, H, Abernathy, P,
Ives, CD, Jager, NW & Lang DJ 2017, ‘Leverage points for sustainability transformation’, Ambio, vol. 46,
pp. 30-39, viewed 1 May 2023, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018-19, Waste Account, Australia, Experimental Estimates, ABS, viewed 4
May 2023, available at https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/environment/environmental-management/wasteaccount-australia-experimental-estimates/2018-19.
Chappin III, FS, Weber, EU, Bennett, EM, Biggs, R, van den Bergh, J, Adger, WN, Crepin, AS, Polasky, S,
Folke, C, Scheffer, M, Segerson, K, Anderies, JM, Barrett, S, Cardenas, JC, Carpenter, SR, Fischer, J,
Kautsky, N, Levin, SA, Shogren, JF, Walker, B, Wilen, J & de Zeeuw, A 2022, ‘Earth Stewardship: Shaping a
sustainable future through interacting policy and norm shifts’, Ambio, vol. 51, pp. 1907-1920, viewed 5 May
2023, available at http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01721-3.
FIAL 2021, ‘The National Food Waste Strategy Feasibility Study – Final Report’, The Food and
Agribusiness Growth Centre, viewed 9 April 2023, available at https://www.fial.com.au/sharingknowledge/food-waste.
Hanson, C & Mitchell, P 2017, The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste: A report on behalf of
SDG Champions 12.3, Champions 12.3, Washington, DC, viewed 3 May 2023, available at
https://champions123.org/publication/business-case-reducing-food-loss-and-waste.
Ishangulyyev, R, Kim, S & Lee, SH 2019, ‘Understanding Food Loss and Waste—Why Are We Losing and
Wasting Food?’, Foods, vol. 8, no. 297, viewed 2 May 2023, available at
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8080297.
Karunasena, GG, Pearson, D & Fight Food Waste CRC 2021, Australian Household Food Waste: A summary
of behaviours, attitudes, perceived and actual food waste, Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre,
Adelaide, Australia, viewed 1 May 2023, available at https://fightfoodwastecrc.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2021/07/FINAL-summary_report.pdf.
Karunasena, GG, Pearson, D & Fight Food Waste CRC 2021, In-home research on Australian food waste –
Choice model findings of food waste reduction interventions, Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research
Centre, Adelaide, Australia, viewed 1 May 2023, available at https://fightfoodwastecrc.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/choice_model.pdf.
Landells, E, Naweed, A, Pearson, D, Karunasena, GG & Oakden, S 2022, ‘Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Using
Post-kerbside Organics Treatment Systems to Engage Australian Communities with Pro-Environmental
Household Food Waste Behaviours’, Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 14, 8669, pp. 2-17, viewed 5 May 2023,
available at https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148699.
Priefer, C, Jorissen, J & Brautigam, KR 2016, ‘Food waste prevention in Europe – A cause-driven approach
to identify the most relevant leverage points for action’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 109,
pp. 155-165, viewed 1 May 2023, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.004.
Stroh, DP 2015, Systems Thinking for Social Change: A Practical Guide to Solving Complex Problems,
Avoiding Unintended Consequences, and Achieving Lasting Results, Chelsea Green Publishing, viewed 5
May 2023, available at https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.ezproxy.utas.edu.au/lib/utas/detail.action?docID=5149077.
Wright, D, & Meadows, DH 2009, Thinking in Systems: A Primer, Taylor & Francis Group, London, viewed
25 March 2023, available at https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.ezproxy.utas.edu.au/lib/utas/detail.action?docID=430143.
Further references to develop CLD:
Chalak, A, Abou-Daher, C, Chaaban, J & Abiad, MG 2016, ‘The global economic and regulatory
determinants of household food waste generation: A cross-country analysis, Waste Management, vol. 48, pp.
418-422, viewed 9 April 2023, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.040.
Commonwealth of Australia 2017, ‘National Food Waste Strategy: Halving Australia’s food waste by 2030’,
Commonwealth of Australia, viewed 8 April 2023, available at https://www.fial.com.au/sharingknowledge/food-waste.
Haraldsson, HV 2004, Introduction to System Thinking and Casual Loop Diagrams, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Lund University, Sweden, viewed 1 May 2023, available at
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/HoerdurHaraldsson/publication/258261003_Introduction_to_system_thinking_and_causal_loop_diagrams/links/5bcc
eed6458515f7d9d01e81/Introduction-to-system-thinking-and-causal-loop-diagrams.pdf.
Laurenti, R, Singh, J, Sinha, R, Potting, J & Frostell, B 2015, ‘Unintended Environmental Consequences of
Improvement Actions: A Qualitative Analysis of Systems Structure and Behavior’, Systems Research &
Behavioural Science, vol. 33, pp. 381-399, viewed 1 May 2023, available at
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2330.
Phan, TD, Nguyen, NC, Bosch, OJH, Nguyen, TV, Le, TT & Tran HT 2015, ‘A Systemic Approach to
Understand the Conservation Status and Viability of the Critically Endangered Cat Ba Langur’, Systems
Research & Behavioural Science, vol. 33, pp. 742-752, viewed 30 April 2023, available at
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2387.
Spang, ES, Achmon, Y, Donis-Gonzalez, I, Gosliner, WA, Jablonskit-Sheffield, MP, Pace, SA, Quested, TE,
Winans, KS & Tomich, TP 2019, ‘Food Loss and Waste: Measurement, Drivers, and Solutions’, Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 44, pp. 117-156, viewed 11 April 2023, available at
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033228.