Lebensmittelverluste bei Obst und Gemüse – die Rolle von Qualitätsanforderungen und Unternehmenspraktiken des Lebensmitteleinzelhandels

Food loss in European fruit and vegetable supply chains: The impact of retailers’ product standards This working paper presents results of a study that was initiated by Lidl Stiftung and which analyses the influence of product requirements and business practices on food loss in the fruit and vegetable upstream supply chain of Lidl. Previous scientific evidence suggests that (mostly) visual product requirements, but also requirements regarding pesticide residues and packaging, cause losses in the supply chain upstream of food retail. As these losses also occur before harvest, field losses are included in this study. The study covered twelve fruit and vegetable crops that are supplied to Lidl stores in Germany by three large supplying agencies located in Germany, Italy and Spain. Methodologically, the study is based on expert interviews and two quantitative online surveys of (1) suppliers and (2) upstream producers. Due to the small sample size of the producer survey, this working paper mainly focuses on the results of the supplier survey. Almost all of the suppliers that took part in the survey perceive Lidl to impose requirements on fruit and vegetables in terms of pesticide residue limits, calibre, packaging and sorting, colouring, peel, degree of ripeness, shape and curvature, leaves and stem. On average, 14.7 % of the total production or the total traded volume does not meet the requirements Lidl puts forward. Of the total production of fruit and vegetables in the study, 3.4 % are not being harvested or traded further due to the fact that the products do not meet the Lidl requirements. For the same reason, 1.7 % of the total production are used as animal feed, 0.9 % are disposed of and 0.04 % are processed into non-food articles. The remaining share of produce that does not meet the Lidl requirements is sold into the wholesale sector, to other food retailers, the food processing industry or is being exported. The study shows that around 6 % of fruit and vegetables in the studied segment of the Lidl supply chain are ultimately lost for human consumption. The figures obtained are lower than the results of similar, but not directly comparable studies, which aimed at quantifying fruit and vegetable losses that occur due to food retailers’ quality standards. After natural causes of food loss (e.g. weather conditions and pest infestations), Lidl product requirements are seen as the second most important superordinate driver of losses, approximately as important as market conditions (e.g. low market price). However, a large proportion of respondents also believes that product requirements have little to no influence on food loss. In particular, participants perceive requirements regarding pesticide residue limits and calibre specifications as the largest drivers of food loss. Which requirements exactly contribute most to food loss seems to depend much on the crop. Unfortunately, the study cannot deliver distinct insights here due to small sub-samples for each crop. In general, the product requirements put forward by Lidl are perceived as quite reliable and clearly communicated by the suppliers, but are lacking flexibility. Compared to product requirements, business practices are a less relevant driver of food loss from the suppliers' perspective, but still more significant than technological causes. In particular, the insufficient timely coordination of promotions in times of production peaks is perceived as a cause of food loss. Compared to the supplier survey, the survey of primary producers had a very low response rate that does not allow for sound analyses. However, evaluation of the few questionnaires completed suggests that the share of fruit and vegetable produced that does not meet the requirements put forward by Lidl is similar. Also, primary producers identify similar product requirements as drivers of food loss and perceive the flexibility rather than the reliability of these requirements as problematic. In the case of primary producers, failure to meet the requirements put forward by Lidl more often results in non-harvesting, use as animal feed or transfer to the food processing industry. Wholesalers and other retailers are used less frequently as an outlet for sub-standard produce than in the case of suppliers. Based on the results of the study, we recommend to Lidl to expand tolerances with regard to product requirements and, in particular, to apply them with increased flexibility. Within the frame of this study, hotspots were identified with regard to requirements and crops, which should now be followed up in practice. In particular, the compatibility of the goals of reducing pesticide residues and food loss should be focused on. Lidl should support the introduction of a food loss monitoring, improve volume planning and promote alternative distribution channels at all stages of the supply chain in order to the reduce food loss. Well-coordinated promotions, neutral packaging design and late packaging should also be worked towards. This study has several limitations, among other things, stemming from • the fact that questionnaire studies generally significantly underestimate the amount of food loss, • partially low response rates for individual crops, • a potential influence on the interview situation brought about by the presence of the Lidl purchase department during all interviews, • limitations in the assessment of the representativeness of the sample with regard to the entire supply chain of Lidl, as relevant information remained incomplete. There is an urgent need for further research, especially in the area of field losses. Measures implemented in practice should be accompanied scientifically in order to assess their effects - advantages and possible trade-offs - and to govern them accordingly. In addition, the effects of the measures implemented could be quantitatively documented and used for internal and external communication.