Purpose This paper addresses the need of practitioners in the food industry to choose among different food waste reduction and valorization options. To this aim, it proposes a methodology for benchmarking these options, considering economic, environmental and social performance. Design/methodology/approach The methodology guides the decision-makers into context understanding and business process options definition, performance assessment, until the final choice. The methodology is applied to the case of a canned food producer faced with surplus vegetables, by comparing two alternatives: (1) redistribution and (2) recovery. Findings Under certain conditions, i.e. high distance between the point of food surplus generation and food banks, refrigerated trucks and high redistribution network dispersion, from an economic and environmental perspective, recovery overperforms redistribution. Considering both the impact on employees' morale and on the people in need, redistribution prevails over recovery. Practical implications New competences in terms of life cycle assessment and social impact assessment are needed to support managers in taking informed decisions about food waste reduction and valorization. Social implications In the methodology, environmental and social sustainability are considered as important as economic sustainability. Considering social impact can guide decision-making towards food waste valorization options not economically or environmentally optimal. Originality/value Elements of strategic decision-making tools and science-based methods are integrated into an actionable benchmarking-like approach for practitioners. Results challenge the validity of the concept of “hierarchy” when comparing recovery and redistribution for human consumption.
Ciccullo et al. (Tue,) studied this question.