1 s2.0 S0301479719308461 Main

Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 425–438
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Research article
Development of a pragmatic framework to help food and drink T

manufacturers select the most sustainable food waste valorisation strategy
Jamie Stone, Guillermo Garcia-Garcia, Shahin Rahimifard∗
Centre for Sustainable Manufacturing and Recycling Technologies, Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University,
Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: Food waste is a significant contemporary issue in the UK, with substantial environmental, social and economic
Food waste valorisation costs to the nation. Whilst efforts to reduce food waste are laudable, a significant proportion of food and drink
Sustainability manufacturer waste is unavoidable. On the one hand, there is a drive from industry to reclaim as much value
Cost-benefit analysis from this waste as possible, for example, by conversion to valuable products in what is known as “valorisation”.
At the same time, growing social and legislative pressures mean that any attempts to valorise food waste must be
performed in a sustainable manner. However, for every company and its specific food wastes, there will be
multiple valorisation possibilities and few tools exist that allow food and drink manufacturers to identify which
is most profitable and sustainable for them. Such a decision would need to not only consider environmental,
social and economic performance, but also how ready the technology is and how well it aligns with that com-
pany's strategy. In response, this paper develops and presents a hybrid framework that guides a company in
modelling the volumes/seasonality of its wastes, identifying potential valorisation options and selecting ap-
propriate indicators for environmental, social and economic performance as well as technological maturity and
alignment with company goals. The framework guides users in analyzing economic and environmental perfor-
mance using Cost-Benefit Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment respectively. The results can then be ranked
alongside those for social performance, technological maturity and alignment with company goals using a
weighted sum model variant of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to facilitate easy visual comparison. This fra-
mework is demonstrated in the form of a case study with a major UK fruit consolidator to identify the optimal
strategy for managing their citrus waste. Possibilities identified included sale of imperfect but still edible waste
via wholesale at a significantly reduced profit and the investment in facilities to extract higher value pectin from
the same waste stream using a microwave assisted pectin extraction process. Results suggest that continued sale
of waste to wholesale markets is currently the most beneficial in terms of economic viability and environmental
performance, but that in the medium to long term, the projected growth in the market for pectin suggests this
could become the most viable strategy.
1. Introduction substantial emissions to water and land (Riley and Rumsey, 2016).
These challenges are not restricted to the UK and a recent United Na-
In 2015, UK Food and Drink Manufacturing (FDM) accounted for tions Champions 12.3 report indicates comparable percentages of food
2.4 million tons (Mt) of food waste and surplus (including both un- waste and associated CO2 emissions in other developed regions such as
avoidable and avoidable waste/surplus). Of this, 42 thousand tons (kt) North America and the EU (Lipinski et al., 2017). Therefore, whilst this
was diverted to secondary markets or charities and 635 kt was sent to work is based from a UK perspective, it is very much applicable in other
animal feeding, whilst the remaining 1.7 Mt was disposed of as waste developed world nations.
through methods such as anaerobic digestion, thermal treatment and Clearly, continued waste of food at current levels is unacceptable
land spreading (Parfitt et al., 2016a). This represents not just a sig- from a business and sustainability perspective and indeed, evidence
nificant economic loss (4.2% of sales for the sector) but also a sig- suggests businesses are taking action. For example, the recent
nificant challenge to Environmental Sustainability with FDM ac- Courtauld Commitment 3 between over 50 UK manufacturers and re-
counting for 8 million tons of CO2 emissions annually, in addition to tailers, aiming to reduce ingredient, product and packaging waste in the
∗
Corresponding author
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Rahimifard).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.037
Received 29 November 2018; Received in revised form 2 June 2019; Accepted 10 June 2019
Available online 26 June 2019
0301-4797/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
J. Stone, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 425–438
pre-household stages of the supply chain by 3% between 2012 and phrases and applied against article abstracts and titles. To be selected,
2015, was successfully achieved (WRAP, 2017). However, as successful an article had to match each word in each phrase somewhere within the
as such waste reduction goals can be, it must be kept in mind that title/abstract (although order was not important), for example, ‘Food’,
1.34 Mt of the FDM waste is not practically avoidable and so new ways ‘Waste’, ‘Valorisation’, ‘Economic’ and ‘Analysis’. Only English language
of extracting value (referred to as valorisation from here onwards) and items which were peer reviewed (or from credible sources such as well
ideally, recirculating this waste for human consumption are essential cited books or government institutes) were selected. Whilst no date of
for such Unavoidable Food Waste (UFW) (Parfitt et al., 2016a). Un- publication restrictions were put in place, older works were carefully
surprisingly therefore, the field of food waste valorisation has grown assessed for outmodedness before inclusion. Whilst not intended to be
rapidly over recent decades with many publications concerning ex- systematic, this approach was felt to be sufficiently broad and thorough
perimental research into the recovery of energy, nutrients and other that once the authors had read paper abstracts and duplicates were
high value compounds from food waste (for example, Mirabella et al., excluded, the final review size of 43 articles (listed in the supplemen-
2014 and Kwan et al., 2015). Whilst such technical works are a valuable tary materials document) is considered to reflect the state of the art in
contribution, for many food and drink manufacturers, particularly small this research field.
to medium enterprises (SMEs) who make up the majority of the UK
FDM sector, there may be challenges in aligning technical valorisation
3. Review findings
opportunities with a company's bespoke waste situation. This is because
a range of factors including economic viability (i.e. costs vs benefits),
In this section, the 43 reviewed articles are categorized according to
environmental performance (e.g. emissions, effects on human health),
which methodological approach they employ. Approaches used include
societal impact (e.g. job creation, noise generation), technological
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
maturity (e.g. readiness of technology for valorisation at a lab scale,
(LCSA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Full Cost
market readiness for the product and potential of the required tech-
Accounting (FCA) and Variations on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
nology to integrate with existing company processes) and finally
(MCDA). Findings are described before being evaluated based on their
alignment with company goals (strategic alignment, brand image and
suitability for capturing the aforementioned economic, environmental,
fit with existing expertise) determine what are likely to be a company's
social, technological maturity and alignment with company goal in-
optimal valorisation options (Bernstad and la Cour Jansen, 2011;
dicators as well practicality for an SME to implement.
Iacovidou and Voulvoulis, 2018; Diaz-Balteiro et al., 2017; Cristóbal
et al., 2018).
To address the identified research gap, this paper provides a thor- 3.1. Life Cycle Assessment
ough review of the literature in terms of techniques that others have
applied to help select ways to valorise food waste. Based on synthesis of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is based upon the understanding that
the findings, a novel pragmatic framework is presented which facil- products in today's globalized markets will have environmental impacts
itates comparison of multiple food waste valorisation options, for UFW, at all stages of their life cycle, from production/extraction to proces-
based upon the parameters outlined above. This framework is then sing, consumer use and end of life disposal, something that is often
applied empirically via a case study with a major UK fruit consolidator referred to as “cradle to grave”. The aim of LCA is to measure these
to compare two different options for the valorisation of citrus waste impacts and identify hotspots and opportunities for improvement
residues. The results are analyzed not only in terms of their economic, without simply shifting the environmental burden to a different stage of
environmental, social and technological performance as well as align- the supply chain. This is typically achieved via four stages, beginning
ment with company goals, but also in terms of sensitivity to long term with the description of the goal and scope (including defining what is
supply chain changes and possible impacts on supply chain partners. being compared, which processes are to be included and what the
The paper finishes with discussions surrounding the strengths and functional unit will be), inventory analysis (i.e. measurement of the
limitations of the framework and suggestions for future work. inputs and outputs for each process), life cycle impact assessment (i.e.
conversion of inventory items to common units for comparison) and
interpretation (i.e. comparison of findings to make recommendations
2. Review methodology for intervention) (Cristóbal et al., 2018; Hellweg and i Canals, 2014;
Hauschild et al, 2018). There are a wide range benchmarks for data-
The purpose of this review is to explore how others have applied bases, such as ecoinvent, as well as methodologies to guide impact
various research methodologies to aid in the selection/evaluation of assessment (such as the International Reference Life Cycle Data System
food waste valorisation techniques and to identify which of these method) and even tools which can facilitate the entire LCA process
techniques best meets the needs of the framework proposed in this (such as SimaPro and Gabi amongst many more). Furthermore the
paper. To facilitate this, the review was performed, initially in August aforementioned tools and guidelines are tightly governed by interna-
2018 and again in February 2019, and consisted of the search strings tional standards, most importantly ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006, as
presented in Table 1 applied to the following databases: Google Scholar, well as the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD)
Science Direct, Wiley Online, Emerald and Scopus. These search strings Handbook (Wolf et al., 2012) making LCA a respected and relatively
were initially established based upon the authors own knowledge and accessible potential screening technique for SMEs.
were then refined through discussion with colleagues and project ad- In the context of food waste valorisation, a common approach is to
visory/industrial partners. When using the search strings in databases, use LCA to compare the environmental impacts of two or more different
the primary phrase (i.e. ‘Food Waste Valorisation’) was combined ex- scenarios, with common examples being anaerobic digestion and an-
haustively with each of the secondary phrases and each of the tertiary imal feed (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017).
Table 1
Review key words and search strings.
Primary Phrase Secondary Phrases Tertiary Phases
Food Waste Valorisation Economic OR Cost Benefit OR Viability OR Technological OR Sustainability OR Environmental OR Analysis OR Modelling OR Evaluation
Social OR System
426
However, LCA has been applied to more diverse valorisation scenarios, limitations. First and foremost is the need for standarised and quanti-
such as ethanol manufacturing, production of value-added chemicals, tative indicates for measuring social, technological and relational im-
and in a number of sectors such as beverage manufacturing (e.g. pacts (Guinee et al., 2010. Secondly, there is a real need for homo-
brewing (Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016; Guerrero and Muñoz, 2018; genous guidelines (as exist for LCA) which a company could follow to
Lam et al., 2018)). In all cases, the goal is to identify and evaluate the implement this process (Cinelli et al., 2013).
most relevant indicator scores and compare them to the current
(baseline scenario), to aid selection of a valorisation strategy. Often, 3.3. Life Cycle Costing
impact assessment methods are used to transform mid-point indicators
(e.g. global warming) into themes of particular interest to the user, such The aim of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is to calculate the overall cost in
as damage to human health or damage to ecosystems, known as end- monetary terms alone (as opposed to multidimensional impact as de-
point indicators (Brunklaus et al., 2018). However, there are a number scribed previously for LCA/LCSA) of a product over its life cycle. There
of potential limitations for effective use of LCA from the perspective of a are a number of different variations, with Conventional LCC (C-LCC)
food and drink manufacturer trying to select a valorisation process. The perhaps being the most common (De Menna et al., 2016). C-LCC only
first is that whilst in principle, all stages of a food products life cycle concerns the costs borne internally by the company doing the analysis
should be considered and all possible environmental inputs/outputs (to the exclusion of other value chain stages). Such costs are typically
should be considered for each stage, these data may not be readily broken down into Initial Investment Costs (such as planning, design,
available from supply chain partners. Additionally, LCA by nature only site acquisition, construction, purchase and installation), Operating
considers environmental impact, not social, economic, technological or Costs (such as maintenance, repairs, energy, water, taxes and in-
company goals. As such, it does not have an inbuilt mechanism for surance) and Resale/Disposal costs (inspections, demolition and taxes)
identifying alternatives and is predominantly focused on identifying (Kim et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018). A more recent variant, known
areas for improvement within a system rather than what a food a drink as Environmental Life Cycle Costing (E-LCC) is designed to link LCC and
manufacturer could do instead with their waste. However, there are LCA by assigning monetary values to the impact factors explored in a
variations on LCA, such as Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis, which do parallel LCA (Swarr et al., 2011). For instance, Daylan and Ciliz (2016)
cover some of these impacts. used an E-LCC/CBA combination to analyze the valorisation of wheat
straw waste to bioethanol demonstrating a 47% reduction in green-
3.2. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment house gases combined with 56% lower production costs albeit at a
higher risk of eutrophication and photochemical ozone depletion.
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) seeks to extend LCA However, the process by which monetary values are assigned to en-
principles of measuring the environmental life cycle impact of a product vironmental impacts is not always straightforward and has been called
to include impacts on people and prosperity. In doing so, it brings LCA into question by many (Guinée, 2016; San Martin et al., 2016; Reich,
in line with the 1987 Bruntland report “triple bottom line” definition of 2005; Guinee et al., 2010; Cinelli et al., 2013; De Menna et al., 2016,
sustainability, typically by including aspects of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) 2018; Kim et al., 2011; Swarr et al., 2011; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016;
and Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCC) (WCED, 1987. However, LCSA Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016). Moving beyond E-LCC, a further de-
is broader than simply measuring additional social and economic im- velopment is Societal LCC (S-LCC) which involves the costs borne by all
pacts in that it broadens the level of analysis from impacts associated stages of society in relation to a given project. In principle, S-LCC is the
with a specific product to those associated with a specific sector or even most comprehensive costing technique identified in this review - albeit
economy (Guinée, 2016). It also aims to assess impact in more than just one that is in its infancy and still very poorly defined methodologically
a technical sense, and therefore in addition to assessing, for example, (Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016). As a result of the complexities in in-
process emissions, it also promotes the consideration of resource terpreting and applying findings from all types of LCC, particularly E-
availability and relations between different companies in the supply LCC and S-LCC, many authors have highlighted how, as a methodology,
chain. A such, rather than being a standarised method like LCA, LCSA it is best suited for deciding how to implement a valorisation process, in
can be thought of more as a framework for how to integrate various the most efficient way, which has already been chosen rather than as a
other models (e.g. LCA + LCC + SLCA). means of comparing processes in the first instance (De Menna et al.,
There are a number of authors who can be considered to have ap- 2016).
plied one or more LCSA tenets to selection of food waste valorisation
strategies. For example, San Martin et al., 2016 explore the suitability 3.4. Cost-Benefit Analysis
of vegetable waste produced by food industry for use as animal feed.
This study analyzed all food wastes produced throughout the Basque The purpose of Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is slightly different to
country, analyzing each waste stream for potential impacts on health, LCC, in that it sets out to compare the net benefits of multiple potential
LCA of the environmental impacts associated with processing each to strategies, rather than focusing on finding the most cost-effective way
animal feed and finally, technical feasibility via means of a pilot study. of implementing a predetermined strategy. These costs and benefits can
Salemdeeb et al. (2017) also explored the use of food waste as pig feed, be financial, social or environmental provided a common currency can
this time in the UK, using a hybrid consequential/input-output LCA be found and that they can be reasonably internalized by the company
with normalized environmental and human health indicators to com- doing the CBA (Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis et al., 2018; Lee et al.,
pare four scenarios: a) conversion into dry pig feed, b) conversion into 2017). Just like LCC, costs/benefits are typically clustered around in-
wet pig feed, c) anaerobic digestion, and d) composting. In this sce- itial set up costs (i.e. building construction, equipment purchases),
nario, conversion of food waste to wet pig feed presented the best running costs (e.g. energy, labour) and end of life costs (e.g. decom-
outcomes both from and environmental and health perspective. Reich missioning and waste disposal) (Demichelis et al., 2018; Tesfaye et al.,
(2005) combines LCA with an economic and subsequent environmental 2018; Christoforou et al., 2016). These costs are then balanced against
LCC in order to assign weighted cost and environmental impact values the projected market value of the products for each estimated year of
to several options for valorising municipal waste including incineration, the project life, and then discounted to take into account the typical
anaerobic digestion, composting and landfill with somewhat incon- higher industry preference for immediate return on investment (ROI)
clusive results. Whilst LCSA has the potential to capture the full range of providing the Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)
environmental, social, economic, technological and company fit in- (Dimou et al., 2016).
dicators that would be required by a company attempting to identify The larger these are, typically, the more reliable a given project is.
their optimal waste valorisation process, there are still a number of In this way, Arora et al. (2018) calculate that pectin and seed oil
427
extraction from mango waste (currently sent to landfill in India with no Table 2
value) could generate an NPV of $43.2 million. Once NPV has been Summary of which of the criteria for assessing a food waste valorisation process
calculated, the CBA process is typically followed by a sensitivity ana- have been/can be included in each of the six methodologies observed in the
lysis which takes into account a variety of factors which may influence literature review.
costs and benefits over the project lifespan. These may include seasonal Analysis of a given LCA LCSA LCC CBA FCA MCDA
changes in feedstock availability or variation in market demand and are food waste
a good way of identifying potential risks. For example, Kwan et al. valorisation strategy C-LCC E-LCC S-LCC
based upon:
(2015) identified that, out of all possible variables, fluctuations in lactic
acid price would have the biggest impact on project viability. Where Economic Viability X X X X X X X
multiple risk sources are identified, a typical response would be to in- Environmental X X X X X X X
crease the discount rate substantially, effectively only going ahead with Sustainability
Social Sustainability X X X X X
projects that provided the fastest payoff, so as to reduce exposure to risk
Technological X X
(Arora et al., 2018). Maturity
Alignment with X X
3.5. Full Cost Accounting Company Goals
Full Cost Accounting (FCA), like CBA, enables the monetary va-
luation of social and environmental costs/benefits as well as financial
costs. However, unlike CBA, the taxonomies of environmental, social Advantages cited were ease of application and the fact that it does not
and financial costs are not limited to internal costs and can therefore matter whether the indicators are proportionate or of very different
consider cost borne by other companies. The FCA methodology also scales. However, a potential drawback is that results are not displayed
differs from LCC in that the assignment of monetary values to indicators in a clear hierarchy, the process is susceptible to rank reversal if new
is not necessarily based on market prices and can be based on, for ex- alternatives are introduced and there are no guidelines for weighting of
ample, willingness to pay. One example is the 2014 Food Wastage indicators.
Footprint Final Report from the FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), 2014). This report calculated that global food 3.7. Implications of review findings
waste annually accounted for $695 billion in environmental impacts on
the atmosphere, water, soil and biodiversity, $882 billion in social In summary, the methods identified from the literature to assess
impacts concerning livelihood loss, wellbeing loss, pesticide poisoning food waste valorisation options were LCA. LCSA, LCC, CBA, FCA and
and conflict, as well as $1055 billion in direct financial losses. However, MCDA. This section assesses the level to which each of these meth-
whilst increasingly established, such valuations of environmental and odologies incorporates, or has the capacity to incorporate, the five
social costs are still challenging for a company to internalize making parameters outlined in the introduction (summarized in Table 2). To
FCA more appropriate for national scale investigation by NGOs and recap, these were: economic viability (i.e. costs vs benefits), environ-
Governments (Liu and Opdam, 2014; Liu et al., 2010). mental performance (e.g. emissions, effects on human health), societal
impact (e.g. job creation, noise generation), technological maturity
3.6. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (e.g. readiness of technology for valorisation at a lab scale, market
readiness for the product and potential of the required technology to
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) refers to a wide range of integrate with existing company processes) and finally alignment with
methods used to rank and compare multiple indicators of value to the company goals (strategic alignment, brand image and fit with existing
user across multiple scales. There are a number of approaches which expertise). Some of the approaches modelled are better suited to pro-
include distance functions (selection of indicators which are as far away viding a thorough assessment of a single group of indicators on a cradle
from a predefined undesirable reference point as possible), outranking to grave scale, for example, environmental or monetary cost indicators
(an indicator is selected if it is at least as good as its nearest competitor), in LCA and LCC respectively. One way of getting around this would be
hierarchical (indicators are assigned a place in a hierarchy and assessed to use LCSA or FCA which both have provisions to include all of the
pairwise for prioritization) and weighted summation approaches (value aforementioned indicators whilst still retaining the rigorous cradle to
for different scales of indicators are normalized, weighted and summed grave assessment of impact/cost.
to rank options) (Diaz-Balteiro et al., 2017). Whilst not as commonly However, these methods present their own challenges in the sense
applied in the study of food waste valorisation as other techniques such that they are not standarised methodologies, but instead are frame-
as LCA, the most common MCDA approaches appear to be the hierarchy works for a variety of different methods without consistent guidelines
and weighted summation-based approaches. For example, Iacovidou or indicators. Not only is this problematic in its own right, for a com-
and Voulvoulis (2018) utilize a weighted summation variant of MCDA pany to pick up and apply when they may not have expertise in sus-
in order to compare social, environmental and economic impacts of two tainability modelling, or the time and ability to collect the necessary
different options for household food waste - anerobic digestion and on- data, but the life cycle focus may be unnecessary at this scoping stage.
site grinding for release and treatment with other sewerage. Findings This is because whilst a life cycle-based assessment is very important in
suggested that anaerobic digestion performed slightly better, with the selecting the best way of implementing a valorisation pathway, it is not
authors highlighting that the strength of this method lies in its proce- always necessary to initially select which out of many possible valor-
dural simplicity, allowing easy normalization, integration and com- isation pathways are likely to be the best for a company. For example, if
parison of multiple scales of indicators (Iacovidou and Voulvoulis, a company is looking for an alternative to their spoilt fruit within a
2018). However, they caution that the method is prone to errors in data factory, the initial need may well be simply to find out what valorisa-
entries and particularly weighting, because, if one indicator scores tion processes are available and for each, to identify the cost of a pro-
particularly high for a process compared to other processes, and the cess (set up, running and end of life), the immediate environmental
weighting happens to be high, then it can significantly distort the final impact (emissions to land air and water), social impact (jobs created
rank. Kapepula et al. (2007) use a different MCDA variant, known as and noise) technological readiness (i.e. is the process ready to install at
PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrich- an industrial level and is the market ready for the output) and finally its
ment Evaluations) which is an outranking approach. Through this, they impact with company goals (e.g. does the product of valorisation fit our
are able to rank a series of possible food waste interventions in Dakar. brand image).
428
Whilst it could reasonably be claimed that a company could simply goals. To achieve this, SWaVI is composed of five stages as summarized
adjust the scope and boundaries of their LCSA to achieve this, other below in Fig. 1.
techniques such as the Weighted Summation or Outranking MCDA
variants may be more appropriate given that they are typically faster, 4.1. SWaVI stage 1: conceptual modelling of target unavoidable food waste
simpler and avoid some of the challenges of conversion of different
indicator scales to common units. In particular, for a company con- The first stage concerns the modelling of where in a company's
sidering many potential criteria, the weighted summation method of- operations UFW is created, to what volumes and timescales it is created
fers the simplest rank hierarchy, being easy to assign weights to and and what relevant legislation and wider stakeholder interests are in-
without risk of rank reversal. That is not to say that life cycle-based volved (Fig. 2).
approaches are not relevant and certainly, once a company has selected This stage begins by identifying the value chain boundaries of UFW,
the best valorisation process for their bespoke situation via screening, for example, if a company is involved in some primary production in
the goal would then switch to optimal implementation of that process addition to processing, is UFW considered in one or both stages? The
and this is where wider life cycle impacts become more relevant. For next step is to fully model the processes which lead to waste production
example, if a company identified through such a screening process that in the selected stages, considering the volumes that are produced, their
the optimal way of valorising their spoilt fruit was to send it to a nearby chemical composition, and the timescale of this production (e.g. how
farm for anaerobic digestion, then consideration of wider goals such as much is produced hourly/daily/monthly and are there any fluctuations
costs of environmental impacts, social impacts and financial costs as- over time?). Having identified exactly where the waste originates, the
sociated with transport, activities on the farm and ultimate use of the next step is to identify what relevant legislation applies to that parti-
outputs including energy and digestate would need to be considered to cular UFW stream, broadly speaking, in terms of permitting, taxes and
ensure anerobic digestion was performed in the most sustainable way. what relevant financial incentives might be available. At this stage, it is
However, that level of detail would not have been necessary to initially also important for a company to consider whether there are any value
identify and compare the scenarios that were most viable for that chain partners who are indirectly dependent on the UFW in questions,
company. For this reason, the weighted summation variant of MCDA for example, if local farmers are collecting a waste for use as a free
was chosen as the basis for the pragmatic framework presented in this animal feed, what would they do if this supply became unavailable?
paper. It is appreciated that a downside to this variant is that there is Identifying and modelling UFW streams in this way is a fundamental
large amount of freedom provided to users to select indicators for use prerequisite for identifying realistic potential valorisation scenarios in
and weightings assigned, meaning that the outcome scores may not Stage 2 of the framework, and subsequently relevant assessment criteria
accurately represent the situation in reality. In an attempt to mitigate in Stage 3.
this, it was decided that the framework would incorporate the widest
possible range of relevant indicators for food and drink manufacturers, 4.2. SWaVI stage 2: identification of possible valorisation scenarios
as suggested by the literature, that equal weighting would be strongly
recommended and that collection of data for these indicators would be The second framework stage involves the identification of realistic
based on empirical techniques, namely LCA and CBA. The formation of potential valorisation scenarios based on the waste stream character-
the pragmatic framework and the integration of the MCDA, LCA and istics in the first stage of the framework. For any UFW stream, there will
CBA techniques is now described in detail. be multiple possible valorisation scenarios depending upon factors such
as seasonality, chemical composition and market demand. Table 3
4. Pragmatic framework development provides initial guidance on potential valorisation scenarios for a
number of key food commodities (based on the Agrocycle database,
This section presents a Sustainable Waste Valorisation Identifier 2016) and their main UFW streams based on their volumes and sea-
‘SWaVI’ for the UK Food and Drink Sector. Its goal is to enable com- sonality (Patsios et al., 2017). As can be seen, many waste streams have
panies of any size to identify and compare different strategies for va- potential for anaerobic digestion, or use as fertilizer or animal feed,
lorising Unavoidable Food Waste (UFW), based on economic, environ- typically requiring low initial investment from a company, but also
mental and social impact, technological readiness and fit with company resulting in small, if any, financial return thus making them best suited
when the goal is simply a more sustainable form of disposal (Selection
Code A in Table 3). It should also be noted that policy legislation, such
as tax breaks on the Climate Change Levy (CCL) and whether anaerobic
digestion takes place as part of a certified Combined Heat & Power
(CHP) system, could potentially make such valorisation scenarios more
profitable than they would initially seem (UK Government, 2019).
Certain foods also have characteristics, such as high cellulose con-
tent, which make them ideally suited for conversion to bioethanol, at-
tracting a potentially higher value, but also potentially incurring sig-
nificant transport distances, a high environmental impact, and variable
returns depending on fossil fuel market performance (i.e. the cheaper
fossil fuel is, the lower the competitiveness of bioethanol). Given the
complexity of setting up this process at scale, it is unlikely a company
could perform this option outside of an independent biorefinery.
However, the high environmental impact can be partially offset by
combining this approach with anaerobic digestion of the residues left
over from bioethanol production which may also generate revenue
(Rocha-Meneses et al., 2017). Other waste streams possess unique va-
luable compounds that may be particularly valuable. At the same time,
extraction, processing and marketing of these products may require
high initial investment cost as well as year-round high-volume stable
supplies of waste. By comparing these considerations with the compo-
Fig. 1. Pragmatic framework overview. sition, quantity and seasonality of their own waste, a company can
429
Fig. 2. The three stages involved in identifying an UFW source, delimiting the system boundaries, characterizing the UFW and identifying relevant policy/stake-
holder considerations.
Table 3
Different valorisation scenarios for a variety of commonly occurring unavoidable food wastes. Selection codes refer to: a) Low value, to be used when either: i) ability
to invest in valorisation is low or, ii) the goal is sustainable disposal rather than profit, b) Bioethanol has the potential for high value returns but requires year-round
reliably high feedstock volumes, and the ability to offset potential transport costs and environmental impacts, c) Highest value but requires high volumes, stable
annual production and significant capital investment. Compiled using data from the Agrocycle database, 2016.
Commodity Main Internal Associated UFW Potential Valorisation Scenario Selection Code
Milk (Cow) Whey waste water Drying for animal feed A

Use as fertilizer A
Processing for human consumption (e.g. whey powder, lactose, cheese) C
Production of bioethanol B
Anaerobic digestion A
Grains Bran Drying for animal feed A
Extraction of components for human consumption (e.g. protein, oil, starch) C
Potatoes Peels Extraction of valuable compounds for human consumption (e.g. starch) C
Sugar beet Molasses Drying for animal feed A
Extraction of valuable compounds (particularly minerals) C
Grapes Pomace Drying for animal feed A
Extraction of valuable compounds for human consumption C
Tomatoes Peels Drying for animal feed A
Extraction of valuable compounds (e.g. lycopene) C
Olives Pomace Drying for animal feed A
Oilseeds Cake Drying for animal feed A
Extraction of components for human consumption (e.g. pectin, essential oils) C
Apples Pomace Drying for animal feed A
Extraction of valuable compounds (e.g. pectin) C
Citrus Pomace/Peels Drying for animal feed A
Extraction of valuable compounds (e.g. pectin, limonene) C
Onions Peels Anaerobic digestion A
Extraction of valuable compounds (particularly dietary fiber, flavonoids and S-alk(en)yl-L-cysteine sulfoxide C
Rice Husk/bran Drying for animal feed A
Meat/Fish Trimmings/Bones Anaerobic digestion A
430
Table 4
Evaluation criteria taxonomy.
Type of criteria Sub-Criteria Units Reference
J. Stone, et al.
Economic Viability Raw Material Cost (RMC) £/ton (Kim et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr et al., ; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Demichelis et al., 2018; Tesfaye et al., 2018; Christoforou et al., 2016; Dimou et al., 2016; Arora et al., 2018; Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2014; Liu and Opdam, 2014; Liu et al., 2010; Kapepula et al., 2007; Patsios et al., 2017; Environmental
taxes and reli, 2019; Rocha-Meneses et al., 2017; Styles et al., 2016)
Capital Costs (e.g. land/ £/item (Kim et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr et al., ; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
equipment) (CC) et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Demichelis et al., 2018; Tesfaye et al., 2018; Christoforou et al., 2016; Dimou et al., 2016; Arora et al., 2018; Food
Operational & Maintenance £/hour (Kim et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr et al., ; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
Costs (e.g. depreciation, repairs, et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Demichelis et al., 2018; Tesfaye et al., 2018; Christoforou et al., 2016; Dimou et al., 2016; Arora et al., 2018; Food
labor) (OMC) and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2014; Liu and Opdam, 2014; Liu et al., 2010; Kapepula et al., 2007; Patsios et al., 2017; Environmental
Sales Revenue (both primary and £/item or ton (Kim et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr et al., ; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
by/co-products) (SR) et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Demichelis et al., 2018; Tesfaye et al., 2018; Christoforou et al., 2016; Dimou et al., 2016; Arora et al., 2018; Food
Utilities Cost (e.g. energy and £/unit (Kim et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr et al., ; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
water) (UC) et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Demichelis et al., 2018; Tesfaye et al., 2018; Christoforou et al., 2016; Dimou et al., 2016; Arora et al., 2018; Food
Government Subsidies/ £/unit of capacity (Kim et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr et al., ; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
Incentives (GSI) et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Demichelis et al., 2018; Tesfaye et al., 2018; Christoforou et al., 2016; Dimou et al., 2016; Arora et al., 2018; Food
Net Present Value (sum of all of £ (Kim et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr et al., ; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
431
the above + discounting) (NPV) et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; Demichelis et al., 2018; Tesfaye et al., 2018; Christoforou et al., 2016; Dimou et al., 2016; Arora et al., 2018; Food
Environmental Energy, Water and Mineral Volume consumed/ton (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017)
Sustainability Efficiency (EWME) product
Climate Change Potential (CCP) kg CO2-eq. (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017; Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016)
Human Toxicity Potential (HTP) CTUh/mPE year (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017)
Photochemical Ozone Formation kg NMVOC eq (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017; Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016)
Potential (POFP)
Acidification Potential (AP) AE/mPE year (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017; Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016)
Eutrophication Potential (EP) kg N eq./mPE year (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017; Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016)
Ozone Depletion Potential kg CFC-11-eq./mPE year (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017; Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016; Guerrero and Muñoz, 2018; Lam et al., 2018; Brunklaus
(ODP) et al., 2018; Our, 1987; Guinée, 2016; San Martin et al., 2016; Reich, 2005; Guinee et al., 2010; Cinelli et al., 2013; De Menna et al., 2016; Kim
et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr et al, 2011; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
taxes and reli, 2019; Rocha-Meneses et al., 2017; Styles et al., 2016; Lundie and Peters, 2005; Parfitt et al., 2016b; WRAP, 2014)
Ecotoxicity Potential (EP) CTUe/mPE year (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017; Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016; Guerrero and Muñoz, 2018; Lam et al., 2018; Brunklaus
et al., 2018; Our, 1987; Guinée, 2016; San Martin et al., 2016; Reich, 2005; Guinee et al., 2010; Cinelli et al., 2013; De Menna et al., 2016; Kim
et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr et al., 2011; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
Land Use Change (LUC) m2a (Vandermeersch et al., 2014; Salemdeeb et al., 2017; Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016; Guerrero and Muñoz, 2018; Lam et al., 2018; Brunklaus
et al., 2018; Our, 1987; Guinée, 2016; San Martin et al., 2016; Reich, 2005; Guinee et al., 2010; Cinelli et al., 2013; De Menna et al., 2016; Kim
et al., 2011; De Menna et al., 2018; Swarr, et al., 2011; Daylan and Ciliz, 2016; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010; Benis
(continued on next page)
Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 425–438
select the most appropriate valorisation strategies based on the waste
(Den Boer et al., 2007; Kythreotou et al., 2014; European Commission.(BAT), 2019; Den Boer, Brouwer, Schroten, Van Essen; Buksti et al., 2015;
(Den Boer et al., 2007; Kythreotou et al., 2014; European Commission.(BAT), 2019; Den Boer, Brouwer, Schroten, Van Essen; Buksti et al., 2015)
characteristics and company goals generated in SWaVI Stage 1 and
available valorisation scenarios outlined in SWaVI Stage 2. Once this
has been achieved, the next step is to choose suitable criteria by which
to evaluate them.
(Den Boer et al., 2007; Kythreotou et al., 2014; European Commission.(BAT), 2019; Den Boer, Brouwer, Schroten, Van Essen)
4.3. SWaVI stage 3: selection of evaluation criteria
In order to identify which of the shortlisted valorisation scenarios is

best suited to the user, the different possibilities must be evaluated
according to their economic, social, environmental, and brand image
impact, as well as their technology readiness level. To achieve this,
Table 4 presents a taxonomy of indicators compiled via the previously
described review of the literature concerning assessment of food waste
valorisation. All of the criteria displayed in Table 4 have been identified
in the literature as being fundamental to sustainable valorisation of
food waste and so should be of relevance to all food and drink manu-
facturers regardless of size or waste stream being evaluated. At a
minimum, the criteria in Table 4 would be applied to the direct impacts
generated by a company when valorising their food waste in a given
way, for example, direct emissions, building costs and noise generation
associated with a new process to extract valuable compounds from food
(N 2020—Work Program, 2014; Solberg Hjorth and Brem, 2016)
waste. In certain scenarios, waste may be sent to a third party for va-
(Solberg Hjorth and Brem, 2016; Sauser et al., 2006; Paun)
lorisation, for example, anaerobic digestion on a nearby farm and in

this case, the user should apply the criteria from Table 4 to that third
(Solberg Hjorth and Brem, 2016; Sauser et al., 2006)
party to avoid externalization of impact.
4.4. SWaVI stage 4: data collection and evaluation

(Chong et al., 2016; Den Boer et al., 2007)
Stage 4 of the SWaVI framework describes the collection of relevant

data for each of the evaluation criteria identified in Stage 3 and the
process by which that data are analyzed. To facilitate data collection,
the evaluation criteria selected in SWaVI Stage 3 should be categorized
Den Boer et al. (2007)
in an evaluation matrix and values for each recorded (see Table 5 for an
Kijak and Moy, 2004)
example). Measurements should be precise and recorded per ton of

waste valorised, using the units listed in Table 4.
WRAP (2019)
WRAP (2019)
WRAP (2019)
In this way, a Cost-Benefit Analysis is performed to generate the Net

Reference
Present Value of each scenario, a Life Cycle Assessment is used to

generate each of the environmental values and consultation with in-
ternal process managers and where necessary external stakeholders is
Number of vehicles/ton of FW
performed to generate, social, technological maturity and alignment

number of people benefitted/
1-5 (1 = poor, 3 = moderate,

1-9 (1 = feeling something is
observed, 9 = actual system
with company goals indicators. For full details of the recording and
connect but not integrate,
1-7 (1 = technologies can
7 = seamless integration)
answer to actual need of

1-9 (1 = basic principles
missing, 9 = completed
analysis processes in a real-world example, please review the supple-

mentary material document (Section 2). The example evaluation matrix
in Table 5 highlights that when completed in this way, the scales of the
different evaluation criteria are very different and cannot be directly
5 = strong)
5 = strong)
5 = strong)
++/−
++/−
market)
compared. To overcome this, the weighted summation method (WSM),

proven)
Units
as described by Herwijnen (2006) is applied to the values recorded in

ton
dB
the evaluation matrix (Herwijnen, 2006). In the weighted summation

approach, each of the evaluation criteria and their sub-criteria have
Demand Readiness Level (DRL)
their units removed and are standarised based upon their position in
Technology Readiness Level
Fit with Company Expertise

Integration Readiness Level
Fit with Brand Image (FBI)
relation to the highest and lowest recorded values for that criteria
Social Acceptability (SA)
Traffic Generation (TG)

Odors Generation (OG)
Fit with Strategy (FS)
which is expressed on a scale of 0–1. This is described in Equation (1)

Noise Creation (NC)
Job Creation (JC)
used for non-beneficial criteria (e.g. environmental pollution) and

Equation (2) for beneficial criteria (job creation). In both equations,
Sub-Criteria
Vi = the standardized value for a given evaluation criterion (i) and

Sij = the original score for evaluation criterion i under valorisation
(TRL)
(FCE)
(IRL)
option j.
min Sij
Technological Maturity
Vi =
(1)
Social Sustainability
Sij
Company Goals
Table 4 (continued)
Alignment with
Type of criteria
Sij
Vi =
max Sij (2)
The standardized values for each evaluation criterion and sub-cri-
terion are then assigned a weight. As all of the evaluation criteria are
432
equally essential in enabling sustainable valorisation of food waste, variation and environmental factors in the growing regions and whilst
unless there is very good reason, an equal weighting method must be CF encourages high quality control in its suppliers, the low margin, high
used (see Supplementary data, Table 4 for details). In this way, the volume nature of the business means that such 2nd class fruits easily
standardized values for each of the evaluation sub-criteria can then be slip through. However, an average of 939,867 kg annually is not fit for
multiplied by their respective weightings and summed to give a total human consumption due to serious damage or decomposition. Whilst
value for valorisation scenario as shown in Equation (3). exact figures on where this waste occurs are not available, it is thought
N to predominantly originate during transportation to CF and waste
Score (j ) = WiVi generation at CF is minimal due to careful packaging and temperature
Wi (3) control. All 2nd class fruit is currently sent to wholesale market at a
significantly lower price than they would receive from their intended
customer (typically 80% lower). All uneatable waste is sent for anae-
4.5. SWaVI stage 5: sensitivity analysis, interpretation and selection of robic digestion at a net loss for CF. The results also highlight the sea-
valorisation strategy sonal nature of citrus waste production at CF. In some cases, obvious
factors such as seasonal demand around the festive season drive waste
The final section of the SWaVI framework describes the process for in December/January. Others are less easy to predict, with the values
applying sensitivity analysis to explore how minor variations in the for April being disproportionately influenced by particularly bad
values of each of the evaluation criteria may alter the ranking of the weather in supplier regions in April 2013 which severely impacted the
valorisation scenarios. This is particularly important if the results for cosmetic quality of the harvest. Finally, the interviews explored value
the valorisation scenarios being compared are very close, as it shows chain stakeholders who might stand to lose if the way in which this
the evaluation criteria which are most sensitive to change and can be waste stream was treated changed. The main stakeholders who would
used as an indicator of risk. be affected by a change to management of uneatable waste are a local
However, even if the results for the valorisation scenarios are not farm, Guy & Wright, who grow tomato plants for one of the UK's top
close, sensitivity analysis can provide highly useful insights into areas supermarkets. Digestion of the waste generates enough thermal and
of exposure, particularly from the wider supply network which may not electrical energy for the 3-acre farm to be completely self-sufficient and
have otherwise been considered in the selection of a given valorisation sustainable.
scenario. Having finished describing the SWaVI process, a case study As the farm is the sole-recipient of CF's uneatable waste, this re-
application with a major UK fruit consolidator is now presented. presents a significant volume of their input and whilst it is likely al-
ternatives may be found, the transport distance would likely increase,
5. Case study thus decreasing the economic and environmental efficiency of this
treatment option. Therefore, this has been ranked as a medium risk.
The case study application of the SWaVI framework was performed With regard to legislation and the current management of citrus waste,
in collaboration with Chingford Fruit Ltd (referred to from now as as CF does not emit any of their waste to the environment, they are
“CF”). The purpose was solely to demonstrate the potential of the exempt from landfill tax and environmental permits. They are also
SWaVI framework and was not designed to guide CF in actually im- small enough in operations that they could not apply for a reduction in
plementing a change in how they valorised their food waste. CF, part of climate change levy payments and current process are not eligible for
A G Thames Holdings, is a large fresh fruit consolidator, specializing in capital allowances on energy-efficient equipment and so no legislative
the sourcing and packaging of citrus fruits, stone fruits, top fruits and considerations were considered during this case study. SWaVI Stage 2
kiwis from a large range of international sources and their subsequent now describes how appropriate valorisation scenarios for this waste
supply to the UK wholesale and retail sectors. Their position, effectively stream were identified.
as a screening point for fresh fruit entering the UK means that they
produce large volumes of waste, a significant proportion of which is not 5.2. SWaVI stage 2: identification of possible valorisation scenarios
fit for human consumption. This citrus waste is also rich in potential
valuable compounds ranging from pectin to limonene and flavonoids Whilst the current method of managing 2nd class waste via
making CF an ideal test scenario (Ciriminna et al., 2014). As such, the wholesale, thus enabling human consumption, ranks high from a social
following sections correspond to application of each of the 5 SWaVI and environmental perspective, it does represent a substantial eco-
framework sections respectively. For conciseness, only the case study nomic loss of approximately 80% for CF. With this in mind, a number of
outcomes and implications are described in detail, the collection pro- valorisation options were considered (see Table 3). Anaerobic digestion
cess and the data analysis procedures are described in detail in Section and animal feed were discounted because the economic returns were
2 of the supplementary data. likely to be lower than was already achieved through wholesale as 2nd
fruit and because human consumption is superior to animal consump-
5.1. SWaVI stage 1: conceptual modelling of target unavoidable food waste tion and energy recovery on the waste hierarchy (Bampidis and
Robinson, 2006). Consideration therefore turned toward the extraction
The first step in the conceptual modelling was to identify where in of valuable compounds. Whilst citrus is well known for its cellulose and
their value chain CF had control over waste generation, and if there sugar content, the market value of cellulose and bioethanol that is de-
were multiple waste streams, which would be the focus of valorisation rived from fermentation of sugar are both low. As a result, it was
efforts. As shown in Fig. 3, CF identified that they were responsible for decided to focus on more valuable compounds, namely, pectin, an
managing waste in transit from the supplier (typically in containers via important stabilizer and thickening agent used by the food industry
cargo ships) and within their facility in Dartford, UK, prior to dispatch (John et al., 2017). Pectin is also a high-value material with prices
to customers. As described previously, within this boundary, citrus fruit averaging at $15 per kg and projected growth to $1.9 billion by 2025
constituted by far the largest waste source and was the sole waste due to growing global demand for healthy filling and thickening agents
stream to be focused on in this case study. CF identified that on average in food and increasingly medicine (Sharma et al., 2017; Ciriminna
(between 2013 and 2017) 4,399,834 kgs of citrus waste was generated et al., 2016). A number of other factors besides economics also make
a year. The majority of this, on average 3,459,967 kg annually, is in the pectin extraction an attractive proposal for CF. One is that whilst there
form of ‘2nd class fruit’, in other words, fruit that is safe for human is some seasonal variation in waste, overall, supply is continuous and
consumption, but which will not meet the quality standards of CF's relatively predictable each year. Another is that pectin extraction fits
customers. This waste originates primarily as a result of natural well with CF's brand image and market position as a major fresh fruits
433
consolidator and supplying pectin domestically, particularly with po-

litical events such as the departure of the UK from the European Union
e.g. fit with company between 2019 and 2020, would likely allow CF to expand their food
manufacturing customer base. From a technical perspective, whilst
traditional pectin extraction methods are typically large scale and can
be environmentally harmful, a number of recent developments using
Alignment with Company Goals
strategy
Microwave Assisted Pectin Extraction (MAPE) mean that set up costs

are more viable for smaller companies and sustainability overall, is
5
1
1
much higher (Maran et al., 2014; Eskilsson and Björklund, 2000). With
the aforementioned considerations in mind, it was decided that com-
e.g. fit with brand
parison would take place between wholesale of 2nd class fruit and
MAPE with data for this later process being collected from empirical
research conducted at the University of York as described by Garcia-
image
Garcia et al. (2019). SWaVI Stage 3 will now explore how indicators
5
3
3
were identified for the assessment of the two selected valorisation

scenarios.
Technological Maturity
e.g. IRL
5
7
5.3. SWaVI stage 3: selection of evaluation criteria

e.g. TRL
With regard to the economic criteria, the MAPE scenario would

involve significant capital investment to purchase equipment as well as
7
8
9
lifespan running costs and end of life costs associated with any residues.
e.g. traffic
Therefore, Raw Material Cost (RMC), Capital Costs (CC), Operational &
Social Sustainability
Maintenance Costs (OMC), Sales Revenue (SR), Utilities Cost (UC), and
Government Subsidies/Incentives (GSI) were selected for inclusion.
3
1
1
Additionally, a Cost-Benefit Analysis was performed on these criteria so

e.g. noise
as to generate a discounted Net Present Value which took into account

80 dB
10 dB
30 dB
the fact that returns in the present are generally preferred over those
that would take a long time to be realized. Whilst it is clear that set-up
costs for the wholesale scenario are much lower, there are still set-up
e.g. photochemical ozone formation
and running costs associated and so these criteria were deemed suitable
for both scenarios.
In terms of environmental evaluation criteria, it was identified that
both the wholesale and the MAPE process had the potential to result in
0.001 kg NMVOC eq
0.002 kg NMVOC eq
emissions to air, water and land for which CF would be responsible.

0.01 kg NMVOC eq
Therefore, Climate Change Potential (CCP), Human Toxicity Potential

(HTP), Photochemical Ozone Formation Potential (POFP), Acidification
potential
Potential (AP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Ozone Depletion

Potential, and Ecotoxicity Potential (EP) were identified for inclusion.
Land Use Change (LUC) was not included as neither the MAPE process
Environmental Sustainability
or wholesale of waste impacted on land use change. Additionally,

whilst Energy, Water and Mineral Efficiency (EWME) was identified as
e.g. Climate change
being relevant, it was not included due to challenges in obtaining sui-

table data from CF.
50 kg CO2-eq
20 kg CO2-eq
35 kg CO2-eq
In terms of social evaluation criteria, Social Acceptability (SA), Odor

potential
Generation (OG), Noise Creation (NC), Job Creation, (JC) and Traffic
Generation (TG) were identified as being relevant to the MAPE scenario
and wholesale scenarios alike. Likewise, with regard to technological
maturity of each scenario, Technology Readiness Level (TRL),
Economic Viability
e.g. Net Present
Integration Readiness Level (IRL) and Demand Readiness Level (DRL)

Example evaluation criteria data collection matrix.
were all identified as being appropriate due to the fact that MAPE, as a
£500,000
£100,000
new process involved not only the use of new technologies, but also
£20,000
Value
their integration with broader value chains and fit with market demand
for a new product. Finally, in order to establish how well the MAPE
scenario aligned with CF, Fit with Strategy (FS), Fit with Brand Image
(FBI) and Fit with Company Expertise (FCE) were selected. For each of
the aforementioned criteria, the boundaries for impact were delimited
valuable compound
anaerobic digestion
by where the valorisation scenario deviated from the normal procedure

for disposal of that waste and were limited to direct impacts borne by
animal feed
extraction
CF. Full details on these boundaries can be found in the supplementary

Evaluation Criteria
data document. In Stage 4 of the SWaVI framework, data collected for

each of the selected evaluation criteria is analyzed using the approach
Sub-Criteria
set out in Section 4.4.

Scenario
Table 5
434
Fig. 3. Overview of conceptual modelling results for CF Fruits.
5.4. SWaVI stage 4: data collection and evaluation significantly less value than if the fruit had been in 1st class condition,
did result in a positive NPV because there were no additional costs
Data for each of the selected evaluation criteria was collected in the associated with managing the waste in this way.
evaluation matrix shown in Table 6. The values for each criterion With regard to pectin extraction, even though pectin itself is more
correspond to valorisation of the total volume of 2nd class fruit pro- valuable per kg than 2nd class fruit, its extraction resulted in negative
duced by CF. Details on the collection, aggregation, weighting and NPV because the yield of pectin is still relatively low compared to the
normalization of each of the criteria presented in Table 6 can be found volume of 2nd class fruit available for sale and requires significant
in the supplementary document. Findings suggest that economically, capital investment and expenditure on running costs. In terms of en-
sale of 2nd class fruit to wholesale market, whilst resulting in vironmental impacts, both scenarios demonstrated similar impacts
435
Table 6
Completed evaluation matrix for wholesale and MAPE scenarios.
Evaluation Criteria Sub-Criteria Unit Pectin Extraction Valorisation Scenario Wholesale Valorisation Scenario
Economic Net Present Value £ −26156509.91 23912776.27

Environmental Climate Change Potential kg CO2-eq 190298185 7237.5
Human Toxicity Potential CTUh 41.19 0
Photochemical Ozone Formation Potential kg NMVOC eq 611260.84 20.7
Acidification Potential molecular H+ eq 964177.47 23.4
Freshwater Eutrophication Potential kg P eq. 65162.71 0.56
Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) kg CFC-11-eq 6.04 0
Ecotoxicity Potential CTUe 1119875985.67 43500
Social Social Acceptability +/++ ++ ++
Odor Generation +/++ ++ ++
Noise Creation dB within 15 m 90 75
Job Creation Total jobs created 4 0
Traffic No. of vehicles 6.5 131
Technological Maturity Technology Readiness TRL Scale (1–9) 4 9
Integration Readiness IRL Scale (1–7) 6 7
Demand Readiness DRL Scale (1–7) 9 9
Alignment with Company Goals Strategy Fit Likert Scale (1–5) 4 2
Brand Fit Likert Scale (1–5) 4 3
Expertise Fit Likert Scale (1–5) 2 5
related to transport to consumers and whilst compared to conventional proven method of storing 2nd class fruit for wholesale. With regard to
pectin extraction procedures, the MAPE process is more en- alignment with company goals, clearly CF already has the established
vironmentally friendly, this is still an impact not borne by wholesale of contacts to facilitate wholesale of citrus 2nd class waste, whereas they
2nd class fruit. do not currently perform pectin extraction and would need to develop
The MAPE process for valorisation of citrus waste performed better new expertise in this area, hence the higher score for wholesale.
from a social perspective due to its slightly higher job creation rate, However, in terms of strategic fit, wholesale returns a low value and is
lower noise generation and reduced transport impact due to pectin susceptible to market prices. Therefore, in a season of glut, wholesale
being produced in relatively lower volumes compared to 2nd class fruit. value may be very low whereas pectin could offer more stable and
Social acceptability and odor generation were identified as being equal higher value as it is less prone to such fluctuations. Furthermore, in
for both valorisation approaches. In terms of technological maturity, terms of brand fit, CF gains no advantage from anonymously providing
both scenarios scored highly in terms of demand readiness, reflecting fruit to the wholesale market, but if they were to produce jams using
growing global demand for pectin and an established market for 2nd pectin, this could potentially enhance brand image. Hence the pectin
class citrus fruit. However, as the MAPE process is relatively new and to extraction scenario scores highly in both strategic fit and brand image.
the authors knowledge, only exists as a laboratory prototype, it scored An equal weighting was applied, and normalization performed to arrive
lower for technological readiness and ability to integrate with other at the final values for each valorisation scenario presented in Fig. 4. In
processes on site compared with the technologically simple and already this way, a higher score indicates better relative performance in an area
Fig. 4. Normalized, weighted and summed results for the pectin and wholesale waste valorisation scenarios.
436
compared to the alternative scenario and it can be seen that continued full range of unavoidable food wastes generated across the food and
management of 2nd class fruit via wholesale remains the most viable drink manufacturing sector. Moving beyond this, the framework shows
method overall, predominantly due to its higher economic and en- potential to be developed into a digital tool to which companies can
vironmental performance. input the relevant data and receive automated guidance on what are
likely to be the best valorisation scenarios for their bespoke unavoid-
5.5. SWaVI stage 5: sensitivity analysis, interpretation and selection of able food waste situation.
valorisation strategy
Conflicts of interest
A full sensitivity analysis was performed for all of the set-up and
running costs modelled for each scenario. For the MAPE scenario, The authors declare no conflict of interest.
whilst energy intensity is a significant cost, it was identified that pectin
was the most sensitive component and that an 80% increase in price Acknowledgements
could push this scenario into economic viability. This is important for
CF to be aware of for future planning as a number of sources suggest This research was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences
that the global demand for pectin is likely to increase in coming years, Research Council (EPSRC) [grant reference EP/P008771/1]. The au-
with supply constraints pushing up its value further (Ciriminna et al., thors would also like to thank Dr Tom Dugmore from the Green
2016). For the wholesale scenario, the most sensitive aspect was the Chemistry Centre of Excellence at the University of York for assistance
value offered on the wholesale market for 2nd class citrus fruit, in providing cost data for the microwave assisted pectin extraction
something that can vary hugely with global supply and demand. This process presented in this paper. It is also important to acknowledge the
being said, even if prices dropped on average by 50%, wholesale would important contributions delivered by Lorna Clarke from Chingford Fruit
still be the most viable solution for CF. in the form of participating in the case study.
6. Concluding remarks Appendix A. Supplementary data
The SWaVI framework was designed to improve unavoidable food Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
waste management in the food and drink manufacturing sector by en- doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.037.
abling companies to identify potential valorisation strategies and select
the one offering the best economic, environmental and social perfor- References
mance as well as technological maturity and alignment with company
goals. It was developed from a thorough review of existing food waste Amienyo, D., Azapagic, A., 2016 Apr 1. Life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer
valorisation assessment methodologies in the literature and demon- production and consumption in the UK. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (4), 492–509.
Arora, A., Banerjee, J., Vijayaraghavan, R., MacFarlane, D., Patti, A.F., 2018 Jun 30.
strated via a case study with a major UK based fruit consolidator, Process design and techno-economic analysis of an integrated mango processing
Chingford Fruits. In this case study the current method of managing 2nd waste biorefinery. Ind. Crops Prod. 116, 24–34.
class unavoidable citrus waste via wholesale was compared with a Bampidis, V.A., Robinson, P.H., 2006 Jun 28. Citrus by-products as ruminant feeds: a
review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 128 (3–4), 175–217.
novel process to extract high-value pectin. Benis, K., Turan, I., Reinhart, C., Ferrão, P., 2018 Aug 1. Putting rooftops to use–A Cost-
The results highlight that overall, wholesale currently is the optimal Benefit Analysis of food production vs. energy generation under Mediterranean cli-
valorisation strategy, offering superior economic returns, environ- mates. Cities 78, 166–179.
Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., 2011 Aug 1. A life cycle approach to the management of
mental performance and technology readiness level. However, household food waste–a Swedish full-scale case study. Waste Manag. 31 (8),
Microwave Assisted Pectin Extraction did offer improved social per- 1879–1896.
formance based upon job creation and noise levels as well as a better fit Brunklaus, B., Rex, E., Carlsson, E., Berlin, J., 2018 Nov 20. The future of Swedish food
waste: an environmental assessment of existing and prospective valorization tech-
with company strategy and image as it is ultimately a way of upgrading
niques. J. Clean. Prod.(202) 1-0.
rather than disposing of an otherwise unavoidable waste. Furthermore, Buksti, M., Fremming, T., Juul, S., Grandjean, F., Christensen, S., 2015. Surplus Food
sensitivity analysis suggests that in time, growing demand for pectin Redistribution System. Feasibility Final Report. EU Fusions Project.
could push its value high enough to make the MAPE process viable. A Chong, Y.T., Teo, K.M., Tang, L.C., 2016 Apr 1. A lifecycle-based sustainability indicator
framework for waste-to-energy systems and a proposed metric of sustainability.
key strength of the SWaVI framework is that its reliance on a combi- Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 797–809.
nation of LCA, CBA and the weighted summation variant of MCDA Christoforou, E., Kylili, A., Fokaides, P.A., 2016 Oct 1. Technical and economical eva-
enables it to quickly compare multiple valorisation options across a luation of olive mills solid waste pellets. Renew. Energy 96, 33–41.
Cinelli, M., Coles, S.R., Jørgensen, A., Zamagni, A., Fernando, C., Kirwan, K., 2013 Aug 1.
wide range of parameters using empirical rather than subjective inputs, Workshop on life cycle sustainability assessment: the state of the art and research
thus giving it an advantage over other comparable tools (WRAP, 2019). needs—november 26, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (7),
Being based upon the relatively simple weighted summation approach, 1421–1424.
Ciriminna, R., Lomeli-Rodriguez, M., Cara, P.D., Lopez-Sanchez, J.A., Pagliaro, M., 2014.
the SWaVI framework is also intended to be easy to apply and visually Limonene: a versatile chemical of the bioeconomy. Chem. Commun. 50 (97),
interpret, requiring minimal specialist knowledge and time commit- 15288–15296.
ments. Ciriminna, R., Fidalgo, A., Delisi, R., Ilharco, L.M., Pagliaro, M., 2016 Sep 1. Pectin
production and global market. Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 27 (5), 17–20.
However, the framework is not without its limitation and the large Cristóbal, J., Castellani, V., Manfredi, S., Sala, S., 2018 Feb 1. Prioritizing and optimizing
amount of freedom provided to users to select indicators for use and sustainable measures for food waste prevention and management. Waste Manag. 72,
weightings assigned mean that the outcome scores may not accurately 3–16.
Daylan, B., Ciliz, N., 2016 Apr 1. Life cycle assessment and environmental life cycle
represent the situation in reality. To overcome this, the framework
costing analysis of lignocellulosic bioethanol as an alternative transportation fuel.
presents strict evaluation criteria selection and weighting rules. It Renew. Energy 89, 578–587.
should also be stressed that it is not intended as a replacement for other De Menna, F., Loubiere, M., Dietershagen, J., Vittuari, M., Unger, N., 2016. Methodology
life cycle-based modelling approaches such as LCA and LCC, rather, it is for evaluating LCC. REFRESH Deliverable 5.
De Menna, F., Dietershagen, J., Loubiere, M., Vittuari, M., 2018 Mar 1. Life cycle costing
intended as a more streamlined method of initially selecting what is of food waste: a review of methodological approaches. Waste Manag. 73, 1–3.
likely to be the best fit valorisation method and LCA, LCC are re- Demichelis, F., Fiore, S., Pleissner, D., Venus, J., 2018 Oct 31. Technical and economic
commended to guide actual implementation. With regard to future assessment of food waste valorization through a biorefinery chain. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 94, 38–48.
work, there is a need for expanded empirical validation of the SWaVI Den Boer E, Brouwer F, Schroten A, Van Essen H. Are Trucks Taking Their Toll? the
framework in different food and drink manufacturing sectors to fully Environmental, Safety and Congestion Impacts of Lorries in the EU.
test whether the current evaluation criteria can adequality manage the Den Boer, J., Den Boer, E., Jager, J., 2007 Jan 1. LCA-IWM: a decision support tool for
437
sustainability assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag. 27 (8), Lundie, S., Peters, G.M., 2005 Feb 1. Life cycle assessment of food waste management
1032–1045. options. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (3), 275–286.
Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., Romero, C., 2017 Apr 16. Measuring systems Maran, J.P., Sivakumar, V., Thirugnanasambandham, K., Sridhar, R., 2014 Jan 30.
sustainability with multi-criteria methods: a critical review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 258 Microwave assisted extraction of pectin from waste Citrullus lanatus fruit rinds.
(2), 607–616. Carbohydr. Polym. 101, 786–791.
Dimou, C., Vlysidis, A., Kopsahelis, N., Papanikolaou, S., Koutinas, A.A., Kookos, I.K., Martinez-Sanchez, V., Tonini, D., Møller, F., Astrup, T.F., 2016 Apr 1. Life-cycle costing of
2016 Dec 15. Techno-economic evaluation of wine lees refining for the production of food waste management in Denmark: importance of indirect effects. Environ. Sci.
value-added products. Biochem. Eng. J. 116, 157–165. Technol. 50 (8), 4513–4523.
Environmental Taxes, Reliefs and Schemes for Businesses. Available from: https://www. Mirabella, N., Castellani, V., Sala, S., 2014 Feb 15. Current options for the valorization of
gov.uk/green-taxes-and-reliefs/climate-change-levy. Accessed on 12/03/2019. food manufacturing waste: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 28–41.
Eskilsson, C.S., Björklund, E., 2000 Nov 24. Analytical-scale microwave-assisted extrac- HORIZON 2020—Work Programme 2014–2015, 2014. Technology Readiness Levels
tion. J. Chromatogr. A 902 (1), 227–250. (TRL). Brussels.
European Commission.(BAT) Reference Document for Waste Treatment Industrial Our, ., 1987. Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Emissions. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific- Development. United Nations, New York, NY.
and-technical-research-reports/best-available-techniques-bat-reference-document- Parfitt, J., Woodham, S., Swan, E., Castella, T., Parry, A., 2016a. Quantification of food
waste-treatment-industrial-emissions, Accessed date: 5 March 2019. surplus, waste, and related materials in the grocery supply chain. Final reportv2.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2014. Food Wastage Footprint. Full-Cost Parfitt, J., Stanley, C., Thompson, L., 2016b. Guidance for Food and Drink Manufacturers
Accounting. Final Report. and Retailers on the Use of Food Surplus as Animal Feed. WRAP.
Garcia-Garcia, G., 2019. Development of a Framework for Sustainable Management of Patsios, S.Kontogiannopoulos, K.Mitrouli, S.Plakas, A.Karabelas, J.Sotiris, P.Konstantinos,
Industrial Food Waste (Doctoral Dissertation, © Guillermo Garcia-Garcia). Available K.Soultana, M.Konstantinos, P.Anastasios, J. Characterisation of Agricultural Waste
from: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/25552. Co- and By-Products. Agrocycle. Available from: http://www.agrocycle.eu/files/
Guerrero, A.B., Muñoz, E., 2018 Feb 10. Life cycle assessment of second generation 2017/10/D1.2_AgroCycle.pdf, Accessed date: 12 March 2019.
ethanol derived from banana agricultural waste: environmental impacts and energy Paun F. 'Demand Readiness Level'(DRL): A New Tool to Hybridize Market Pull and
balance. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 710–717. Technology Push Approaches-Introspective Analysis of the New Trends in
Guinée, J., 2016. Life cycle sustainability assessment: what is it and what are its chal- Technology Transfer Practices.
lenges? InTaking stock of industrial ecology 45–68 (Springer, Cham). Reich, M.C., 2005 Feb 1. Economic assessment of municipal waste management sys-
Guinee, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buonamici, R., Ekvall, T., tems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle
Rydberg, T., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future. costing (LCC). J. Clean. Prod. 13 (3), 253–263.
Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I. Life Cycle Assessment. Springer Riley, L., Rumsey, J., 2016. Food Statistics Pocket Book. DEFRA.
International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3. 2018. Rocha-Meneses, L., Raud, M., Orupõld, K., Kikas, T., 2017. Second-generation bioethanol
2018. production: a review of strategies for waste valorisation. Agron. Res. 15 (3), 830–847.
Hellweg, S., i Canals, L.M., 2014 Jun 6. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportu- Salemdeeb, R., zu Ermgassen, E.K., Kim, M.H., Balmford, A., Al-Tabbaa, A., 2017 Jan 1.
nities in life cycle assessment. Science 344 (6188), 1109–1113. Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative
Herwijnen, M., 2006. Weighted Summation (WSum). analysis of food waste management options. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 871–880.
Iacovidou, E., Voulvoulis, N., 2018 Dec 1. A multi-criteria sustainability assessment fra- San Martin, D., Ramos, S., Zufía, J., 2016 May 1. Valorisation of food waste to produce
mework: development and application in comparing two food waste management new raw materials for animal feed. Food Chem. 198, 68–74.
options using a UK region as a case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 25 (36), Sauser, B., Verma, D., Ramirez-Marquez, J., Gove, R., 2006 Apr 7. From TRL to SRL: the
35821–35834. concept of systems readiness levels. In: Conference on Systems Engineering Research,
Jamasb, T., Nepal, R., 2010 Oct 1. Issues and options in waste management: a social Los Angeles, CA, pp. 1–10.
cost–benefit analysis of waste-to-energy in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (12), Sharma, K., Mahato, N., Cho, M.H., Lee, Y.R., 2017 Feb 1. Converting citrus wastes into
1341–1352. value-added products: economic and environmentally friendly approaches. Nutrition
John, I., Muthukumar, K., Arunagiri, A., 2017 May 28. A review on the potential of citrus 34, 29–46.
waste for D-Limonene, pectin, and bioethanol production. Int. J. Green Energy 14 (7), Solberg Hjorth, S., Brem, A., 2016 Nov 9. How to assess market readiness for an in-
599–612. novative solution: the case of heat recovery technologies for SMEs. Sustainability 8
Kapepula, K.M., Colson, G., Sabri, K., Thonart, P., 2007 Jan 1. A multiple criteria analysis (11), 1152.
for household solid waste management in the urban community of Dakar. Waste Styles, D., Dominguez, E.M., Chadwick, D., 2016 Aug 1. Environmental balance of the UK
Manag. 27 (11), 1690–1705. biogas sector: an evaluation by consequential life cycle assessment. Sci. Total
Kijak, R., Moy, D., 2004 Jul. A decision support framework for sustainable waste man- Environ. 560, 241–253.
agement. J. Ind. Ecol. 8 (3), 33–50. Swarr, T.E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H.L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A.C., Pagan, R.,
Kim, M.H., Song, Y.E., Song, H.B., Kim, J.W., Hwang, S.J., 2011 Sep 1. Evaluation of food 2011. Environmental Life-Cycle Costing: a Code of Practice.
waste disposal options by LCC analysis from the perspective of global warming: Tesfaye, T., Johakimu, J.K., Chavan, R.B., Sithole, B., Ramjugernath, D., 2018 Jan 1.
jungnang case, South Korea. Waste Manag. 31 (9–10), 2112–2120. Valorisation of mango seed via extraction of starch: preliminary techno-economic
Kwan, T.H., Pleissner, D., Lau, K.Y., Venus, J., Pommeret, A., Lin, C.S., 2015 Dec 1. analysis. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 20 (1), 81–94.
Techno-economic analysis of a food waste valorization process via microalgae cul- Vandermeersch, T., Alvarenga, R.A., Ragaert, P., Dewulf, J., 2014 Jun 1. Environmental
tivation and co-production of plasticizer, lactic acid and animal feed from algal sustainability assessment of food waste valorization options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
biomass and food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 198, 292–299. 87, 57–64.
Kythreotou, N., Florides, G., Tassou, S.A., 2014 Nov 1. A review of simple to scientific Wolf, M.A., Pant, R., Chomkhamsri, K., Sala, S., Pennington, D., 2012. The International
models for anaerobic digestion. Renew. Energy 71, 701–714. Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. JRC Reference Reports.
Lam, C.M., Iris, K.M., Hsu, S.C., Tsang, D.C., 2018 Oct 20. Life-cycle assessment on food Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
waste valorisation to value-added products. J. Clean. Prod. 199, 840–848. WRAP, 2014. Specification for Whole Digestate, Separated Liquor and Separated Fibre
Lee, K., Oh, J.I., Chu, K., Kwon, S., Yoo, S., 2017 Nov 27. Comparison and evaluation of Derived from the Anaerobic Digestion of Source-Segregated Biodegradable Material.
large-scale and on-site recycling systems for food waste via life cycle cost analysis. Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/PAS110_vis_10.pdf,
Sustainability 9 (12), 2186. Accessed date: 12 March 2019.
Lipinski, B., Clowes, A., Goodwin, L., Hanson, C., Swannel, R., Mitchell, P., 2017. SDG WRAP, 2017. Courtauld Commitment 3: Delivering Action on Waste. Available from:
Target 12.3 on Food Loss and Waste: 2017 Progress Report. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/courtauld-commitment-3-delivering-action-waste,
Liu, J., Opdam, P., 2014 Oct 1. Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape Accessed date: 12 March 2019.
planning: introducing a wellbeing-based approach. Landsc. Ecol. 29 (8), 1347–1360. WRAP Valorization Business Case Toolkit. Available from: http://www.wrapcymru.org.
Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Troy, A., 2010 Jan 1. Valuing ecosystem services. Ann. N. uk/register-download-valorisation-business-case-toolkit, Accessed date: 12 March
Y. Acad. Sci. 1185 (1), 54–78. 2019.
438

1 s2.0 S0301479719308461 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0301479719308461 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0301479719308461 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 425–438

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

Development of a pragmatic framework to help food and drink T

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Milk (Cow) Whey waste water Drying for animal feed A

select the most appropriate valorisation strategies based on the waste

4.3. SWaVI stage 3: selection of evaluation criteria

In order to identify which of the shortlisted valorisation scenarios is

lorisation, for example, anaerobic digestion on a nearby farm and in

party to avoid externalization of impact.

4.4. SWaVI stage 4: data collection and evaluation

Stage 4 of the SWaVI framework describes the collection of relevant

example). Measurements should be precise and recorded per ton of

In this way, a Cost-Benefit Analysis is performed to generate the Net

Present Value of each scenario, a Life Cycle Assessment is used to

performed to generate, social, technological maturity and alignment

1-5 (1 = poor, 3 = moderate,

1-5 (1 = poor, 3 = moderate,

1-5 (1 = poor, 3 = moderate,

answer to actual need of

analysis processes in a real-world example, please review the supple-

compared. To overcome this, the weighted summation method (WSM),

as described by Herwijnen (2006) is applied to the values recorded in

the evaluation matrix (Herwijnen, 2006). In the weighted summation

Fit with Company Expertise

Fit with Brand Image (FBI)

Traffic Generation (TG)

Fit with Strategy (FS)

which is expressed on a scale of 0–1. This is described in Equation (1)

used for non-beneficial criteria (e.g. environmental pollution) and

Vi = the standardized value for a given evaluation criterion (i) and

consolidator and supplying pectin domestically, particularly with po-

Microwave Assisted Pectin Extraction (MAPE) mean that set up costs

were identified for the assessment of the two selected valorisation

5.3. SWaVI stage 3: selection of evaluation criteria

With regard to the economic criteria, the MAPE scenario would

Additionally, a Cost-Benefit Analysis was performed on these criteria so

as to generate a discounted Net Present Value which took into account

emissions to air, water and land for which CF would be responsible.

Therefore, Climate Change Potential (CCP), Human Toxicity Potential

Potential (AP), Eutrophication Potential (EP), Ozone Depletion

or wholesale of waste impacted on land use change. Additionally,

being relevant, it was not included due to challenges in obtaining sui-

In terms of social evaluation criteria, Social Acceptability (SA), Odor

e.g. Net Present

Integration Readiness Level (IRL) and Demand Readiness Level (DRL)

by where the valorisation scenario deviated from the normal procedure

CF. Full details on these boundaries can be found in the supplementary

data document. In Stage 4 of the SWaVI framework, data collected for

set out in Section 4.4.

Fig. 3. Overview of conceptual modelling results for CF Fruits.

Economic Net Present Value £ −26156509.91 23912776.27

6. Concluding remarks Appendix A. Supplementary data

You might also like