Exploring incentives to move up the Food Waste Hierarchy: a case study of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector

Exploring incentives to move up the Food Waste Hierarchy: a case study of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Exploring incentives to move up the Food Waste Hierarchy: a case study of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector Jack Hetherington, Adam Loch, Pablo Juliano, Wendy Umberger This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4215468/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Halving food loss and waste by 2030 is a major global challenge. The Food Waste Hierarchy underpins strategies to achieve this, but understanding the relative importance of motivators to incentivise change is limited. This study utilises the pertinent case study of the by-product of cheese-making, 'whey', to explore this in Australia. Through semi-structured interviews with 42 nationally-representative firms, motivators were quantified using a novel 100-point allocation instrument. Profit maximisation, environmental protection, and government regulation emerge as key motivators, but there is significant heterogeneity. Motivators generally do not differ markedly across hierarchy-levels, except for government regulations, which both incentivise and disincentivise change. Findings indicate a potential failure of markets, governments and social licenses to lead to efficient resource allocation while limiting negative externalities. Pathways to challenge the status quo and transform the food system are discussed, which will likely require simultaneous forces to move enough firms up the hierarchy by 2030. Scientific community and society/Agriculture Business and commerce/Economics Scientific community and society/Business and industry/Technology Motivators Circular Economy Food Loss and Waste Food Waste Hierarchy Extended Institutional Theory Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1 Introduction Approximately a quarter to a third of all produced food is lost or wasted (1.92 gigatonnes) [ 1 ], prompting Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3 to halve food loss and waste (FLW) by 2030. The urgent need for action is underscored by the substantial and interrelated economic, environmental and social consequences of FLW [ 2 – 5 ]. Yet, despite there being varying definitions of FLW [ 6 ], all intrinsically refer to the end destination of the food material and diverting it to a preferred use. Various heuristic-based frameworks, including the Circular Economy (CE) and Food Waste Hierarchy (FWH), have been proposed to guide decision-making processes for FLW reduction. These frameworks reimagine traditional linear production and consumption models to focus on reducing, reusing, recycling, and recovering materials in all stages of production, distribution, and consumption [ 7 ]. The overarching goal of the FWH is to provide a prioritised order of management practices based on the assumption that it leads to more desirable economic, environmental and social outcomes [ 8 ]. Despite ongoing debate about the definition of FLW [ 6 ] and optimal order of prioritisation within the FWH [ 9 ], many governments and organisations have adopted variations of the FWH to set targets and strategies [ 10 ]. As the order of priority set out in the FWH is used by governments to set targets, it will be increasingly necessary to consider how firms’ strategic waste management choices align with the different FWH tiers. Moreover, as the current definition of FLW is concerned with end destinations, this creates various business models through which firms can contribute to the CE. Such circular business models (CBMs) may reduce resource inputs and emissions across the entire (food) system via a firm’s own operations or its value network [ 11 ]. But as many of the national strategies rely on voluntary agreement and implementation by firms to reduce FLW [ 12 – 14 ], where firms will bear most of the costs, what motivates a firm to engage or invest in these arrangements? Also, do firms engaged in practices at different levels of FWH perceive different pressures that might explain why they would ‘move up’ the FWH? There is a substantial body of evidence that examines the many reasons a firm may choose to adopt new technologies, practices or business models. These can be the pursuit of financial or non-financial goals, or adherence to social norms [ 15 ] and may include synergies or trade-offs between goals, especially when considering changes that affect the natural environment [ 16 ]. It is by understanding these factors that can help identify if, at all, markets, governments and/or social licenses to operate are indeed playing their role in achieving the desired outcome, leading to efficient resource allocation and limiting negative externalities. Existing research on CBMs has highlighted various motivators influencing a firm's decision to participate in these models [ 17 ], including profit outcomes, social norms, government regulations [ 18 , 19 ]. Additionally, there are motivational differences among firms [ 20 ]. Given these complexities, Institutional Theory has been recommended as a lens through which to evaluate CE behaviour [ 21 ], as it acknowledge the diverse set of motivators affecting firms. However, there are notable gaps in the literature. Firstly, many studies are descriptive in their approach to motivators of CBMs, so there have been calls to quantify the relative importance of factors [ 20 , 22 ]. Although, there have been attempts to quantify the importance of factors [ 19 ] current approaches have not captured trade-offs between factors. Secondly, no study has yet analysed the varying degree of motivators across hierarchy levels. While Arranz and Arroyabe [ 19 ] considered multiple CE practices they did not consider any order of priority outlined by a CE framework. This is crucial for driving behaviour change and achieving SDG12.3. Thirdly, opportunities exist to expand CBM literature based on specific firm types. Some studies compare diverse sectors with limited contextual similarities, calling for more sector-level focus [ 23 ]. Others concentrate on narrow segments like start-ups or multinational firms [ 17 , 22 , 24 ], which limits the diversity of potential motivators. Our study aims to address these limitations. Using a cross-section of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector as a case study, we focus on whey, an unavoidable by-product, to explore these issues (further context is provided in the Methods section). Despite multiple management practices across all levels of the FWH [ 25 , 26 ] (see Fig. 1 ) with many high-value options in commercial operation in the Australian context (see Fig. 2 ), this sector continues to have considerable whey waste costing manufacturers AU $ 578mil each year [ 27 ]. This study overcomes some of the limitations of previous studies on motivational differences to adopt CBMs and offers a new quantitative comparison of incentives for practice change. Ultimately, this study aims to answer the following research question: What is the relative importance of different motivators for firms to change their FLW management practice, and how does this change as firms ‘move up’ the food waste hierarchy? The underpinnings for the conceptual framework used in this study draw upon the FWH and the Extended Institutional Theory (EIT) are explained further below and illustrated in Fig. 1 . The Food Waste Hierarchy (FWH) has undergone numerous iterations, each with slight variations in terminology, behaviours and prioritisation order [ 10 ]. While evidence suggests that the generalised order in the FWH may not universally optimise outcomes for every sector [ 9 ], there is consensus that the FWH helps frame the issues. The overarching priority is to avoid FLW (which implies all edible food is eaten), followed by redistributing surplus food and value-adding by-products into products for human food consumption (or ‘Upcycled Foods’ ) [ 8 , 28 ]. Collectively, these options can be considered ‘ human food products’ and assume the highest priority. Following this, established FWHs generally agree with using FLW for ‘ animal feed’ as the next priority, as it maintains nutritional value and reduces the necessity for producing virgin agricultural products solely for animal consumption. After feeding animals, the hierarchy considers practices that recycle (typically extraction of non-food materials, anerobic digestion, or composting) and recover (of energy via incineration or application to land) food and drink material, but this is the most inconsistent section of the hierarchy among the many iterations of the FWH [ 10 ]. Further, there is evidence suggesting sector-level frameworks may be more beneficial due to variable benefits of individual practices across industries [ 9 ]. Despite a lack of clear guidance at mid-to-low tiers of the hierarchy for practice prioritisation, for the purposes of this study we consider the broader classification of ‘recycling or recovery’ as a suitable basis for comparing motivators at a third priority level. This is because we are interested in seeing differences that largely transcend across hierarchy-levels rather than differences between practices that may yield less-clear benefits. This classification includes whole-of-biomaterial diversion practices (e.g., AD or composting) and extraction or conversion into specific biomaterials, which often produce and additional residue or by-product. Lastly, there is consensus the least preferred (and prioritised) option is ‘ disposal’ . Together, these four groups of management practices help us explore differences in motivators. To explore motivational differences across hierarchy-levels we also consider a higher-level grouping. As discussed previously, many of the frameworks to measure progress to SDG12.3 have determined that diverting FLW towards human food products or animal feed contributes to the ‘ reduction’ of FLW (e.g., see SFWA [ 13 ], Dairy Australia [ 27 ], WRAP [ 29 ]). This means that any FLW that is diverted from disposal to either recycling or recovery does not contribute towards FLW reduction targets and is therefore still considered ‘ waste’ and less desirable. These overlapping 4- and 2-group categories are considered in the present study and illustrated on the middle section of Fig. 1 , with examples of each for the whey case study on the right-hand side. Regarding factors that incentivise firms to change behaviour, Institutional Theory identifies three broad types of 'isomorphic' forces (i.e., coercive, normative and mimetic) that explain why firms exhibit similar behaviours over time to maintain legitimacy [ 30 ]. The EIT distinguishes profit drivers alongside these forces [ 31 ]. Firstly, a common and logical motivator for a firm is to prioritise ‘ profit maximisation’ . This includes adapting to market demands and enhance production efficiency, especially evident in resource-scarce industries like dairy [ 32 ]. Secondly, the coercive mechanism, relates to firms’ adherence to formal rules and regulations. ‘ Government regulations’ drive compliance, with penalties imposed on environmental violations as exampled by dairy sector whey dumping (e.g., to local sewers) incidents [ 26 ]. ‘ Buyers’ expectations’ exert a coercive pressure back through the supply chain, either directly from end consumers or through intermediaries like supermarkets, imposing product and manufacturing standards including FLW management practices [ 33 , 34 ]. Thirdly, the normative mechanism relates to moral governance and social obligations [ 30 ]. Norms are extrinsic motivators that specify appropriate actions based on ‘ society’s expectations’ [ 35 ]. This can cause firms to change behaviour; for instance, in order to maintain their social license to operate [ 36 ]. On the other hand, the goal to ‘ protect the natural environment’ is aligned with intrinsic values, which are based on one’s own moral compass. These values have been shown to explain the behaviour of some firms, especially for practices that result in environmentally beneficial outcomes [ 37 , 38 ]. While very much interconnected, social norms and values are two distinct motivators affecting decision making. Finally, the mimetic force indicates copying (miming) the behaviour of others in the presence of uncertainty [ 39 ]. Therefore, the pressure to ‘ keep up with practices used by others’ in the industry or follow prevailing industry trends can lead firms to adopt similar management practices. This has been observed with practices such as corporate reporting and governance frameworks [ 40 ]. These six motivators aligned with the four forces serve as the basis for exploring incentives within the FWH (left-hand side of Fig. 1 ). Importantly, EIT supports the notion that multiple motivators can occur simultaneously and the specific drivers can cut across multiple forces – e.g., a buyers’ expectations may be set by responsible environmental management, which is affected by social expectations norms. The EIT underlines our framework, which recognises the overlapping nature of profit, coercive, normative, and mimetic forces (represented by the Venn diagram in Fig. 1 ). 2 Results 2.1 Relative importance of motivators Figure 3 illustrates the results of participants' weighting (based on a 100-point allocation) to the various motivators influencing their decisions to change whey management practices. The findings emphasise a diverse range of factors affecting firms' decisions, with profit maximisation emerging as the most important driver. The data reveal substantial heterogeneity in participant responses, particularly in the contexts of profit maximisation, environmental protection, and government regulations . The distribution of responses skews toward zero, with many respondents assigning a zero rating to factors such as buyers' and society's expectations and keeping up with others . Interestingly, many participants remarked the low level of awareness of consumers and retailers regarding whey, but some voiced their concern that this may change in the short- to medium-term. Limited differences were observed in motivators influencing behaviour across hierarchy-levels (see Fig. 4 ). Notably, significant differences were found in the importance of government regulations between firms using whey in human food products versus those using it for animal feed or disposal (pairwise comparison p-value < 0.05). Specific regulations included local council business approvals and utility charges for disposal, state environmental legislation for recycling or recovery (mostly irrigation of whey onto paddocks), and food safety regulation and alcohol taxation. In South Australia, modest government restrictions prevent feeding whey to the same animals that supplied the milk. Interestingly, while differences were observed in the 4-group comparison, they were not significant in the 2-group comparison (Table S1 in the Supplementary Material). This might indicate that grouping of human food products with animal feed, cancels out the difference observed in the 4-group comparison. The robustness check did not reveal significant differences, indicating a moderate trend. Moreover, there was a higher rating for keeping up with others among firms that use whey in animal feed compared to all other groups, although the difference is modest (mean score: 0.5 v 5.3 out of 100). The 2-group comparison (Table S1 ) showed keeping up with others was consistently (albeit modestly) higher for firms in the reduction group. Although maximising profit returned a slight difference in the ANOVA test, the post-hoc comparison did identify any difference between individual groups, nor did the other analyses of regarding this motivator. 3 Discussion Achieving SDG12.3 necessitates diverting food and drink material towards human food products or animal feed, highlighting the importance of incentivising behavioural change. This paper explores the motivators driving firms to change their whey management practices and how these vary across different levels of the FWH. Using EIT as a framing tool, this study reveals a diverse range of motivators influencing firms, including profit maximisation, environmental protection, and government regulations. While there is heterogeneity among firms, there is a lack of significant variation in motivators based on FWH level, except for government regulation which has positive and negative effects. These findings contribute to understanding what drives firms to engage in CBMs. Several other studies have identified motivators associated with CBM adoption [ 18 , 24 ], demonstrating their heterogeneous nature [ 17 , 20 ]. However, this study quantitatively assesses the relative importance of various motivators for behaviour change within the FWH utilising a 100-point allocation question to capture trade-offs between motivating factors. By focusing on whey as a case study, the study enables comprehensive comparisons among similar firms facing comparable external pressures. Engaging firms at different hierarchy levels provides a holistic understanding of sector heterogeneity, areas to prioritise. Understanding different economic and non-economic incentives is crucial for achieving SDG12.3 and FWH objectives. This study’s findings indicate a lack of variation in motivators across hierarchy levels, firms are unlikely to coalesce around practices aligning with a specific FWH level, with the exception of government regulation. The case of cheese whey suggests an instance of failures in markets, government, and social licenses to achieve efficient allocation of resources while limiting negative externalities. Despite numerous opportunities to add value to whey by converting it into products for human consumption over several decades, market conditions have prevented firms businesses from accessing these technologies. Various government regulations play a role in discouraging undesirable behaviour while simultaneously increasing transaction costs for firms seeking to change their practices. Furthermore, this study underscores that whey management is not a front-of-mind issue for society, with minimal pressure exerted by stakeholders. While this observation holds true at the time of the study, the relative importance of motivators may evolve over time, emphasising the dynamic nature of behavioural incentives. The below paragraphs outline the policy implications of this dynamic setting. These are presented based on factors of greater importance, including practices improving profit and environmental outcomes, the role of government, expectations from buyers and society, and industry norms. The study underscores the important role of profitability alongside environmental benefits in driving behaviour change. This has been observed by others in the agricultural [ 41 ] and corporate [ 42 ] context. While maximising profits is unsurprisingly important, the study highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of firms' decision-making processes, indicated by no statistical difference in the importance given environmental protection. While CE principles aim to simultaneously achieve economic and environmental outcomes, trade-offs can occur. This is true in the context of whey, which can have considerable benefits or costs depending on the technology option [ 43 ] and scale of production [ 44 ]. Therefore, it is not always clear to firms which option is optimal given the broad range of factors that need to be accounted for. Decision support tools arguably have a very important role to assist. Government regulations play a crucial role in shaping firm behaviours, but their impact varies across FWH levels. While regulations act as incentives (e.g., waste disposal fees/penalties or environmental management oversight) for exploring alternative practices, they also impose constraints, particularly at higher hierarchy levels (food safety regulations or alcohol taxation in this study’s context), hindering the transition toward circular economy practices. Addressing regulatory disincentives and promoting higher FWH levels requires alternative policy instruments such as supply-side subsidies [ 45 ] (e.g., investment in cold chain, storage, or processing infrastructure); information-based policies [ 19 ] (e.g., better guidelines to overcome regulatory hurdles), industry coordination, and further investment in technology research and development to improve availability and access [ 46 ]. Currently, expectations regarding whey management practices are low among buyers and society. However, evolving expectations could drive behaviour change in the future. This could manifest directly from consumers demanding new expectations on cheese products or creating demand for products derived from by-products (e.g., whey-based vodka), which could be aided from greater recognition of the 'Upcycle' certification standard [ 47 ]. Alternatively, supply chain intermediaries such as supermarkets could set new expectations on the products they stock, which could be driven by shareholders rather than their customers. While major supermarkets in Australia have reported plans to work with suppliers to reduce food waste in the supply chain [ 48 , 49 ] efforts appear to be prioritised towards avoidable FLW (e.g., fresh produce) [ 34 ]. This could easily change in the future for whey, with shifting expectations from various stakeholders. Mimetic pressures, which involves firms imitating the practices of other reputable companies and has been observed in the adoption of CE practices [ 50 ] but were found to be largely insignificant in this study. However, efforts to align various incentives (discussed above) toward CBMs could establish new industry norms and best practices. Initiatives like the Australian Food Pact [ 13 ] and the UK’s Courtland Commitment [ 14 ] publicly recognise voluntary commitments of firms, contributing to the normalisation of industry behaviour. These initiatives also serve as success cases, which is important for late adopters or new technologies [ 15 , 16 ]. The shift towards these industry norms fits with the Australian dairy sectors recently released strategy regarding FLW [ 27 ] and may assist the future of sector facing many challenges – e.g., shrinking supply of milk, increasing costs of production, and increased expectations from consumers regarding ethical and environmental practices [ 51 , 52 ]. While it is acknowledged that the mimetic force will likely result in the slowest adoption rate [ 53 ], it can be complemented by reducing barriers to CBMs can assist in establishing these norms through various pathways. This relies on providing information about the profitability and environmental benefits of alternative practices, addressing regulatory disincentives, enhancing supply-side conditions, and shaping new expectations from consumers, society, and buyers. Further research is necessary to understand the distinct barriers to specific types of CBMs and their implications. The study encountered several limitations. Firstly, the small sample size may have impacted results, though efforts were made to ensure representation across the industry. While future studies could benefit from larger samples and detailed segmentation based on motivational profiles, the robustness checks did reflect consistent trends between motivators and behaviours. Secondly, this study did not assess the relationship between firm characteristics and their whey management practice. Such an approach would require a nuanced analytical approach to account for various management practices, business models within broader value networks [ 54 ]. Thirdly, the results were specific to Australia's cheese manufacturing sector, indicating the importance of considering contextual differences in other sectors generating food loss and waste (FLW). Additionally, there may be some future relevance to other agricultural sectors that generate unavoidable FLW, given the maturity of processing technologies in the dairy sector have been considered decades ahead of other industries [ 26 ]. That is to say that, even with the development of new technologies, the right motives need to be in place to incentivise change. Other limitations include the choice and wording of the motivators, and the possibility of social desirability bias. However, given there were very few ‘other’ factors reported, we consider that the predominant motivators have been considered. Social desirability bias is also possible; however, we see that profit maximisation was the most important factor and the normative ‘social expectations’ generally low. However, a more distinct contrast may be observed in larger sample sizes. This study highlights diverse motivators influencing firms' movement up the FWH in the Australian cheese manufacturing sector. Profit maximisation and environmental concerns emerged as key drivers, underscoring the need to balance commercial viability with sustainability. Government regulations played an important role, but fragmented regulations across jurisdictions highlight the need for cohesive policies. While current societal expectations regarding whey management practices are limited, evolving consumer preferences emphasise the importance of awareness and behaviour change. These findings indicate a potential failure of markets, governments and social licenses to lead to efficient resource allocation while limiting negative externalities. However, despite the current status-quo, we discuss how these areas could be the driving force for change in the future. The heterogeneity found in the motivators suggests simultaneous, synergistic and multi-stakeholder forces (e.g., profit, coercive, normative and mimetic) will be needed to achieve the scale of behaviour change within the 2030 timeframe. This research provides insights for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers to promote sustainability in the dairy manufacturing sector and beyond. Future research should delve into the complex factors influencing CBMs and the barriers faced by different types of businesses. 4 Methods 4.1 Case study overview 4.1.1 Whey challenges and management practices Whey is the liquid by-product from the manufacturing of dairy products, such as cheese, and has been an ongoing waste issue for cheese manufacturing throughout history [ 32 ]. While whey is also generated from yoghurt, this study is focused exclusively on cheese whey. As with raw milk (87% comprised of water), whey is predominantly comprised of water (94%). However, whey contains approximately 50% of total nutrients and, depending on the type of product being manufactured, between 75–90% of the total mass of the raw milk [ 55 ]. Its composition varies depending on the cheese production method resulting in distinctions between sweet and acid whey, each containing diverse nutrient profiles and pH levels. Various management practices for whey have been explored by firms including its transformation into human food products, animal feed, recycling, and recovery processes, and the less desirable disposal option. These practices align with the FWH categories and have been documented previous including by [ 25 , 27 ]. Examples of these practices are summarised against the FWH framework in Fig. 1 . 4.1.2 Overview of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector In Australia, 8.1 billion litres of milk goes into dairy product manufacturing each year, of which, 43% contributes to cheese production [ 56 ]. At the time of the study, there were 132 firms manufacturing cheese products, including from cow, goat, sheep and camel milk. These include a few large manufacturers (2.1% of firms) and many small manufacturers (89.4%) that are mainly concentrated in the south-east of Australia (see Fig. 2 ). These firms exhibit diverse business configurations and product mixes, ranging from exclusive cheese production to a broader array of dairy and non-dairy products. The industry also has complex relationships between firms. For instance, Bega Group, the largest cheese manufacturers in Australia [ 57 ] has a license agreement with Fonterra Co-op Group, another major cheese manufacturer, to handle all marketing and distribution of Bega-branded products in in Australia ( https://begagroup.com.au/student-resources/ ). Similarly, Saputo Dairy Australia have joint venture agreements in place with other multi-national dairy manufacturers ( https://www.saputodairyaustralia.com.au/en/our-products/joint-ventures ). On the other hand, some firms are vertically integrated firms (e.g., farm production, manufacturing and retailing), while others are solely focused on manufacturing. Therefore, there is a great deal of variability in the characteristics of the firms. In terms of whey product manufacturing, in 2022-23 financial year, Australian manufacturers produced 58 kilotonnes of whey powder, with half exported predominantly to Asia [ 56 ]. Notably, the three largest cheese manufacturers (Bega Group, Saputo Dairy Australia and Fonterra Co-op Group) and some of the mid-scale manufacturers (e.g., Beston Global Food Company) produce whey powder products such as whole whey powder, concentrates and protein isolates and individual supplements (e.g., lactoferrin). These predominantly go into food manufacturing uses (e.g., ice cream, baked goods), infant formula, health and sport supplements product [ 58 ]. The global whey protein market was estimated to be US $ 10.9 billion in 2022 and is expected to experience a 7.88% compounded annual growth rate between 2022–2027 [ 59 ]. There are also growing markets for whey-based alcohol, such as vodka and beer. There are examples across production including small-scale premium artisanal products (e.g., Hartshorn distillery in Tasmania, retailing for AU $ 185.98 per litre) and industrial scale (Asahi-owned “Vodka O” in Melbourne, retailing AU $ 62.99). Another niche but high-end product option is skincare products in (“Leapful” in Tasmania, retailing for $ 256.00). Examples of these products are provided in Fig. 2 . While not an exhaustive list of whey-product manufacturers, this highlights the range of high value manufactured product options that are commercially available across production scales. Note, not all whey-product manufacturers are cheese manufacturers (e.g., Asahi and Morgans Winery and Distillery). Despite these market opportunities, whey has been recognised as the most significant FLW issues for the dairy sector, with the peak dairy industry body, Dairy Australia, making a commitment SDG12.3 [ 27 ]. This is because whey accounts for half of the FLW in the Australian dairy sector, is the largest share of FLW across all stages of the chain, and is estimated to cost manufacturers AUD $ 578 million each year. 4.2 Data collection To collect the data for this study semi-structured interviews were conducted with employees of Australian cheese manufacturers (CMs) actively involved in whey management decisions. Participants were identified through the Dairy Australia database ( https://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/manufacturing-support/australian-dairy-manufacturers ) and industry contacts of the research team. A total of 42 firms, representing 31% of the industry, were interviewed between November 2022 and June 2023. Purposive-proportional sampling was used to ensure representation across scales of production and states. Descriptive statistics of the sample against industry data is provided in Table S2 in the Supplementary Material. Interviews were conducted in-person, via telephone, or Zoom. The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the lead author’s host organisation (approval number: H-2022-206). 4.3 Relative importance of motivators A 100-point allocation question was used to measure the relative importance of factors affecting the firm’s decision to change their whey management practice. This is because, unlike other options such as Likert-scales (as implemented by Arranz and Arroyabe [ 19 ]) and other ranking options, 100-point allocations (also called Budget pies) force respondents to make trade-offs between factors and identifies the relative intensity of their choice [ 60 ]. This is particularly relevant to this context where some factors may be perceived to be overlapping and/or interconnected. For example, something that is seen to be socially desirable because it protects the environment, the respondent has the option to split points equally between these factors. Alternatively, they could choose to allocate all/more of their points to protecting the environment and none/less to social expectations as the secondary consideration. Participants were asked to distribute 100-points among six pre-defined factors: (1) profit maximisation; (2) government regulation; (3) buyers’ expectations (e.g. supermarkets); (4) society’s expectations; (5) protecting the natural environment; (6) keeping up with practices used by other CMs. An 'Other' option with options to detail/describe was also provided. The questionnaire design was based on others [ 61 – 63 ] and was pre-tested. The exact wording of the question is shown in Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Material. Three versions of the interview instrument were used, varying the order of the factors to reduce potential bias. 4.4 Categorising hierarchy-level behaviour Given many firms engaged in multiple whey management practices, we categorised options based on predominant behaviour. For instance, 95% of whey goes to making human food products with incidental amounts going to disposal, or vice versa . Membership to a group was therefore based on the category that accounted for 50% or more of the end destination of the firm’s whey. We performed two sets of groupings based on the behaviour categories already discussed. Firstly, a 4-group comparison was performed consisting of (1) human food products, (2) animal feed, (3) recycling or recovery, and (4) disposal. Secondly, a 2-group comparison was performed to compare (1) reduction and (2) waste. 4.5 Data Analysis With respect to analysis descriptive statistics and comparisons were first conducted to test variations in the relative importance (100-point score allocation) across the seven factors for all participants. Subsequently, comparisons were made for each factor based on FWH sub-groups as described above. Given the non-parametric nature of the relative importance data, the Kruskal-Wallis Test to compare group medians was considered appropriate [ 64 ]. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were then performed using Dunn's Test with Bonferroni correction to minimise the risk of false positives (Type I errors), resulting in cautious estimates. This approach was primarily applied to the first set of comparisons between factors. For the second set of comparisons among FWH sub-groups, the initial level of stringency was moderated. The smaller sub-group suggested that excessively strict criteria might produce false negatives (Type II error). ANOVA with Dunnett's T3 test was also employed to check the robustness of the results. In this case, a log-transformation was performed on score values with a small constant (0.01) added to all values to avoid a zero-log transformation. The data analyses were conducted in RStudio (version 2023.06.1). The results for these different tests and groupings are reported in Table S1 in the Supplementary Material. Declarations Data availability statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Code Availability: Not applicable in this case. References Gatto, A. and M. Chepeliev, Global food loss and waste estimates show increasing nutritional and environmental pressures . Nature Food, 2024. 5(2): p. 136–147. Zhu, J., et al., Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems . Nature Food, 2023. 4(3): p. 247–256. Reynolds, C.J., J. Piantadosi, and J. Boland, Rescuing Food from the Organics Waste Stream to Feed the Food Insecure: An Economic and Environmental Assessment of Australian Food Rescue Operations Using Environmentally Extended Waste Input-Output Analysis . Sustainability, 2015. 7(4): p. 4707–4726. Hanson, C. and P. Mitchell, The business case for reducing food loss and waste . 2017, Champions of 12.3: Washington, DC, USA. Lade, S.J., et al., Human impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions . Nature Sustainability, 2020. 3(2): p. 119–128. Boiteau, J.M. and P. Pingali, Can we agree on a food loss and waste definition? An assessment of definitional elements for a globally applicable framework . Global Food Security, 2023. 37: p. 100677. Kirchherr, J., D. Reike, and M. Hekkert, Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2017. 127: p. 221–232. Papargyropoulou, E., et al., The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste . Journal of Cleaner Production, 2014. 76: p. 106–115. Parsa, A., et al., Challenging the food waste hierarchy . Journal of Environmental Management, 2023. 344: p. 118554. Jones, R.E., et al., Biorefining within food loss and waste frameworks: A review . Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2022. 154: p. 111781. Bocken, N.M., et al., Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy . Journal of industrial and production engineering, 2016. 33(5): p. 308–320. USDA, U.S. Food Loss & Waste 2030 Champions Milestones Report (September 2022) . 2022, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Washington DC, USA. SFWA, Stop Food Waste Australia: Strategic Plan . 2021, Stop Food Waste Australia: Adelaide, Australia. WRAP, The Courtauld Commitment 2030: Progress and Insights Report 2021/2022 . 2022, Waste and Resource Action Programme: Branbury, UK. Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of innovations . 5th ed. ed. 2003, New York: Free Press. Pannell, D.J., et al., Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders . Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2006. 46(11): p. 1407–1424. Ranta, V., et al., Exploring institutional drivers and barriers of the circular economy: A cross-regional comparison of China, the US, and Europe . Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2018. 135: p. 70–82. Goodman-Smith, F., M. Mirosa, and S. Skeaff, A mixed-methods study of retail food waste in New Zealand . Food Policy, 2020. 92: p. 101845. Arranz, C.F.A. and M.F. Arroyabe, Institutional theory and circular economy business models: The case of the European Union and the role of consumption policies . J Environ Manage, 2023. 340: p. 117906. Do, Q., et al., An extended institutional theory perspective on the adoption of circular economy practices: Insights from the seafood industry . International Journal of Production Economics, 2022. 247. Hussain, M., M. Khan, and H. Saber, Thematic analysis of circular economy practices across closed-loop supply chains: An institutional theory perspective . Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2023. 40: p. 122–134. Tura, N., et al., Unlocking circular business: A framework of barriers and drivers . Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 212: p. 90–98. Vermunt, D.A., et al., Exploring barriers to implementing different circular business models . Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 222: p. 891–902. Geissdoerfer, M., et al., Drivers and barriers for circular business model innovation . Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022. 32(6): p. 3814–3832. Hetherington, J.B., P. Juliano, and R. García-Flores, Developing closed-loop dairy value chains and tools to support decision-makers , in Developing circular agricultural production systems , B. Amon, Editor. 2023, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: Cambridge, UK. p. 1–31. Gregg, J.S., et al., Valorization of bio-residuals in the food and forestry sectors in support of a circular bioeconomy: A review . Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 267. Dairy Australia, Dairy sector food waste action plan . 2023, Dairy Australia: Melbourne, Australia. Teigiserova, D.A., L. Hamelin, and M. Thomsen, Towards transparent valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: Clarifying definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy . Science of The Total Environment, 2020. 706: p. 136033. WRAP, Food surplus and waste in the UK – key facts . 2022, Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Banbury, UK. Scott, W.R., Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests . 2008, Los Angeles, USA: Sage. Kauppi, K., Extending the use of institutional theory in operations and supply chain management research . International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2013. 33(10): p. 1318–1345. Smithers, G.W., Whey and whey proteins—From ‘gutter-to-gold’. International Dairy Journal, 2008. 18(7): p. 695–704. O'Connor, J., et al., A critical review of on-farm food loss and waste: future research and policy recommendations . Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2023. 38: p. e24. Devin, B. and C. Richards, Food Waste, Power, and Corporate Social Responsibility in the Australian Food Supply Chain . Journal of Business Ethics, 2018. 150(1): p. 199–210. Nilsson, A., C. von Borgstede, and A. Biel, Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms . Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2004. 24(3): p. 267–277. Dumbrell, N.P., D. Adamson, and S.A. Wheeler, Is social licence a response to government and market failures? Evidence from the literature . Resources Policy, 2020. 69: p. 101827. Adams, D., J. Donovan, and C. Topple, Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies . Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022. Ramanathan, R., B. Poomkaew, and P. Nath, The impact of organizational pressures on environmental performance of firms . Business Ethics: A European Review, 2014. 23(2): p. 169–182. DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell, The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields . American Sociological Review, 1983. 48(2): p. 147–160. Haque, F. and C.G. Ntim, Environmental Policy, Sustainable Development, Governance Mechanisms and Environmental Performance . Business Strategy and the Environment, 2018. 27(3): p. 415–435. Greiner, R., L. Patterson, and O. Miller, Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers . Agricultural Systems, 2009. 99(2): p. 86–104. Huang, D.Z.-X., An integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance . Accounting & Finance, 2022. 62(S1): p. 1567–1598. Risner, D., et al., Fermentation and distillation of cheese whey: Carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions and water use in the production of whey spirits and white whiskey . Journal of Dairy Science, 2018. 101(4): p. 2963–2973. Juliano, P., et al., Whey value addition . First ed, ed. G.B. Muset and M.L. Castells. 2017, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Industrial - INTI: San Martin, Argentina. Karunasena, G.G., et al., Co-creating policy research projects to assist Australia meet its commitment of halving food waste by 2030 . 2022, Fight Food Waste Ltd: Adelaide. Australia. Pannell, D.J. and R. Claassen, The Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy . Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2020. 42(1): p. 31–41. Upcycled Food Association, Upcycled Certification Standard (Version 1) . 2020, Upcycled Food Association: Denver, USA. Coles, Sustainability report . 2023, Coles Group: Melbourne, Australia. Woolworths, Sustainability report . 2023, Woolworths Group: Sydney, Australia. Jain, N.K., A. Panda, and P. Choudhary, Institutional pressures and circular economy performance: The role of environmental management system and organizational flexibility in oil and gas sector . Business Strategy and the Environment, 2020. 29(8): p. 3509–3525. Dairy Australia, In Focus 2021: The Australian Dairy Industry . 2021, Dairy Australia: Southbank, Australia. Hampton, J.O., B. Jones, and P.D. McGreevy, Social License and Animal Welfare: Developments from the Past Decade in Australia . Animals, 2020. 10(12): p. 2237. Scott, W.R., Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program , in Great minds in management: The process of theory development . 2005, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. p. 460–484. Geissdoerfer, M., et al., Circular business models: A review . Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 277: p. 123741. Tsermoula, P., et al., Whey - The waste-stream that became more valuable than the food product . Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2021. 118: p. 230–241. Dairy Australia, In Focus 2023 . 2023, Dairy Australia: Melbourne, Victoria. Reeves, M., Cheese Manufacturing in Australia . 2023, IBISWorld. Fahey, J., Butter and Dairy Product Manufacturing in Australia . 2023, IBISWorld. Technavio, Global Whey Protein Market 2023–2027 . 2023, Infiniti Research Limited. Mullen, P.M., Public involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values . Health Expectations, 1999. 2(4): p. 222–234. Dumbrell, N.P., et al., Public willingness to make trade-offs in the development of a hydrogen industry in Australia . Energy Policy, 2022. 165: p. 112987. Malek, L. and W.J. Umberger, Distinguishing meat reducers from unrestricted omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: A comprehensive comparison of Australian consumers . Food Quality and Preference, 2021. 88: p. 104081. Loch, A., P. Boxall, and S.A. Wheeler, Using proportional modeling to evaluate irrigator preferences for market-based water reallocation . Agricultural Economics, 2016. 47(4): p. 387–398. Lee, S. and D.K. Lee, What is the proper way to apply the multiple comparison test? Korean J Anesthesiol, 2018. 71(5): p. 353–360. Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files FWHincentivesSupplementarymaterial.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4215468","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":287615776,"identity":"5d078945-7422-47e9-86d2-ac96e8ff6758","order_by":0,"name":"Jack Hetherington","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-7702","institution":"University of Adelaide","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jack","middleName":"","lastName":"Hetherington","suffix":""},{"id":287615777,"identity":"521c1c3f-7250-441e-bbc3-1b2dee65eea9","order_by":1,"name":"Adam Loch","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Adelaide","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adam","middleName":"","lastName":"Loch","suffix":""},{"id":287615778,"identity":"53270340-9c00-439e-87e1-32b4e17d08fa","order_by":2,"name":"Pablo Juliano","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Melbourne, Australia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pablo","middleName":"","lastName":"Juliano","suffix":""},{"id":287615779,"identity":"32d10569-e230-474c-b069-97723a1b6ce0","order_by":3,"name":"Wendy Umberger","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"ACIAR","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wendy","middleName":"","lastName":"Umberger","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-04-04 03:30:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4215468/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4215468/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":54452753,"identity":"c97fe53a-a641-434c-97e8-bcaf5d07a200","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-10 18:28:07","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":191838,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual framework and case study relevance.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4215468/v1/e13fb6955efe60e8e7f092d4.png"},{"id":54452755,"identity":"414e9698-1119-4453-a620-2b8ebbf095e6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-10 18:28:07","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":565441,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of Australian cheese manufacturers and examples of whey-product manufacturers (with retail price information where available).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4215468/v1/a6209ac3d5366528cce7edc8.png"},{"id":54452754,"identity":"c534bdcf-7375-43cb-b728-779d741c12e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-10 18:28:07","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":51564,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBoxplot of the relative importance of motivators to change whey management. Different letters indicate significant differences (p-value\u0026lt;0.05) based on Dunn’s Test pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction. The median value for each factor is displayed. Boxplot elements: centre line, median; box limits, upper and lower quartiles; whiskers, 1.5x interquartile range; points, outliers.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4215468/v1/339a4aad47f1069d523e457d.png"},{"id":54452757,"identity":"2578cb00-971a-4b6b-8e19-4197fd1ee425","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-10 18:28:07","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100676,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBoxplots comparing relative scores of each motivator between Food Waste Hierarchy sub-groups. Notes: * P-value \u0026lt; 0.1. Different letters indicate significant differences (p-value\u0026lt;0.05) based on Dunn’s Test pairwise comparison. The median value for each factor is displayed. Boxplot elements: centre line, median; box limits, upper and lower quartiles; whiskers, 1.5x interquartile range; points, outliers.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4215468/v1/a7fc4dc36f3af46587e6b13e.png"},{"id":55515478,"identity":"ce4bbae9-1905-4a96-be3a-76cb7ea73e4d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-29 13:11:05","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1341815,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4215468/v1/5d3ecf69-88cf-4e1e-9251-b8b79513364b.pdf"},{"id":54452756,"identity":"ada6c99c-d6ea-41e3-87da-e5abad06cbbc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-10 18:28:07","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":80519,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"FWHincentivesSupplementarymaterial.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4215468/v1/a097ad9702e099eb049e5223.docx"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"Exploring incentives to move up the Food Waste Hierarchy: a case study of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eApproximately a quarter to a third of all produced food is lost or wasted (1.92 gigatonnes) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], prompting Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3 to halve food loss and waste (FLW) by 2030. The urgent need for action is underscored by the substantial and interrelated economic, environmental and social consequences of FLW [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR3 CR4\" citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Yet, despite there being varying definitions of FLW [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], all intrinsically refer to the end destination of the food material and diverting it to a preferred use. Various heuristic-based frameworks, including the Circular Economy (CE) and Food Waste Hierarchy (FWH), have been proposed to guide decision-making processes for FLW reduction. These frameworks reimagine traditional linear production and consumption models to focus on reducing, reusing, recycling, and recovering materials in all stages of production, distribution, and consumption [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. The overarching goal of the FWH is to provide a prioritised order of management practices based on the assumption that it leads to more desirable economic, environmental and social outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite ongoing debate about the definition of FLW [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e] and optimal order of prioritisation within the FWH [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], many governments and organisations have adopted variations of the FWH to set targets and strategies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. As the order of priority set out in the FWH is used by governments to set targets, it will be increasingly necessary to consider how firms\u0026rsquo; strategic waste management choices align with the different FWH tiers. Moreover, as the current definition of FLW is concerned with end destinations, this creates various business models through which firms can contribute to the CE. Such circular business models (CBMs) may reduce resource inputs and emissions across the entire (food) system via a firm\u0026rsquo;s own operations or its value network [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. But as many of the national strategies rely on voluntary agreement and implementation by firms to reduce FLW [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], where firms will bear most of the costs, what motivates a firm to engage or invest in these arrangements? Also, do firms engaged in practices at different levels of FWH perceive different pressures that might explain why they would \u0026lsquo;move up\u0026rsquo; the FWH?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is a substantial body of evidence that examines the many reasons a firm may choose to adopt new technologies, practices or business models. These can be the pursuit of financial or non-financial goals, or adherence to social norms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] and may include synergies or trade-offs between goals, especially when considering changes that affect the natural environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. It is by understanding these factors that can help identify if, at all, markets, governments and/or social licenses to operate are indeed playing their role in achieving the desired outcome, leading to efficient resource allocation and limiting negative externalities. Existing research on CBMs has highlighted various motivators influencing a firm's decision to participate in these models [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], including profit outcomes, social norms, government regulations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, there are motivational differences among firms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Given these complexities, Institutional Theory has been recommended as a lens through which to evaluate CE behaviour [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], as it acknowledge the diverse set of motivators affecting firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, there are notable gaps in the literature. Firstly, many studies are descriptive in their approach to motivators of CBMs, so there have been calls to quantify the relative importance of factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Although, there have been attempts to quantify the importance of factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] current approaches have not captured trade-offs between factors. Secondly, no study has yet analysed the varying degree of motivators across hierarchy levels. While Arranz and Arroyabe [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] considered multiple CE practices they did not consider any order of priority outlined by a CE framework. This is crucial for driving behaviour change and achieving SDG12.3. Thirdly, opportunities exist to expand CBM literature based on specific firm types. Some studies compare diverse sectors with limited contextual similarities, calling for more sector-level focus [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Others concentrate on narrow segments like start-ups or multinational firms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], which limits the diversity of potential motivators. Our study aims to address these limitations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing a cross-section of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector as a case study, we focus on whey, an unavoidable by-product, to explore these issues (further context is provided in the \u003cspan refid=\"Sec5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eMethods\u003c/span\u003e section). Despite multiple management practices across all levels of the FWH [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) with many high-value options in commercial operation in the Australian context (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), this sector continues to have considerable whey waste costing manufacturers AU\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e578mil each year [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study overcomes some of the limitations of previous studies on motivational differences to adopt CBMs and offers a new quantitative comparison of incentives for practice change. Ultimately, this study aims to answer the following research question: What is the relative importance of different motivators for firms to change their FLW management practice, and how does this change as firms \u0026lsquo;move up\u0026rsquo; the food waste hierarchy? The underpinnings for the conceptual framework used in this study draw upon the FWH and the Extended Institutional Theory (EIT) are explained further below and illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Food Waste Hierarchy (FWH) has undergone numerous iterations, each with slight variations in terminology, behaviours and prioritisation order [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. While evidence suggests that the generalised order in the FWH may not universally optimise outcomes for every sector [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], there is consensus that the FWH helps frame the issues. The overarching priority is to avoid FLW (which implies all edible food is eaten), followed by redistributing surplus food and value-adding by-products into products for human food consumption (or \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Upcycled Foods\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Collectively, these options can be considered \u003cb\u003e\u0026lsquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003ehuman food products\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e and assume the highest priority. Following this, established FWHs generally agree with using FLW for \u0026lsquo;\u003cb\u003eanimal feed\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e as the next priority, as it maintains nutritional value and reduces the necessity for producing virgin agricultural products solely for animal consumption. After feeding animals, the hierarchy considers practices that \u003cem\u003erecycle\u003c/em\u003e (typically extraction of non-food materials, anerobic digestion, or composting) and \u003cem\u003erecover\u003c/em\u003e (of energy via incineration or application to land) food and drink material, but this is the most inconsistent section of the hierarchy among the many iterations of the FWH [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Further, there is evidence suggesting sector-level frameworks may be more beneficial due to variable benefits of individual practices across industries [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite a lack of clear guidance at mid-to-low tiers of the hierarchy for practice prioritisation, for the purposes of this study we consider the broader classification of \u003cb\u003e\u0026lsquo;recycling or recovery\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e as a suitable basis for comparing motivators at a third priority level. This is because we are interested in seeing differences that largely transcend across hierarchy-levels rather than differences between practices that may yield less-clear benefits. This classification includes whole-of-biomaterial diversion practices (e.g., AD or composting) and extraction or conversion into specific biomaterials, which often produce and additional residue or by-product. Lastly, there is consensus the least preferred (and prioritised) option is \u003cb\u003e\u0026lsquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003edisposal\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e. Together, these four groups of management practices help us explore differences in motivators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo explore motivational differences across hierarchy-levels we also consider a higher-level grouping. As discussed previously, many of the frameworks to measure progress to SDG12.3 have determined that diverting FLW towards human food products or animal feed contributes to the \u003cb\u003e\u0026lsquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003ereduction\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e of FLW (e.g., see SFWA [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], Dairy Australia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], WRAP [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]). This means that any FLW that is diverted from disposal to either recycling or recovery does not contribute towards FLW reduction targets and is therefore still considered \u003cb\u003e\u0026lsquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003ewaste\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e and less desirable. These overlapping 4- and 2-group categories are considered in the present study and illustrated on the middle section of Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, with examples of each for the whey case study on the right-hand side.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding factors that incentivise firms to change behaviour, Institutional Theory identifies three broad types of 'isomorphic' forces (i.e., coercive, normative and mimetic) that explain why firms exhibit similar behaviours over time to maintain legitimacy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. The EIT distinguishes profit drivers alongside these forces [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, a common and logical motivator for a firm is to prioritise \u003cb\u003e\u0026lsquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003eprofit maximisation\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e. This includes adapting to market demands and enhance production efficiency, especially evident in resource-scarce industries like dairy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Secondly, the \u003cem\u003ecoercive\u003c/em\u003e mechanism, relates to firms\u0026rsquo; adherence to formal rules and regulations. \u003cb\u003e\u0026lsquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003eGovernment regulations\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e drive compliance, with penalties imposed on environmental violations as exampled by dairy sector whey dumping (e.g., to local sewers) incidents [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cb\u003e\u0026lsquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003eBuyers\u0026rsquo; expectations\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e exert a coercive pressure back through the supply chain, either directly from end consumers or through intermediaries like supermarkets, imposing product and manufacturing standards including FLW management practices [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. Thirdly, the \u003cem\u003enormative\u003c/em\u003e mechanism relates to moral governance and social obligations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Norms are extrinsic motivators that specify appropriate actions based on \u003cb\u003e\u0026lsquo;\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003esociety\u0026rsquo;s expectations\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. This can cause firms to change behaviour; for instance, in order to maintain their social license to operate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. On the other hand, the goal to \u0026lsquo;\u003cb\u003eprotect the natural environment\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e is aligned with intrinsic values, which are based on one\u0026rsquo;s own moral compass. These values have been shown to explain the behaviour of some firms, especially for practices that result in environmentally beneficial outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. While very much interconnected, social norms and values are two distinct motivators affecting decision making. Finally, the \u003cem\u003emimetic\u003c/em\u003e force indicates copying (miming) the behaviour of others in the presence of uncertainty [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, the pressure to \u0026lsquo;\u003cb\u003ekeep up with practices used by others\u0026rsquo;\u003c/b\u003e in the industry or follow prevailing industry trends can lead firms to adopt similar management practices. This has been observed with practices such as corporate reporting and governance frameworks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese six motivators aligned with the four forces serve as the basis for exploring incentives within the FWH (left-hand side of Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, EIT supports the notion that multiple motivators can occur simultaneously and the specific drivers can cut across multiple forces \u0026ndash; e.g., a buyers\u0026rsquo; expectations may be set by responsible environmental management, which is affected by social expectations norms. The EIT underlines our framework, which recognises the overlapping nature of profit, coercive, normative, and mimetic forces (represented by the Venn diagram in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Relative importance of motivators\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the results of participants' weighting (based on a 100-point allocation) to the various motivators influencing their decisions to change whey management practices. The findings emphasise a diverse range of factors affecting firms' decisions, with \u003cem\u003eprofit maximisation\u003c/em\u003e emerging as the most important driver. The data reveal substantial heterogeneity in participant responses, particularly in the contexts of \u003cem\u003eprofit maximisation, environmental protection, and government regulations\u003c/em\u003e. The distribution of responses skews toward zero, with many respondents assigning a zero rating to factors such as \u003cem\u003ebuyers' and society's expectations\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ekeeping up with others\u003c/em\u003e. Interestingly, many participants remarked the low level of awareness of consumers and retailers regarding whey, but some voiced their concern that this may change in the short- to medium-term.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited differences were observed in motivators influencing behaviour across hierarchy-levels (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, significant differences were found in the importance of \u003cem\u003egovernment regulations\u003c/em\u003e between firms using whey in human food products versus those using it for animal feed or disposal (pairwise comparison p-value\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Specific regulations included local council business approvals and utility charges for disposal, state environmental legislation for recycling or recovery (mostly irrigation of whey onto paddocks), and food safety regulation and alcohol taxation. In South Australia, modest government restrictions prevent feeding whey to the same animals that supplied the milk. Interestingly, while differences were observed in the 4-group comparison, they were not significant in the 2-group comparison (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e in the Supplementary Material). This might indicate that grouping of human food products with animal feed, cancels out the difference observed in the 4-group comparison. The robustness check did not reveal significant differences, indicating a moderate trend.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, there was a higher rating for \u003cem\u003ekeeping up with others\u003c/em\u003e among firms that use whey in animal feed compared to all other groups, although the difference is modest (mean score: 0.5 v 5.3 out of 100). The 2-group comparison (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e) showed \u003cem\u003ekeeping up with others\u003c/em\u003e was consistently (albeit modestly) higher for firms in the \u003cem\u003ereduction\u003c/em\u003e group. Although maximising profit returned a slight difference in the ANOVA test, the post-hoc comparison did identify any difference between individual groups, nor did the other analyses of regarding this motivator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAchieving SDG12.3 necessitates diverting food and drink material towards human food products or animal feed, highlighting the importance of incentivising behavioural change. This paper explores the motivators driving firms to change their whey management practices and how these vary across different levels of the FWH. Using EIT as a framing tool, this study reveals a diverse range of motivators influencing firms, including profit maximisation, environmental protection, and government regulations. While there is heterogeneity among firms, there is a lack of significant variation in motivators based on FWH level, except for government regulation which has positive and negative effects. These findings contribute to understanding what drives firms to engage in CBMs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral other studies have identified motivators associated with CBM adoption [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], demonstrating their heterogeneous nature [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. However, this study quantitatively assesses the relative importance of various motivators for behaviour change within the FWH utilising a 100-point allocation question to capture trade-offs between motivating factors. By focusing on whey as a case study, the study enables comprehensive comparisons among similar firms facing comparable external pressures. Engaging firms at different hierarchy levels provides a holistic understanding of sector heterogeneity, areas to prioritise.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding different economic and non-economic incentives is crucial for achieving SDG12.3 and FWH objectives. This study\u0026rsquo;s findings indicate a lack of variation in motivators across hierarchy levels, firms are unlikely to coalesce around practices aligning with a specific FWH level, with the exception of government regulation. The case of cheese whey suggests an instance of failures in markets, government, and social licenses to achieve efficient allocation of resources while limiting negative externalities. Despite numerous opportunities to add value to whey by converting it into products for human consumption over several decades, market conditions have prevented firms businesses from accessing these technologies. Various government regulations play a role in discouraging undesirable behaviour while simultaneously increasing transaction costs for firms seeking to change their practices. Furthermore, this study underscores that whey management is not a front-of-mind issue for society, with minimal pressure exerted by stakeholders. While this observation holds true at the time of the study, the relative importance of motivators may evolve over time, emphasising the dynamic nature of behavioural incentives. The below paragraphs outline the policy implications of this dynamic setting. These are presented based on factors of greater importance, including practices improving profit and environmental outcomes, the role of government, expectations from buyers and society, and industry norms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study underscores the important role of profitability alongside environmental benefits in driving behaviour change. This has been observed by others in the agricultural [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] and corporate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] context. While maximising profits is unsurprisingly important, the study highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of firms' decision-making processes, indicated by no statistical difference in the importance given environmental protection. While CE principles aim to simultaneously achieve economic and environmental outcomes, trade-offs can occur. This is true in the context of whey, which can have considerable benefits or costs depending on the technology option [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e] and scale of production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, it is not always clear to firms which option is optimal given the broad range of factors that need to be accounted for. Decision support tools arguably have a very important role to assist.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernment regulations play a crucial role in shaping firm behaviours, but their impact varies across FWH levels. While regulations act as incentives (e.g., waste disposal fees/penalties or environmental management oversight) for exploring alternative practices, they also impose constraints, particularly at higher hierarchy levels (food safety regulations or alcohol taxation in this study\u0026rsquo;s context), hindering the transition toward circular economy practices. Addressing regulatory disincentives and promoting higher FWH levels requires alternative policy instruments such as supply-side subsidies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] (e.g., investment in cold chain, storage, or processing infrastructure); information-based policies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] (e.g., better guidelines to overcome regulatory hurdles), industry coordination, and further investment in technology research and development to improve availability and access [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrently, expectations regarding whey management practices are low among buyers and society. However, evolving expectations could drive behaviour change in the future. This could manifest directly from consumers demanding new expectations on cheese products or creating demand for products derived from by-products (e.g., whey-based vodka), which could be aided from greater recognition of the 'Upcycle' certification standard [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. Alternatively, supply chain intermediaries such as supermarkets could set new expectations on the products they stock, which could be driven by shareholders rather than their customers. While major supermarkets in Australia have reported plans to work with suppliers to reduce food waste in the supply chain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e] efforts appear to be prioritised towards avoidable FLW (e.g., fresh produce) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. This could easily change in the future for whey, with shifting expectations from various stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMimetic pressures, which involves firms imitating the practices of other reputable companies and has been observed in the adoption of CE practices [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e] but were found to be largely insignificant in this study. However, efforts to align various incentives (discussed above) toward CBMs could establish new industry norms and best practices. Initiatives like the Australian Food Pact [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] and the UK\u0026rsquo;s Courtland Commitment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] publicly recognise voluntary commitments of firms, contributing to the normalisation of industry behaviour. These initiatives also serve as success cases, which is important for late adopters or new technologies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. The shift towards these industry norms fits with the Australian dairy sectors recently released strategy regarding FLW [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] and may assist the future of sector facing many challenges \u0026ndash; e.g., shrinking supply of milk, increasing costs of production, and increased expectations from consumers regarding ethical and environmental practices [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile it is acknowledged that the mimetic force will likely result in the slowest adoption rate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e], it can be complemented by reducing barriers to CBMs can assist in establishing these norms through various pathways. This relies on providing information about the profitability and environmental benefits of alternative practices, addressing regulatory disincentives, enhancing supply-side conditions, and shaping new expectations from consumers, society, and buyers. Further research is necessary to understand the distinct barriers to specific types of CBMs and their implications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study encountered several limitations. Firstly, the small sample size may have impacted results, though efforts were made to ensure representation across the industry. While future studies could benefit from larger samples and detailed segmentation based on motivational profiles, the robustness checks did reflect consistent trends between motivators and behaviours. Secondly, this study did not assess the relationship between firm characteristics and their whey management practice. Such an approach would require a nuanced analytical approach to account for various management practices, business models within broader value networks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. Thirdly, the results were specific to Australia's cheese manufacturing sector, indicating the importance of considering contextual differences in other sectors generating food loss and waste (FLW). Additionally, there may be some future relevance to other agricultural sectors that generate unavoidable FLW, given the maturity of processing technologies in the dairy sector have been considered decades ahead of other industries [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. That is to say that, even with the development of new technologies, the right motives need to be in place to incentivise change. Other limitations include the choice and wording of the motivators, and the possibility of social desirability bias. However, given there were very few \u0026lsquo;other\u0026rsquo; factors reported, we consider that the predominant motivators have been considered. Social desirability bias is also possible; however, we see that profit maximisation was the most important factor and the normative \u0026lsquo;social expectations\u0026rsquo; generally low. However, a more distinct contrast may be observed in larger sample sizes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study highlights diverse motivators influencing firms' movement up the FWH in the Australian cheese manufacturing sector. Profit maximisation and environmental concerns emerged as key drivers, underscoring the need to balance commercial viability with sustainability. Government regulations played an important role, but fragmented regulations across jurisdictions highlight the need for cohesive policies. While current societal expectations regarding whey management practices are limited, evolving consumer preferences emphasise the importance of awareness and behaviour change. These findings indicate a potential failure of markets, governments and social licenses to lead to efficient resource allocation while limiting negative externalities. However, despite the current status-quo, we discuss how these areas could be the driving force for change in the future. The heterogeneity found in the motivators suggests simultaneous, synergistic and multi-stakeholder forces (e.g., profit, coercive, normative and mimetic) will be needed to achieve the scale of behaviour change within the 2030 timeframe. This research provides insights for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers to promote sustainability in the dairy manufacturing sector and beyond. Future research should delve into the complex factors influencing CBMs and the barriers faced by different types of businesses.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4 Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Case study overview\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1.1 Whey challenges and management practices\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhey is the liquid by-product from the manufacturing of dairy products, such as cheese, and has been an ongoing waste issue for cheese manufacturing throughout history [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. While whey is also generated from yoghurt, this study is focused exclusively on cheese whey. As with raw milk (87% comprised of water), whey is predominantly comprised of water (94%). However, whey contains approximately 50% of total nutrients and, depending on the type of product being manufactured, between 75\u0026ndash;90% of the total mass of the raw milk [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. Its composition varies depending on the cheese production method resulting in distinctions between sweet and acid whey, each containing diverse nutrient profiles and pH levels. Various management practices for whey have been explored by firms including its transformation into human food products, animal feed, recycling, and recovery processes, and the less desirable disposal option. These practices align with the FWH categories and have been documented previous including by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Examples of these practices are summarised against the FWH framework in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1.2 Overview of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Australia, 8.1\u0026nbsp;billion litres of milk goes into dairy product manufacturing each year, of which, 43% contributes to cheese production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. At the time of the study, there were 132 firms manufacturing cheese products, including from cow, goat, sheep and camel milk. These include a few large manufacturers (2.1% of firms) and many small manufacturers (89.4%) that are mainly concentrated in the south-east of Australia (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese firms exhibit diverse business configurations and product mixes, ranging from exclusive cheese production to a broader array of dairy and non-dairy products. The industry also has complex relationships between firms. For instance, Bega Group, the largest cheese manufacturers in Australia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e] has a license agreement with Fonterra Co-op Group, another major cheese manufacturer, to handle all marketing and distribution of Bega-branded products in in Australia (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://begagroup.com.au/student-resources/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://begagroup.com.au/student-resources/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, Saputo Dairy Australia have joint venture agreements in place with other multi-national dairy manufacturers (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.saputodairyaustralia.com.au/en/our-products/joint-ventures\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.saputodairyaustralia.com.au/en/our-products/joint-ventures\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, some firms are vertically integrated firms (e.g., farm production, manufacturing and retailing), while others are solely focused on manufacturing. Therefore, there is a great deal of variability in the characteristics of the firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of whey product manufacturing, in 2022-23 financial year, Australian manufacturers produced 58 kilotonnes of whey powder, with half exported predominantly to Asia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. Notably, the three largest cheese manufacturers (Bega Group, Saputo Dairy Australia and Fonterra Co-op Group) and some of the mid-scale manufacturers (e.g., Beston Global Food Company) produce whey powder products such as whole whey powder, concentrates and protein isolates and individual supplements (e.g., lactoferrin). These predominantly go into food manufacturing uses (e.g., ice cream, baked goods), infant formula, health and sport supplements product [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. The global whey protein market was estimated to be US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e10.9\u0026nbsp;billion in 2022 and is expected to experience a 7.88% compounded annual growth rate between 2022\u0026ndash;2027 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e]. There are also growing markets for whey-based alcohol, such as vodka and beer. There are examples across production including small-scale premium artisanal products (e.g., Hartshorn distillery in Tasmania, retailing for AU\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e185.98 per litre) and industrial scale (Asahi-owned \u0026ldquo;Vodka O\u0026rdquo; in Melbourne, retailing AU\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e62.99). Another niche but high-end product option is skincare products in (\u0026ldquo;Leapful\u0026rdquo; in Tasmania, retailing for \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e256.00). Examples of these products are provided in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. While not an exhaustive list of whey-product manufacturers, this highlights the range of high value manufactured product options that are commercially available across production scales. Note, not all whey-product manufacturers are cheese manufacturers (e.g., Asahi and Morgans Winery and Distillery).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these market opportunities, whey has been recognised as the most significant FLW issues for the dairy sector, with the peak dairy industry body, Dairy Australia, making a commitment SDG12.3 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. This is because whey accounts for half of the FLW in the Australian dairy sector, is the largest share of FLW across all stages of the chain, and is estimated to cost manufacturers AUD \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e578\u0026nbsp;million each year.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Data collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo collect the data for this study semi-structured interviews were conducted with employees of Australian cheese manufacturers (CMs) actively involved in whey management decisions. Participants were identified through the Dairy Australia database (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/manufacturing-support/australian-dairy-manufacturers\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/manufacturing-support/australian-dairy-manufacturers\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) and industry contacts of the research team. A total of 42 firms, representing 31% of the industry, were interviewed between November 2022 and June 2023. Purposive-proportional sampling was used to ensure representation across scales of production and states. Descriptive statistics of the sample against industry data is provided in Table S2 in the Supplementary Material. Interviews were conducted in-person, via telephone, or Zoom. The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the lead author\u0026rsquo;s host organisation (approval number: H-2022-206).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Relative importance of motivators\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 100-point allocation question was used to measure the relative importance of factors affecting the firm\u0026rsquo;s decision to change their whey management practice. This is because, unlike other options such as Likert-scales (as implemented by Arranz and Arroyabe [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]) and other ranking options, 100-point allocations (also called Budget pies) force respondents to make trade-offs between factors and identifies the relative intensity of their choice [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]. This is particularly relevant to this context where some factors may be perceived to be overlapping and/or interconnected. For example, something that is seen to be socially desirable because it protects the environment, the respondent has the option to split points equally between these factors. Alternatively, they could choose to allocate all/more of their points to protecting the environment and none/less to social expectations as the secondary consideration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked to distribute 100-points among six pre-defined factors: (1) profit maximisation; (2) government regulation; (3) buyers\u0026rsquo; expectations (e.g. supermarkets); (4) society\u0026rsquo;s expectations; (5) protecting the natural environment; (6) keeping up with practices used by other CMs. An 'Other' option with options to detail/describe was also provided. The questionnaire design was based on others [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR62\" citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e] and was pre-tested. The exact wording of the question is shown in Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e in the Supplementary Material. Three versions of the interview instrument were used, varying the order of the factors to reduce potential bias.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Categorising hierarchy-level behaviour\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven many firms engaged in multiple whey management practices, we categorised options based on predominant behaviour. For instance, 95% of whey goes to making human food products with incidental amounts going to disposal, or \u003cem\u003evice versa\u003c/em\u003e. Membership to a group was therefore based on the category that accounted for 50% or more of the end destination of the firm\u0026rsquo;s whey. We performed two sets of groupings based on the behaviour categories already discussed. Firstly, a 4-group comparison was performed consisting of (1) human food products, (2) animal feed, (3) recycling or recovery, and (4) disposal. Secondly, a 2-group comparison was performed to compare (1) reduction and (2) waste.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith respect to analysis descriptive statistics and comparisons were first conducted to test variations in the relative importance (100-point score allocation) across the seven factors for all participants. Subsequently, comparisons were made for each factor based on FWH sub-groups as described above. Given the non-parametric nature of the relative importance data, the Kruskal-Wallis Test to compare group medians was considered appropriate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e]. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were then performed using Dunn's Test with Bonferroni correction to minimise the risk of false positives (Type I errors), resulting in cautious estimates. This approach was primarily applied to the first set of comparisons between factors. For the second set of comparisons among FWH sub-groups, the initial level of stringency was moderated. The smaller sub-group suggested that excessively strict criteria might produce false negatives (Type II error). ANOVA with Dunnett's T3 test was also employed to check the robustness of the results. In this case, a log-transformation was performed on score values with a small constant (0.01) added to all values to avoid a zero-log transformation. The data analyses were conducted in RStudio (version 2023.06.1). The results for these different tests and groupings are reported in Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e in the Supplementary Material.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eData availability statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCode Availability:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable in this case.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGatto, A. and M. Chepeliev, \u003cem\u003eGlobal food loss and waste estimates show increasing nutritional and environmental pressures\u003c/em\u003e. Nature Food, 2024. 5(2): p. 136\u0026ndash;147.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu, J., et al., \u003cem\u003eCradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems\u003c/em\u003e. Nature Food, 2023. 4(3): p. 247\u0026ndash;256.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReynolds, C.J., J. Piantadosi, and J. Boland, \u003cem\u003eRescuing Food from the Organics Waste Stream to Feed the Food Insecure: An Economic and Environmental Assessment of Australian Food Rescue Operations Using Environmentally Extended Waste Input-Output Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Sustainability, 2015. 7(4): p. 4707\u0026ndash;4726.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHanson, C. and P. Mitchell, \u003cem\u003eThe business case for reducing food loss and waste\u003c/em\u003e. 2017, Champions of 12.3: Washington, DC, USA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLade, S.J., et al., \u003cem\u003eHuman impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions\u003c/em\u003e. Nature Sustainability, 2020. 3(2): p. 119\u0026ndash;128.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoiteau, J.M. and P. Pingali, \u003cem\u003eCan we agree on a food loss and waste definition? An assessment of definitional elements for a globally applicable framework\u003c/em\u003e. Global Food Security, 2023. 37: p. 100677.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirchherr, J., D. Reike, and M. Hekkert, \u003cem\u003eConceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions.\u003c/em\u003e Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2017. 127: p. 221\u0026ndash;232.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePapargyropoulou, E., et al., \u003cem\u003eThe food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2014. 76: p. 106\u0026ndash;115.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParsa, A., et al., \u003cem\u003eChallenging the food waste hierarchy\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023. 344: p. 118554.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones, R.E., et al., \u003cem\u003eBiorefining within food loss and waste frameworks: A review\u003c/em\u003e. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2022. 154: p. 111781.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBocken, N.M., et al., \u003cem\u003eProduct design and business model strategies for a circular economy\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of industrial and production engineering, 2016. 33(5): p. 308\u0026ndash;320.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUSDA, U.S. \u003cem\u003eFood Loss \u0026amp; Waste 2030 Champions Milestones Report (September 2022)\u003c/em\u003e. 2022, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Washington DC, USA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSFWA, \u003cem\u003eStop Food Waste Australia: Strategic Plan\u003c/em\u003e. 2021, Stop Food Waste Australia: Adelaide, Australia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWRAP, \u003cem\u003eThe Courtauld Commitment 2030: Progress and Insights Report 2021/2022\u003c/em\u003e. 2022, Waste and Resource Action Programme: Branbury, UK.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers, E.M., \u003cem\u003eDiffusion of innovations\u003c/em\u003e. 5th ed. ed. 2003, New York: Free Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePannell, D.J., et al., \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders\u003c/em\u003e. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2006. 46(11): p. 1407\u0026ndash;1424.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRanta, V., et al., \u003cem\u003eExploring institutional drivers and barriers of the circular economy: A cross-regional comparison of China, the US, and Europe\u003c/em\u003e. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2018. 135: p. 70\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoodman-Smith, F., M. Mirosa, and S. Skeaff, \u003cem\u003eA mixed-methods study of retail food waste in New Zealand\u003c/em\u003e. Food Policy, 2020. 92: p. 101845.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArranz, C.F.A. and M.F. Arroyabe, \u003cem\u003eInstitutional theory and circular economy business models: The case of the European Union and the role of consumption policies\u003c/em\u003e. J Environ Manage, 2023. 340: p. 117906.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDo, Q., et al., \u003cem\u003eAn extended institutional theory perspective on the adoption of circular economy practices: Insights from the seafood industry\u003c/em\u003e. International Journal of Production Economics, 2022. 247.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHussain, M., M. Khan, and H. Saber, \u003cem\u003eThematic analysis of circular economy practices across closed-loop supply chains: An institutional theory perspective\u003c/em\u003e. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2023. 40: p. 122\u0026ndash;134.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTura, N., et al., \u003cem\u003eUnlocking circular business: A framework of barriers and drivers\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 212: p. 90\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVermunt, D.A., et al., \u003cem\u003eExploring barriers to implementing different circular business models\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019. 222: p. 891\u0026ndash;902.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeissdoerfer, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eDrivers and barriers for circular business model innovation\u003c/em\u003e. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022. 32(6): p. 3814\u0026ndash;3832.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHetherington, J.B., P. Juliano, and R. Garc\u0026iacute;a-Flores, \u003cem\u003eDeveloping closed-loop dairy value chains and tools to support decision-makers\u003c/em\u003e, in \u003cem\u003eDeveloping circular agricultural production systems\u003c/em\u003e, B. Amon, Editor. 2023, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: Cambridge, UK. p. 1\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGregg, J.S., et al., \u003cem\u003eValorization of bio-residuals in the food and forestry sectors in support of a circular bioeconomy: A review\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 267.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDairy Australia, \u003cem\u003eDairy sector food waste action plan\u003c/em\u003e. 2023, Dairy Australia: Melbourne, Australia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeigiserova, D.A., L. Hamelin, and M. Thomsen, \u003cem\u003eTowards transparent valorization of food surplus, waste and loss: Clarifying definitions, food waste hierarchy, and role in the circular economy\u003c/em\u003e. Science of The Total Environment, 2020. 706: p. 136033.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWRAP, \u003cem\u003eFood surplus and waste in the UK \u0026ndash; key facts\u003c/em\u003e. 2022, Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Banbury, UK.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScott, W.R., \u003cem\u003eInstitutions and organizations: Ideas and interests\u003c/em\u003e. 2008, Los Angeles, USA: Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKauppi, K., \u003cem\u003eExtending the use of institutional theory in operations and supply chain management research\u003c/em\u003e. International Journal of Operations \u0026amp; Production Management, 2013. 33(10): p. 1318\u0026ndash;1345.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmithers, G.W., \u003cem\u003eWhey and whey proteins\u0026mdash;From \u0026lsquo;gutter-to-gold\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/em\u003e International Dairy Journal, 2008. 18(7): p. 695\u0026ndash;704.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO'Connor, J., et al., \u003cem\u003eA critical review of on-farm food loss and waste: future research and policy recommendations\u003c/em\u003e. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2023. 38: p. e24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDevin, B. and C. Richards, \u003cem\u003eFood Waste, Power, and Corporate Social Responsibility in the Australian Food Supply Chain\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of Business Ethics, 2018. 150(1): p. 199\u0026ndash;210.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNilsson, A., C. von Borgstede, and A. Biel, \u003cem\u003eWillingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2004. 24(3): p. 267\u0026ndash;277.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDumbrell, N.P., D. Adamson, and S.A. Wheeler, \u003cem\u003eIs social licence a response to government and market failures? Evidence from the literature\u003c/em\u003e. Resources Policy, 2020. 69: p. 101827.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams, D., J. Donovan, and C. Topple, \u003cem\u003eSustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies\u003c/em\u003e. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamanathan, R., B. Poomkaew, and P. Nath, \u003cem\u003eThe impact of organizational pressures on environmental performance of firms\u003c/em\u003e. Business Ethics: A European Review, 2014. 23(2): p. 169\u0026ndash;182.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell, \u003cem\u003eThe Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields\u003c/em\u003e. American Sociological Review, 1983. 48(2): p. 147\u0026ndash;160.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaque, F. and C.G. Ntim, \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Policy, Sustainable Development, Governance Mechanisms and Environmental Performance\u003c/em\u003e. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2018. 27(3): p. 415\u0026ndash;435.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreiner, R., L. Patterson, and O. Miller, \u003cem\u003eMotivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers\u003c/em\u003e. Agricultural Systems, 2009. 99(2): p. 86\u0026ndash;104.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang, D.Z.-X., \u003cem\u003eAn integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance\u003c/em\u003e. Accounting \u0026amp; Finance, 2022. 62(S1): p. 1567\u0026ndash;1598.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRisner, D., et al., \u003cem\u003eFermentation and distillation of cheese whey: Carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions and water use in the production of whey spirits and white whiskey\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018. 101(4): p. 2963\u0026ndash;2973.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJuliano, P., et al., \u003cem\u003eWhey value addition\u003c/em\u003e. First ed, ed. G.B. Muset and M.L. Castells. 2017, Instituto Nacional de Tecnolog\u0026iacute;a Industrial - INTI: San Martin, Argentina.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarunasena, G.G., et al., \u003cem\u003eCo-creating policy research projects to assist Australia meet its commitment of halving food waste by 2030\u003c/em\u003e. 2022, Fight Food Waste Ltd: Adelaide. Australia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePannell, D.J. and R. Claassen, \u003cem\u003eThe Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy\u003c/em\u003e. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2020. 42(1): p. 31\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUpcycled Food Association, \u003cem\u003eUpcycled Certification Standard (Version 1)\u003c/em\u003e. 2020, Upcycled Food Association: Denver, USA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColes, \u003cem\u003eSustainability report\u003c/em\u003e. 2023, Coles Group: Melbourne, Australia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWoolworths, \u003cem\u003eSustainability report\u003c/em\u003e. 2023, Woolworths Group: Sydney, Australia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJain, N.K., A. Panda, and P. Choudhary, \u003cem\u003eInstitutional pressures and circular economy performance: The role of environmental management system and organizational flexibility in oil and gas sector\u003c/em\u003e. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2020. 29(8): p. 3509\u0026ndash;3525.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDairy Australia, \u003cem\u003eIn Focus 2021: The Australian Dairy Industry\u003c/em\u003e. 2021, Dairy Australia: Southbank, Australia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHampton, J.O., B. Jones, and P.D. McGreevy, \u003cem\u003eSocial License and Animal Welfare: Developments from the Past Decade in Australia\u003c/em\u003e. Animals, 2020. 10(12): p. 2237.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScott, W.R., \u003cem\u003eInstitutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program\u003c/em\u003e, in \u003cem\u003eGreat minds in management: The process of theory development\u003c/em\u003e. 2005, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. p. 460\u0026ndash;484.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeissdoerfer, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eCircular business models: A review\u003c/em\u003e. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 277: p. 123741.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsermoula, P., et al., \u003cem\u003eWhey - The waste-stream that became more valuable than the food product\u003c/em\u003e. Trends in Food Science \u0026amp; Technology, 2021. 118: p. 230\u0026ndash;241.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDairy Australia, \u003cem\u003eIn Focus 2023\u003c/em\u003e. 2023, Dairy Australia: Melbourne, Victoria.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReeves, M., \u003cem\u003eCheese Manufacturing in Australia\u003c/em\u003e. 2023, IBISWorld.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFahey, J., \u003cem\u003eButter and Dairy Product Manufacturing in Australia\u003c/em\u003e. 2023, IBISWorld.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTechnavio, \u003cem\u003eGlobal Whey Protein Market 2023\u0026ndash;2027\u003c/em\u003e. 2023, Infiniti Research Limited.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMullen, P.M., \u003cem\u003ePublic involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values\u003c/em\u003e. Health Expectations, 1999. 2(4): p. 222\u0026ndash;234.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDumbrell, N.P., et al., \u003cem\u003ePublic willingness to make trade-offs in the development of a hydrogen industry in Australia\u003c/em\u003e. Energy Policy, 2022. 165: p. 112987.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalek, L. and W.J. Umberger, \u003cem\u003eDistinguishing meat reducers from unrestricted omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: A comprehensive comparison of Australian consumers\u003c/em\u003e. Food Quality and Preference, 2021. 88: p. 104081.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoch, A., P. Boxall, and S.A. Wheeler, \u003cem\u003eUsing proportional modeling to evaluate irrigator preferences for market-based water reallocation\u003c/em\u003e. Agricultural Economics, 2016. 47(4): p. 387\u0026ndash;398.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee, S. and D.K. Lee, \u003cem\u003eWhat is the proper way to apply the multiple comparison test?\u003c/em\u003e Korean J Anesthesiol, 2018. 71(5): p. 353\u0026ndash;360.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Motivators, Circular Economy, Food Loss and Waste, Food Waste Hierarchy, Extended Institutional Theory","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4215468/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4215468/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHalving food loss and waste by 2030 is a major global challenge. The Food Waste Hierarchy underpins strategies to achieve this, but understanding the relative importance of motivators to incentivise change is limited. This study utilises the pertinent case study of the by-product of cheese-making, 'whey', to explore this in Australia. Through semi-structured interviews with 42 nationally-representative firms, motivators were quantified using a novel 100-point allocation instrument. Profit maximisation, environmental protection, and government regulation emerge as key motivators, but there is significant heterogeneity. Motivators generally do not differ markedly across hierarchy-levels, except for government regulations, which both incentivise and disincentivise change. Findings indicate a potential failure of markets, governments and social licenses to lead to efficient resource allocation while limiting negative externalities. Pathways to challenge the status quo and transform the food system are discussed, which will likely require simultaneous forces to move enough firms up the hierarchy by 2030.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring incentives to move up the Food Waste Hierarchy: a case study of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-04-10 18:28:02","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4215468/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"01bc0995-486e-415b-b2b9-b4ae6c382adc","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 10th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":30280782,"name":"Scientific community and society/Agriculture"},{"id":30280783,"name":"Business and commerce/Economics"},{"id":30280784,"name":"Scientific community and society/Business and industry/Technology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-04-29T13:10:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-04-10 18:28:02","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4215468","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4215468","identity":"rs-4215468","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}