Abstract
This thorough dissertation investigates the roles of global organizations, countries’ objectives, and regional power dynamics in establishing principles of the circular economy to reduce food loss and waste. This study examines the regime theory and North-South flexible dichotomy to conduct an in-depth comparative analysis of the EU and ASEAN. The EU managed to champion food waste management and food safety standards, but it puts an excessive burden on developing countries through the externalization of CE standards. The ASEAN region, constrained by systemic economic vulnerabilities and perpetual economic advancement, lacks an effective and corresponding legislative architecture to mitigate food loss and waste. So, the analysis has unveiled that the current food waste framework is impaired and biased. To achieve the SDG (12.3), developing countries must be included in the agenda, forums, and strategic discussions to come up with the standards that can be adapted in a unified way.
Introduction
Food waste has become a global issue, and the current strategies have remained ineffective. Almost 17% of the global food production is wasted or lost every year (Deliverect, 2024: 1). The circular economy is a promising horizon for countries to reduce food waste, but only the technical and ecological aspects are addressed; the social dimension is not embedded. Instead, this issue is to be comprehended from the perspective of international relations, which can help to derive some valuable insights and implications. Global food waste policy is one of the reasons for the current prevalence of this issue. This detailed study will investigate and analyze the owner and controller of the standards. It is also necessary to explore the entities (regions) absorbing the economic burden, with the limited application of circular economy values. Currently, CE principles are established by state goals, global entities, and regional power dynamics. However, with the solid application of regime theory of international relations and the North-South dichotomy, a detailed comparison between the EU and ASEAN regions is to be conducted.
Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework and Methodology
2.1 Situating the Dissertation in IR Literature
The circular economy has been a subject of enduring debate. The research has been conducted from the perspective of business, engineering, and ecological aspects. Authors have grabbed issues, such as linear supply chain, business model innovation, technological enablers, and cross-sectoral integration (Ahmad et al., 2023: 2). Despite these studies, the political question needed is still missing. It is yet to be known what exact circular justification is. It is essential to comprehend the circular economy benefits for nations. Certainly, some countries have strived for well-determined food waste diversion approaches compared to other countries, and finding the reason behind this is a new need.
Food waste has remained a prevalent issue at the global level. Almost one-third of the global food produced is wasted, which further contributes to carbon footprint, resource exhaustion, and even economic friction. For better control, the combination of conventional and modern interventions, such as landfill sanctions, consolidated label protocols, and necessary food donations, is in the loop. The area of concern is that the design and execution process of these strategies is a bit political. There is a paradox about who will bear the costs, benefits, and apply standards globally. UN Environment Program, which refers to UNEP, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and World Trade Organization (WTO), is playing a crucial role, but the impact is uneven.
Critically, the existing circular economy literature is shattered. Authors have optimized six important themes, which include supply chain approaches, circular economy advancements, data-driven tools, circular business models, operational restructuring, and outcome measurement. The gap has existed because the excessive focus on literature has remained on the supply chain and digital facets. It indicates the lack of integration with entrepreneurship, merchant involvement, and customer behavior (Pillai et al., 2025: 15). An adequate and detailed framework is missing that sidelines the systemic bottlenecks of circular economic integration in the international business domain (Pillai et al., 2025: 2). This detailed dissertation fills this gap by making the international relations lens well embedded to make food reduction a new reality.
2.2 Research Question
After identifying the gaps in the current research, this comprehensive dissertation strives to find the following.
How do global governing bodies, national priorities, and geopolitical imbalances shape the acceptance and efficiency of the circular economy policies to reduce food waste?
In this context, two important sub-questions are as follows.
- What is the role of global regimes in normative standard-setting for food waste reduction?
- How do the competing state concerns, especially developed and developing economies, create an impact on the blueprint and integration of such policies?
Theoretical Framework
This thorough dissertation concentrates on two important international relations theories: “Regime Theory” and “North-South Flexible Dichotomy.” The illustration of these theories is as follows.
“Regime Theory” refers to the institutionalization of explicit and implicit norms (Hynek, 2017: 13). Regime, in this context, refers to the best combination of overt and latent standards, decision-making patterns, and rules. Actors usually have expectations that usually revolve around a set principle (Heras and Gupta, 2025: 2). Concerning food waste, pertinent regimes include UNFCCC, as it is a secondary intervention to reduce food waste through carbon foot printing. “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement” is also critical because it influences the durability marking and food detention. UNEP’s efforts on Sustainable Development Goal (Target 12.3) are also in the spotlight, as the intention is to reduce food waste by 2030 (UN Environment Programme, 2025: para 1).
This theory assists in apprehending the reason behind the standard policies at the global level. This theory also facilitates knowing the valid and probable reasons behind compliance divergences. Critically, regime theory seems too state-centric, as it sidelines the power imbalances. So, the lens of the North-South Perspective is to be embedded.
The “North-South Flexible Dichotomy” signals the structural gaps. According to the authors, this difference or dichotomy is useful to some extent if it remains stretchy and constant (Heras and Gupta, 2025: 8). It refers to dynamic segments that are not fixed. For instance, the term “South Within North” indicates that there are poor communities in affluent countries. The term “North Within South” indicates the wealthy communities in the developing nation. This domination has remained structural, making the powerful countries and actors control the strategic agendas, international summits, and strict conclusions. So, the marginalization of the southern standpoint is obvious (Heras and Gupta, 2025: 9).
Relative to the application of this theory, developed countries have become the source of setting and optimizing the transnational standards, especially circularity mechanisms (Prokop et al., 2022: 69). As a result, cooked food is rejected from trading. Poor countries or developing nations usually lack adequate resources to implement these standards. They experience restrictive market access, and eventually, they become hubs for the dumping of rejected food. Usually, food waste obligation goes to the global north. However, advanced, and emerging economies must share this liability (Tutar, et al., 2025: 677).
Thus, this dissertation can come up with the perfect blend of these theories to underline international institution rules and power dynamics to understand the design and implementation of these rules or standards.
2.4 Methodology
This dissertation leverages the comparative case study approach by using the qualitative method. The primary reason for this methodology is to conduct an in-depth analysis to answer the research question formed.
In this context, two cases have been considered. First, the European Union, notably in terms of food waste, is to be steered, as far as its progressive adoption of the CE action plan is concerned. UN comes up with waste reduction approaches and targets, food donation protocols, and date labeling, indicating the stringent regulatory landscape. Second, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is to be assessed. It is the fragile regime that encompasses erratic administrative capacity. There is a non-binding charter on the circular economy, as each state has a different income level, infrastructure, and food waste control. So, the low-regulation ecosystem, due to the influencing political system, is visible with this (Rahmat, et al., 2025: 251).
Data sources include journal articles, books, policy documents, and web articles. Despite the theoretical application, appropriate data sources, and qualitative case comparison, the study has some limitations. For instance, it concentrates on the government-led initiatives, as the role of the non-state actors is missing. The comparison of two cases may ignore each region’s diversity. However, the dissertation comes up with some powerful and useful findings that dominate these weaknesses or limitations.
2.5 Structure of Dissertation
Following the establishment of theoretical and methodology basis, the next chapter stresses the scrutiny of the global governance of food waste by contemplating the global bodies and North-South contention. Moreover, the 3rd chapter will streamline the comparative cases of ASEAN and the EU. In the 4th chapter, valuable findings will be presented, which will trigger some valuable recommendations.
Chapter 2: Global governance of Food Waste, Institutions, Norms, and Contestations
2.1 The Transboundary Nature of Food Waste
Food waste has remained a prevalent problem at the global level. Almost 1.3 billion tons of food is wasted around the globe. It is alarming because it accounts for one-third, a critical fraction, of the worldwide food supply (Kalogiannidis et al., 2025: 1). For example, Europe is one of the major contributors to global food loss and waste, as it causes almost 88 million tons of food waste each year. The role of families in this food waste is prominent. For example, families have caused 53% of food waste. Moreover, the service sector and retail have contributed 19% and 5% respectively to production (Kalogiannidis et al., 2025: 3). These facts are alarming because they indicate systemic failure, which is driven by the global trade protocols and certain rules and norms optimized by the global retail chains. Broadly, the North and South sides always have jagged power dynamics, which is also one of the reasons for this prevalent food waste.
The impact of this food waste on the environment is devastating. Excessive food waste, especially in landfills, becomes the reason for methane, which is even more toxic than CO2 for the next 100 years (Wang et al., 2025, p. 1). It has been revealed that food waste is becoming the reason for 8% GHG emissions (Kalogiannidis et al., 2025: 1). There is a possibility of this waste reduction through recycling functions, such as biochemical conversion and recovery, which can diminish emissions by 1 ton of CO2 corresponding to every ton of waste recycled compared to the landfill (Wang et al., 2025: 2). So, the major takeaway is that the food waste management issue cannot be separated from climate action.
2.2 International Institutions and Policy Framework
International organizations (institutions) have influenced the waste governance mechanism. First, the UN Environment Program strives for the fulfillment of SDG target (12.3), as the purpose is to reduce the food waste (per capita) at the customer and retail level by 2030 (Kalogiannidis et al., 2025: 1-2). The Food and Agriculture Organization formulated the Food Loss Index to measure the progress. For instance, its report revealed that almost 14% of food is lost globally from fruit and vegetables (Cattaneo et al., 2021: 4). Data complication has remained a major paradox for these institutions. Still, they lack reliable and complete proof of the total waste or loss, especially in the context of certain products and supply chain events (Cattaneo et al., 2021: 4).
The World Trade Organization (WTO) also plays a key role by initiating the dialogue of moral obligation in the global food trade (Abdel, 2023: 4). There are fit-for- purpose and enforceable sanitary and phytosanitary protocols that protect people, animals, and the planet. Nonetheless, despite the benefits, these activities have become the reason for food waste. The reason is certain cosmetic standards that reject this edible food (Mabunda et al., 2025: 2). WTO contains the SPS contract that delegates to governments to shape their own standards. The problem starts when these countries must provide scientific data and validate the exclusion of arbitrary discrimination (Mabunda et al., 2025: 2). Retailers, on the other hand, usually practice stringent standards that lead to massive suboptimal food waste. According to findings, cosmetic requirements, for fresh food, are causing massive waste or loss (4% to 58%) only in the EU (Pietrangeli et al., 2023: 2). So, the whole food waste revolves around a certain ecosystem.
The EU demonstrates a progressive regional regime, as it has a progressive circular economic action plan (2020). This regime depicts some mandatory targets, which assist in shaping ecological items, creating awareness among consumers, and diminishing waste in the value chain (Haukkala, 2025: 2). Critically, this action plan is associated with the three important assumptions. First, there is always a need to include the recycling content in products. Second, customers must be motivated to evade waste. Third, introducing the new and innovative CE business model is mandatory. It is challenging to achieve these targets due to some technological gaps, people’s behavioral issues, and resistances, and importantly, shattered policy frameworks (Haukkala, 2025: 4-5).
North-South Power Asymmetries
There is a dynamic North-South power connection. This power dynamic can help top understand food waste supremacy. This dichotomy can be analyzed from the standpoint that the powerful nations dominate the developing nations, as they control the agenda, media, and decisions to suppress other viewpoints (Heras and Gupta, 2025: 1). From the lens of food waste, it can be further evaluated in multiple ways.
Cosmetic rules usually come from the developed countries, which makes the food from the developing countries irrelevant or technically unrecoverable. The Senegal study unveiled that almost 65% of mangoes were wasted (annually) because they were below the EU’s set cosmetic requirements, especially in the context of physical specifications (Colbert and Schein, 2019: 15). According to estimates, almost 50% to 60% of products are to be exported to these countries if the cosmetic requirements become elastic to some extent (Colbert and Schein, 2019: 15). The major problem starts when the cosmetic requirements are loosened and flexible due to the low global supply. Conversely, with the high global supply, these requirements become so stringent that they lead to excessive food waste (Colbert and Schein, 2019: 13).
There have been some unfair trading practices. Strong and powerful buyers conduct these unjust practices, which result in an excessive burden on suppliers regarding food waste. Retail chains, especially supermarkets, have used certain cosmetic standards as a shield to block food, especially when the demand is low. As a result, suppliers usually stumble while bearing the cost (Colbert and Schein, 2019: 17). A study in South Africa unveiled that almost 1600 butternut squashes were denied by the UK importer due to minor technical scraping, with a few of them being overweight. The whole shipment became a waste with the exporter remaining unpaid (Colbert and Schein, 2019: 20).
WTO has been excellent in regulating food management, but the conflict settlement practices are ineffective to some extent. For instance, these mechanisms are hard to access for the developed countries due to fewer legal resources and ever-increasing costs (Mabunda et al., 2025: 13). For example, the EU’s citrus conflict with SA led to the blockade of almost 500 million worth of citrus. Critically, it is unveiled that SPS mechanisms or measures are effective and triggered by some specific evidence. Besides, these have also become the reason for the trade barriers, which made the SA exporters struggle in the market (Mabunda et al., 2025: 11, 14).
2.4 Non-State Actors and Transnational Advocacy
Non-state actors play a significant role in food waste management. Food professionals play a significant role in cutting waste at the consumption and buying levels. The theory “Planned Behavior” stresses behavior, subjective norms, and perceived self-efficacy that creates the impact on the food waste attitude (Kalogiannidis et al., 2025: 2). The primary and only solution is to run progressive campaigns to set the foundation for a prominent level of awareness to change such behaviors. Food waste is a threat to many due to multiple reasons. For instance, 360 nutritionists were asked about food waste, and 71.8% think that food waste is becoming the reason for food uncertainty. On the other hand, 40.2% of people think that the EU’s rules and standards are fair enough. So, a huge execution paradox has occurred, and food waste has still been an issue (Kalogiannidis et al., 2025: 7-10).
Interestingly, rejection claims can be reduced by independent auditors and surveyors, especially through product quality evaluation. Despite the benefit of this, the major problem is that the cost of the process goes to exporters. As a result, southern suppliers can experience extreme burden (Colbert and Schein, 2019: 29). In this modern and evolving business era, multi-stakeholder initiatives, especially the “Champion 12.3 Network and the Food Loss and Waste Protocol, have been effective and workable (Okadera, et al., 2025: 1). Critically, despite insights related to these methods, the research has failed to illustrate the reason behind poor adoption and execution. It is necessary to examine why these approaches are not implemented to the full extent to reduce food waste. Of course, these implications are to be derived through further research processes (Cattaneo et al., 2021: 6-7).
Chapter 3: Comparative Analysis of UN and ASEAN
3.1 Case Selection and Comparability
This detailed chapter revolves around the two different governance systems in the context of food waste. These two cases include the European Union and the ASEAN regions, as both have implemented different CE approaches to reduce food waste. This comparison has a critical analysis to show how power dynamics, institutional mechanisms, and regional settings create an impact on the policy consequences. The EU has set proper standards at the institutional level. Conversely, ASEAN seems weak in food waste management, due to supply chain issues (Food Cycle Science, 2023: para 4). The major takeaway is that the EU has certain legal frameworks and regulations that have become the reason for the trade barriers. Vietnam, for example, hinges on the National Action Plan at the institutional level, which is the primary reason for ineffective regional action (Hu et al., 2026: 16).
3.2 The European Union: A Strong Circular Economy Regime for Food Waste
The food waste management system in the European Union is triggered by a certain and stringent regulatory mechanism. This regulatory ecosystem has the CE action plan, the Waste Framework Directive, and a typical farm-to-fork approach (European Union, 2020: 4). This legally binding setting has set countries, for example, Italy and France, to come up with the local legal framework. For example, France established and inflicted Anti Waste and CE law, which made food waste a socio-economic challenge (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2022: para 3). Conventionally, these supermarkets are used to destroy unsold food. This legal system helped to create effective donation contacts, as this unsold and edible food is donated to charities (González, 2017: 5-6). So, the issue of food waste management is turning into a social responsibility, as the law is contributing to reducing hunger. Similarly, Italy also contains a legal system that helps to optimize donations along with a thorough hierarchy of recovery (González, 2017: 11). These are principle-based legislations, but with some critical loopholes. For example, the impact of supermarkets following these laws is just on the wealthy communities or societies. In these wealthy societies, logistics are functional due to adequate cold chain and charity infrastructure. Unfortunately, there are some transboundary implications of this EU mechanism as far as the struggle of exporters from the developing nations is concerned. The research has shown the possible and certain transboundary influences, but the proper implications regarding solutions are missing. Critically, the major dilemma is how the EU can make some changes in its standards and legislation to positively influence the exporters of the developing countries. If the local laws and mechanisms are changed, the EU’s own food waste and CE principles are to be compromised (Bokor, 2025: 7). So, much broader research could have been conducted to cover this gap.
EU’s regulatory framework is successful because it has standard and harmonized conformity assessments. For instance, there is a “New Approach” in which certain bodies, such as CENELEC and CEN, have optimized some detailed technical specifications (Cencenelec, 2023). These detailed technical specifications have become a new standard for market access (Mangelsdorf, et al., 2014: 2-3). For example, when it comes to food items, Sanitary and phytosanitary mechanisms and trade barriers (technical) are in the loop. So, in this context, it is unveiled that EU approaches are not integrated with global institutions, such as ISO and IEC, which further restrain exports from third-world countries in other domains (machines, toys, electronics, and constructions) (Mangelsdorf et al., 2014: 13-14). So, the structural bias in standard setting is dominating, and countries with higher income control technicalities and rules according to their own industrial ecosystem.
It shows that the EU (wealthy nations) is dominating through its standards and control. Critically, there is a need to find out how developing countries can come up with legislation, standards, and technical specifications that can be unified at the international level. The EU’s dominance in technical specifications for food items is obvious because it is always according to its own industrial capacity. The current research misses the industrial capacities of developing countries, which indicates the gap in validating this argument. Food items in developing countries usually have different specifications from those in the EU. Thus, the contradiction with EU standards seems obvious. Now, the need to find balanced and unified specifications is apparent to collectively reduce food waste at the global level.
Service limitations in logistics, finance, and transport domains are also becoming a reason for disadvantages for the developing nation. The probability of food waste from Asian or developing countries is high if these stringent restrictions remain. For example, excessive food production has become a new normal in developing regions. After meeting the local need, a massive food bulk is to be exported. This export becomes restrained due to these financial and logistics obstacles, and it results in massive waste. Of course, regulatory heterogeneity between these countries is the main driver of these restrictions or limitations (Mangelsdorf et al., 2014: 20). EU members sometimes impose tough transport or logistics standards, which often contradict the standards in the developing countries. Eventually, the compliance cost for producers in developing or poor countries increases. In this context, a dual burden emerges. First, the lack of cosmetic standard integration leads to food waste. Second, if the food is not transported to the EU, the probability of over-processing and further extensive certification becomes high, and eventually, carbon footprints rise.
Critically, the big question that the research is yet to answer is why the poor nations or developing countries want to produce more food and export it to the EU despite knowing the regulatory heterogeneity and logistics restrictions. Of course, food waste has remained consistent and prevalent, as these producers are not stopping or limiting their production capacities. If the demand for ASEAN food in the EU increases, the reason for imposing and sustaining these limits is ambiguous. The research has optimized these contradictions and reasons for food waste, but there is a need to understand the root causes of the problem.
The EU has set its self-image as an effective multilateralist, which is becoming increasingly problematic to some extent. For instance, the EU wants to build and sustain relationships with non-democratic countries, but the probability of conflicts has remained high. Member states that follow the unified EU regulations come up with predictable procedures, especially lacking in-depth analysis (Jorgensen and Jørgensen, 2024: 67). Critically, it is good to maintain the governance process based on certain rules, but these rules are overwhelmed by other countries due to excessive Western influence. On the other hand, countries without democracy perceive these rules as a way for hegemonic control instead of a neutral technical specification. It causes a lack of integration with EU food safety and environmental standards. So, informal trade channels and bilateral deals have been preferred.
3.3 ASEAN: Fragmented Governance and External Pressure
ASEAN dynamics are different compared to the EU. This region does not contain a binding CE and a specific food waste direction. For example, in 2021, a voluntary CE framework for food waste was formed with no implementation guidelines. Comparatively, countries in this region are highly heterogeneous in the food waste domain. Recent global data discovered that food loss and waste mostly remain at the upstream levels, such as harvesting, post-harvesting, and storage. Obviously, lack of effective infrastructure, lower quality centric cold chains, and impaired supply chain functions have become the reasons behind this loss (Kalogiannidis et al., 2025: 3-4). Countries like the Philippines and Indonesia see fruit and vegetable losses more than the EU does. Interestingly, there is a good political will, but the current level of economic growth and development makes these countries incompatible with evading these wastes and losses. Evading food loss and waste is a capital-intensive process, and the current economic system cannot provide support.
Critically, if the current economic system is not incompatible, it should be tackled with the support of international organizations. The research has shown the weaknesses and reasons for the food waste and losses in these countries, but it does not demonstrate the possible support from the food safety champions at the global level to make food safety a new reality. So, knowing about the weaknesses and facts about the waste is necessary, but there must be an illustration of the proper implementation mechanism for CE and food safety.
A fragile regulatory setting is also one of the main causes of inadequate food safety. Despite these weak regulations, these countries still must adhere to the EU standards, such as EU SPS and TBT, to access the EU market. It indicates an intense asymmetry, as the EU becomes dominant in imposing some limitations, especially a lack of a tracking mechanism and pesticide limits. In these developing countries, poor infrastructure means no testing facilities, certified institutions, and global standard cold chains. So, due to a lack of these resources, a massive amount of food is denied. Some of the food shipments are to be destroyed because the food cannot remain in such a climate for a long time. In some cases, food is to be sold at a loss, which eventually turns it into food waste. It shows that the EU regulations are the drivers of this food loss and waste, but it has not been demonstrated in the EU food waste facts, indicating the externalization of food waste (Colbert and Schein, 2019: 17).
Critically, the research tells the reasons behind poor food safety and food loss at EU ports. Nonetheless, why are ASEAN states not aware of such EU rules and legislation? It seems like a massive fragmentation in the communication process, or it may be a misunderstanding among regions that resulted in this food waste. If the exporter knows that the food quality is not up to the mark in the context of EU regulation, there is no point sending food to that region. In further research, the reason for sending the food to the EU regions is to be identified in this context to derive more insights and implications about the root cause of the issue.
Despite the influence of EU regulation, ASEAN’s own cooperation regarding food waste is limited. For example, the EU has established the European Commission to streamline binding legislation, justice protocol, and external tariffs, and all these aspects are missing in these regions. The region has a voluntary compliance, accord and minimal regulatory intrusion, which leads to a lack of extensive integration. An individual country, such as Singapore, has differentiated itself from other countries due to its advanced food recycling system, especially food waste valorization (Heng et al., 2024: 4). Nevertheless, due to the influence of voluntary compliance in other countries, these advanced standards are not to be expanded. Thus, some of the countries are trying to become progressive, but some have remained conventional. Critically, this weakness has remained dominant due to the political diversity in the region. The current research does not explore how ASEAN countries can inject or implement the top-down approach in hybrid systems. If the EU-style top-down approach is attempted, these countries will remain non-compliant and non-cooperative. So, based on this notion, research could have been conducted to understand how to adjust these regimes to make the EU-style approach well embedded to enable food safety.
3.4 Cross Case Comparison and IR Findings
This comparison has shown some contradictions, as European countries have come up with robust food waste approaches that have influenced the consumption patterns of people. The major drawback to this is that it transferred waste management responsibility to the developing nations (exporters). The EU’s rejection of food is to be lost or wasted, but the EU is not taking responsibility despite knowing that EU regulations and standards are usually incompatible in ASEAN. Another gap is the lack of management capacities of developing nations. Sometimes, the EU makes some changes in its food safety standards, and exporters from ASEAN regions have limited or no capacity to adjust in real time. So, the rejection of food shipments is quite high. The major takeaway is that the EU’s CE, especially the “Extended Producer Responsibility Mechanism for Food Products (EPRFP),” is based on its geography, but it is also causing food waste around the globe (Zero Waste Europe, 2026: para 2).
The ASEAN region cannot bear this kind of externalization, as inefficiencies at the local level are one of the primary causes of food waste instead of excessive consumption. For example, the analysis has unveiled the food losses and wastes in the upstream, which indicates that the food is not coming to the market. Due to these local inefficiencies, countries usually experience food insecurity. In the critical analysis, there have also been some critical arguments about the lack of compatibility of EU standards in developing countries. The right way is for these countries to challenge these standards at the global level to enable the food waste breakthrough (O’Connor, 2026: para 5). Unfortunately, countries have limited bargaining power to contradict or challenge on a large scale. Developing countries do not have adequate financial and technical resources to recognize food waste as a cross-cutting issue (World Bank, 2025: para 6). In this whole context, the EU has power and control, and ASEAN is bearing responsibility.
Conclusion
Food waste can be decreased through the best application of CE principles. This primary argument is not to be apprehended from the perspective of technical and ecological aspects. The issue is a bit political with the strong influence of global entities, state goals, and North-South power asymmetries. In European countries, food waste management has remained excellent, but it has also resulted in massive externalization, making the developing countries stumble. The dissertation presented some arguments related to hard cosmetics and safety rules, which are incompatible in authoritarian and non-democratic countries. If developing countries attempt to apply these CE principles, the lack of institutional capacity becomes the major barrier. So, ASEAN states are bearing the consequences of trade obstacles and EU rejections. The critical takeaway or finding is that the current international food waste management system is uneven and impaired. Circular economy principles are well-suited in rich countries. On the other hand, developing countries are stumbling due to local upstream inefficiencies. In the critical analysis, it has been stressed that the international standard for good waste is to be changed to set the foundation for the unified and dispute-free systems, and it will help to achieve the SDG (12.3). For now, there is a need to keep WTO standards flexible to make developing countries adopt such systems. Conversely, wealthy countries, including EU member states, need to accept the responsibility for waste. CE should not be locally restricted, as it requires a globalized approach to meet food safety objectives.
References
Abdel-Motaal, D. (2023) Insights from WTOTrade Dialogues on Foodand Agri-Food Business Day, Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/agcd_tdf.pdf (Accessed: 24 April 2026).
Ahmad, F., Bask, A., Laari, S. and Robinson, C.V. (2023) ‘Business management perspectives on the circular economy: Present state and future directions’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 187, no. 1, p. 122182, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004016252200703X.
Bokor, B. (2025) ‘Legal analysis of the EU regulatory framework on circular economy and sustainability principles in plastic food packaging’, Cleaner Waste Systems, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 100412, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772912525002106.
Cattaneo, A., Sánchez, M.V., Torero, M. and Vos, R. (2021) ‘Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research’, Food Policy, vol. 98, no. 1, p. 101974, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919220301780.
Cencenelec (2023) CEN and CENELEC Position on the Revision of the Waste Framework Directive, Available at: https://www.cencenelec.eu/media/Policy%20Opinions/2023-11-24_cen-cenelec_positionpaper_revisionwasteframeworkdirective.pdf (Accessed: 21 April 2026).
Colbert, E. and Schein, A. (2019) Causes of food waste in international supply chains, Rockefeller Foundation.
Deliverect (2024) Facts and stats about Food Waste (Source), Available at: https://www.deliverect.com/en/blog/trending/what-is-food-waste-causes-impacts-and-solutions-for-a-sustainable-future (Accessed: 20 April 2026).
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2022) France’s Anti-waste and Circular Economy Law, Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-examples/frances-anti-waste-and-circular-economy-law (Accessed: 219April 2026).
European Union (2020) Farm to Fork: For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system, Available at: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf (Accessed: 20 April 2026).
Food Cycle scienc (2023) A complete overview of the food waste crisis in southeast asia, Available at: https://foodcyclescience.com/blogs/food-waste-industry/a-complete-overview-of-the-food-waste-crisis-in-southeast-asia (Accessed: 24 April 2026).
González-Vaqué, L. (2017) ‘French and Italian Food Waste Legislation: An Example for other EU Member States to Follow?’, European Food and Feed Law Review, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 224 – 233.
Haukkala, T. (2025) ‘The EU Circular Economy Action Plan: Key Assumptions and Strategic Risks’, LIEPP Policy Brief, pp. 1-8, Available at: https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-05087218v1/document.
Heng, K., Tan, K., Chan, A. and Lee, C.C.C. (2024) ‘Food Waste Valorization: Leveraging Singapore’s Zero Waste Master Plan and 30-by-30 Goal’, Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 17, p. 7321.
Heras, A. and Gupta, J. (2025) ‘North-south relations, responsibilities, and agendas in Earth System Governance: Have these changed in the Anthropocene?’, Earth System Governance, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 100251, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589811625000175.
Hu, P., Toma, L.T., Alam, A. and Ahmmed, M.T. (2026) ‘A comprehensive review of food waste management in attaining SDG 12.3 goals: insights from Asian countries’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems.
Hynek, N. (2017) ‘Regime Theory as IR Theory: Reflection on Three Waves of ‘Isms’’, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11-30, Available: https://www.cejiss.org/images/issue_articles/2016-volume-10-issue-4/11-cejiss-cejiss-0117-electronic.pdf.
Jorgensen, F.A.E. and Jørgensen, K.E. (2024) ‘The European Union and the crisis of multilateralism in an era of uncertainty and power politics’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 15, pp. 1959-1978, Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2025.2518319.
Kalogiannidis, S., Kalfas, D., Papathanasiou, F. and Chatzitheodoridis, F. (2025) ‘Analysis of food waste generation and its implications for food security and ecosystem sustainability in Europe’, Sustainable Futures, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 101186, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266618882500749X.
Mabunda, G.P., Nemukondeni, N. and Selaledi, L. (2025) ‘Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and their implications for international agricultural trade: challenges and opportunities; comprehensive review’, Discover Agriculture, vol. 3, no. 117, Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44279-025-00301-9.
Mangelsdorf, A., Ferro, E. and Wilson, J.S. (2014) ‘The Trade Impact of European Regulatory Standards for Developing Countries’, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-33, Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266672425_The_Trade_Impact_of_European_Regulatory_Standards_for_Developing_Countries.
O’Connor, C. (2026) Turning Food Waste Prevention into a Scalable Climate Solution, Available at: https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/turning-food-waste-prevention-scalable-climate-solution (23 April 2026).
Okadera, T., Tsuchiya, K., Hanaoka, T. and Nishina, K. (2025) ‘Synergy between SDGs 12.3 and 2.1 in lower-middle-income countries through the lens of food waste and energy imbalance’, Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 17956, Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12102298/pdf/41598_2025_Article_1579.pdf.
Pietrangeli, R., Herzberg, R., Cicatiello, C. and Schneider, F. (2023) ‘Quality Standards and Contractual Terms Affecting Food Losses: The Perspective of Producer Organisations in Germany and Italy’, Foods, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1984, Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/10/1984.
Pillai, M., Bennasr, H., Hassen, T.B. and Al-Yafei, W.B. (2025) ‘Exploring the Circular Economy in International Business: Current Trends and Future Directions—A Systematic Literature Review’, Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 21, p. 9532, Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9532.
Prokop, V., Stejskal, J., Horbach, J. and Gerstlberger, W. (2022) EditorsBusiness Models for the Circular Economy: A European Perspective, Springer.
Rahmat, A.F., Bujdosó, Z. and Dávid, L.D.D. (2025) ‘Waste Management Policy in Four ASEAN Countries: Emerging Contemporary Issues from Research Works’, Forum Geografi, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 250-267.
Tutar, H., Streimikiene, D., Mutlu, H.T. and Kloudova, J. (2025) ‘Food waste responsibly goes to the global north’, Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395249023_Global_food_waste_as_an_anti-sustainability_trend_analysis_of_economic_and_environmental_impacts_across_countries.
UN Environment Programme (2025) Delivering on SDG 12.3, Available at: https://www.unep.org/topics/food-systems/food-loss-and-waste/delivering-sdg-123 (Accessed: 17 April 2026).
Wang, Y., Ying, H., Stefanovski, D. and Shurson, G.C. (2025) ‘Food waste used as a resource can reduce climate and resource burdens in agrifood systems’, Nature Food, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 478-490.
World Bank (2025) From Waste to Wealth: South Asia’s Food Systems at a Turning Point, Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2025/11/18/from-waste-to-wealth-south-asia-s-food-systems-at-a-turning-point (Accessed: 23 April 2026).
Zero Waste Europe (2026) Circular Economy Act: Zero Waste Europe puts forward policy recommendations on Extended Producer Responsibility for food products, Available at: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/press-release/circular-economy-act-zero-waste-europe-puts-forward-policy-recommendations-on-extended-producer-responsibility-for-food-products/ (Accessed: 22 April 2026).
+447462439809