University of Economics, Prague
Master’s Thesis
2020 Alena Zhylinskaya
2
University of Economics, Prague Faculty of Business Administration
Master’s Field: Management
3D printing implementation in food industry
Author: Alena Zhylinskaya
Supervisor: Mohit Srivastava, Dr. rer. pol
3
Declaration of Authenticity
I hereby declare that the master’s thesis presented herein is my own work, or fully and specifically acknowledged wherever adapted from other sources. This
work has not been published or submitted elsewhere for the requirement of a degree program.
Prague, 23.08.2020
4
Title of the Master’s Thesis:
3D printing implementation in food industry
Abstract:
3D printing technology is evolving rapidly and offers opportunities that can compete with traditional manufacturing in various industries. Nevertheless, the level of penetration of 3D printing in the food sector is still in the emerging stage. The aim of the paper is to analyze current trends in the 3D food printing and potential applications that can modify traditional business models. The theoretical part deals with existing applications and constraints of additive manufacturing, safety concerns and regulations in 3D food industry.
Furthermore, survey questionnaire and semi-structured interviews are analyzed to gather holistic perspective on 3D food development. Finally, several frameworks are used to determine additional value for customer created with this new technology and propose business model innovation.
Key words:
3D printing, food industry, additive manufacturing
5
Acknowledgement
I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor Mohit Srivastava, Dr. rer. pol for qualified recommendations on thesis improvement. Thank you for your guidance and professionalism. Additionally, I would like to thank all the respondents of the survey and experts for their time and valuable insights.
Finally, I’m expressing my gratitude to my parents for their immense support
throughout my years of study.
6
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 8
1.1 Materials for 3D food printing ... 8
1.2 Barilla s.p.a. and 3D pasta production ... 9
1.3 Agility of 3D printing technology during COVID-19 worldwide pandemic .... 10
2. Theoretical background ... 11
2.1 Challenges and opportunities encountered by food industry and its relevance to 3D printing technology ... 11
2.2 Additive manufacturing implementation in the food fabrication and its limits ... 12
2.3 Consumer perspective and media coverage on 3D printed food ... 18
2.4 Safety and regulations of 3D printed food ... 19
2.5 Business model dynamics and competition in food sector ... 21
2.6 Research gap and research questions ... 25
3. Methodology ... 28
3. Results ... 32
3.1 Analysis of online questionnaire ... 32
3.2 Multiple regression results ... 36
3.3 Results of semi-structured interview with restaurant business representative ... 37
3.4 Results of semi-structured interview with 3D printer producer ... 41
4. Discussion and theoretical implications ... 46
5. Limitation and future research ... 59
6. Conclusion ... 61
References ... 62
List of Table ... 73
List of Figure ... 74
Appendices ... 75
7
List of Abbreviations
e.g. For example
i.e. Specifically
NFFTFD New food flavour and food design
DAD Diet adjustment
NFC Nutritionally enhanced food for children APSD Creating appealing purred food
FWR Food waste and recycle
MALT Meat alternatives
ESLF Extension of shelf life GLOF Globalization of food FDM Fused Deposition Modeling
PBP Powder Bed Printing
SLS Selective Laser Sintering
DIY Do It Yourself
NGO Non-governmental organization
8
1. Introduction
3D printing technology is developing rapidly at the global level and offers opportunities that can compete with traditional manufacturing in various industries as well as providing possibility to produce on demand, test new business models and lower the barriers for entering the market (Rayna & Striukova, 2016). The global market for 3D printing is expected to exceed 40 billion US dollars by 2024 which is 2.5 times higher than in 2020 (Wagner, 2020).
Many companies are beginning to realize and take advantage of 3D printing to personalize their products, as well as reduce time and costs. In the medical and construction industries the technology goes beyond customization and rapid prototyping and has already found implementation in sensors production for electronic devices, 3D bio printing and even home fabrication (Guo et al., 2017; Shafiee & Atala, 2016; P. Wu et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, the level of penetration of 3D printing in the food sector is still in the developing stage. The key benefits that additive manufacturing can bring in this area are customization and flexibility, food packaging, novel food textures, personalized meals based on biometric data (Nachal et al., 2019a). However, several challenges are preventing the production of 3D printed food on the commercial scale including uncertain market demand, material costs, speed of production and limited range of ingredients used.
Considering that, the aim of the paper is to analyze current trends in the 3D food printing, in particular what are the potential applications that can modify traditional business models. Additionally, we aim to develop a framework that can assist companies to effectively adopt evolving 3D food printing technologies into business model.
1.1 Materials for 3D food printing
Despite of the emerging number of 3D printers available on the market, the variety of food that can be produced is still limited since the main ingredient used is paste-type food. In this form, the food passes through the printer nozzle and fabricated in layer-by-layer manner. After the first layer is created the structure should be stable enough to hold the weight of other layers and allow the formation of multi-layered object. This process was described almost 20 years ago in the patent by Nanotek Instruments, Inc. (Yang et al., 2001).
9
Additionally, Sun et al. (2015) classifies food materials for 3D printing into three categories: natively printable, non-printable and alternative. Natively printable group includes materials that can be extruded easily, e.g. chocolate, hummus, and hydrogel, nevertheless they can be utilized as an additional ingredient but not as a main course.
Alternative ingredients, e.g. seaweed, algae and insect powder and food waste provide an opportunity for 3D food production, however they can be highly controversial from the consumer perspective that will be covered later in the theoretical background of this paper.
Finally, according to the printability tests based on consistency and solid properties the most appropriate from non-printable materials was pasta dough.
On the other hand, a large scope of products consumed by people every day such as meat, fruits, vegetables, should be processed before they can be used as a printing material.
Furthermore, most of them are not consumable right after printing process and still require cooking, that can result in deformation after frying or baking. In addition, Van der Linden (2015) also classifies materials for food printing into three categories according to specific additive manufacturing technique used: fused deposition modeling (FDM) that is applicable for purees, gels and dough; powder bed printing (PBP) used for powders and molten materials and finally selective laser sintering (SLS) applicable for powders only.
1.2 Barilla s.p.a. and 3D pasta production
The Italian food company Barilla s.p.a. and Netherlands applied research organization TNO have produced a novel shape of pasta (Carla Severini & Derossi, 2016) that was impossible to create using traditional methods, it was transmitted to the 3D printer from the computer drawings, printing materials consisted from durum wheat and water that is practically no different from traditional pasta. However, not only shape but also personalized micro- and macronutrients (Van der Linden, 2015) are making this technology more than just a tool for a visual enhancement of food.
Furthermore, in order to develop and support innovation projects, a venture capital Blu1877 was launched in 2017 by Barilla s.p.a, following the strategy that is commonly known as open innovation. According to Sarkar & Costa (2008), food sector is a relatively mature area of business and quite moderate to innovations, nevertheless increasing level of competitiveness as well as modern consumers demand to unique flavours and healthy diets made inevitable technological solutions and new business models in food industry.
10
However, authors argue that the innovation cannot be managed just within organization boundaries, it also relies on the decisions of other actors involved in production including regulatory bodies.
One of the effective ways to adopt such novelties is to take advantage of the potential of open innovation business models. Similarly, Blu1877 is functioning as an innovation hub and supporting innovators outside the company in order to create a virtual network in the food industry and in the same time to find projects related to business for potential investment. Moreover, the company launched an e-commerce platform BluRhapsody (“Pasta 3D unica e chic - Formati di pasta straordinari,” 2020), where you can order online a 3D printed pasta and eventually create your own exclusive design, additionally the color of the pasta can be also modified.
1.3 Agility of 3D printing technology during COVID-19 worldwide pandemic
Global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic revealed additional potential of 3D printing technology. As a tool working without much human participation and interaction as standard production, this worldwide crisis has possibly exposed more perspective than before. 3D technology in this case is mostly used for nasopharyngeal swabs production, face shields and masks (Statista, 2020), it has also found implementation in ventilator splitter urgent production in order to accommodate needs of more patients with T-tube concept (Bryanklai,n.d.;Neyman & Irvin, 2006). Another point is that one of the biggest challenges of 3D printing adoption are still regulation and certification. Regardless of the emergency times medical equipment compliancy with norms is crucial and cannot be neglected, including the materials used. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as other standardization companies presented flexible and agile approaches and recognized the potential need of 3D printing assistance and issued additional guidance on printing of medical devices and components during COVID-19 pandemic (Center for Devices and Radiological Health, n.d.). All mentioned above unveiled supplementary advantages of 3D printing technology in the emergency situations when supply chain cannot operate as before and gaps in the demand of strategically important equipment otherwise can be created. It is also showed strong collaboration of 3D printing community towards common goals and shared values.
11
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Challenges and opportunities encountered by food industry and its relevance to 3D printing technology
Innovation and sustainability of the products and processes is the priority of many companies pursuing the efficiency, continuous development, resource optimization and competitive advantage. Food industry is not an exception. Waste reduction management, nutrition challenges faced due to the growing population and limited resources as well as environmental impact are on the agenda of food manufacturing companies (Martin-Rios et al., 2018; Van Kernebeek et al., 2016). On the other hand, as mentioned in the introduction part technological advancement in 3D printing slowly but steadily takes a position in food creation.
Nevertheless, the approach to the implementation varies according to financial and technological assets, size, flexibility and strategy of the company. Authors León‐Bravo et al. (2019) suggested that sustainability can be achieved through product or supply chain innovation and one can hardly exist without another. Additionally, small food companies due to flexibility in decision-making can utilize forward-looking innovation approach and differentiate themselves by breakthrough product innovations and targeting market niches.
However, attracting new customers requires new resources, moreover further imitation by competitors create tension for continuous innovation and become a financial challenge for the firm.
On the contrary, innovation can be reached while preserving traditional product and business model and altering the processes and methods, e.g. decreasing number of chemicals used in production or increasing the quality control. This method is preferable for established companies with long history, heritage and traditions, so-called “retro- industries” (Castellano et al., 2013). Although in this case, sustainable development through innovation results in minor agility in conceptualization and consequently fewer radical changes.
In order to connect current situation in the mature food industry and evolving technologies in 3D printing, the theoretical part will deal with the up-to-date existing applications and constraints of additive manufacturing in food fabrication followed by the overview of the
12
studies on consumer perspective and acceptance of 3D printed food compared to conventional food products. Afterwards, certification and regulation aspects in food production will be explored as they can restrain advancement of new technologies. Finally, business model dynamics will be analyzed with regards to research question on the possibility of the effective adoption of innovative 3D food printing practices into existing business processes.
2.2 Additive manufacturing implementation in the food fabrication and its limits
Although 3D printing in food sector is in its earliest stage of evolution there are a lot of cases of practical implementation addressing challenges stated above. After analyzing research papers on this topic five main categories of 3D food printing application were identified and will be discussed in this part: personalized nutrition, waste recycling, complex food design, alternative ingredients as well as ways of food production and finally indirect applications such as molds creation and food packaging. Afterwards the potential limitations of 3D food production will be examined.
Authors Liu et al. (2017) are mentioning military and space missions as one of the perspective fields for 3D printed food application. The justifications are the possibility to print on demand, prolong shelf-life of the printed products and also adjust nutrition properties based on energy requirements. Likewise, 3D printing is mentioned in number of papers as the tool of tackling nutrition challenges and needs based on health and biometric data. In particular, implementation of assistive technology can contribute to tackling age-related diseases, i.e. sarcopenic dysphagia that results in chewing and swallowing problems and consequently can be the reason of malnutrition (Scott, Callisaya, Duque, Ebeling, & Scott, 2018). The objective of 3D technology in this case is not only the softer texture but also ability to create appealing pureed food that reminds of traditional dishes.
Moreover, the food is adapted according to the health data file of the respective person to meet individual nutritional prescriptions. One of the present examples of technology implementation is a Biozoon company that is targeting elderly population who has digestion issues by creating visually attractive smooth foods with the help of 3D printer ("seneoPro®", 2012).
13
Furthermore, Lipton (2017) compares possibility to utilize personalization in 3D food printing technology to Invisalign brand, braces that are printed based on the inputs from orthodontist. Similarly, food can be printed on demand using the consumers’ data following the concept of data-driven food design (Lipton et al., 2015). Apart from health, author mentions preference as a key factor for implementing individual approach in food production and consumption. Following the diet can be challenging for consumers with conditions that require specific treatment, usually the patients are getting the list of products they can or cannot eat and then practicing self-discipline to follow these rules.
Automation of this process with the help of 3D printing can significantly decrease pressure for consumers as well as improve health condition.
On the other hand, not only cosmonauts, soldiers and people with health issues can benefit from nutrition control. Due to the information that consumers obtain regarding correlation between food components and health, they have started to pay more attention on the food choice. Two new researches established in this field, one is investigating the effect of genetic variance on the nutrients tolerance and another one studies food consumption influence on gene expression, they are called “nutrigenetics” and “nutrigenomics”
respectively (Carla Severini & Derossi, 2016).
Additional group that can be discerned are parents concerned with their children getting all the necessary macronutrients and vitamins in right proportion. Derossi et al. (2018) in their research evaluated the nutritional suitability of 3D printed fruit-based snack for children. The results showed that it meets the daily energy requirements for children from 3 to 10 years old. Besides it is also fulfilling needs for rarely contained in commercial fruit- based products vitamins, i.e. Ca, vitamin D and Fe. The authors proved that innovative food can be obtained starting from personalized food formula. However, in order to ensure industrial application or at home production, further experiments should be conducted to assess microbiological safety and nutritional changes.
In addition German & Watzke (2004) argue that apart from personalized nutrition that varies based on the genotype, environment and also desired goals to be achieved by an individual there is also another factor – pleasure from delicious food that cannot be sacrificed only for sustaining metabolic needs, but oppositely health components should be added on top of existing values of food not instead of them, thus safety, affordability and taste are not interchangeable.
14
Another application of 3D food printing revealed during literature review is waste recycling or reuse. According to Papargyropoulou et al. (2016) food waste can be categorized in 3 groups: avoidable, unavoidable and possibly avoidable. All these categories are presented in Table 1 with examples of existing 3D printing processes that can possibly address them.
Table 1: Classification of food waste and potential 3D printing implementation
Category of food waste
Description Potential 3D printing application
Examples of application in real life
Reference
Avoidable Food that could have been eaten, e.g. buffet leftovers, plate waste
Print on demand Longer shelf-life
NASA dry powders and space missions
(Terfansky &
Thangavelu, 2013)
Unavoidable Not usually eaten parts, e.g.
eggshells, chicken bones
Preparation waste, e.g. oil
Reuse McDonalds
case
(B. Wu et al., 2020)
Possibly avoidable
Eaten in some situations, e.g.
potato skins
Reuse Upprinting Food
Upprinting Food – Sustainable 3D Food Printing.
(n.d.).
Source: Author, Papargyropoulou et al. (2016)
3D printing application in food industry can if not eliminate but reduce waste production or support food surplus recycle. As one of the potential procedures of 3D printing towards avoidable waste reduction is printing on demand and longer shelf-life. The latest found its implementation in the long term missions to the space providing both longer shelf life and on-Earth food experience (Terfansky & Thangavelu, 2013).
As an illustration for unavoidable category of excess waste such as preparation oil, there is a study that tested possibility of McDonald’s 3D printing resin production directly from the cooking oil (B. Wu et al., 2020). The idea of the process is that instead of being
15
disposed the oil was processed and converted into 3D printing resin and afterward the 3D printing of the chosen design was successfully performed. Moreover, conducted biodegradation test revealed that printed in this manner products can be environmentally friendly suggesting that they will degrade in soil over time. This approach can assist companies in couple of ways simultaneously, firstly it helps to reduce recycling costs as well as carbon footprint, consequently, to enhance corporate social responsibility contribution and additionally creates supplementary stream of revenue.
Furthermore, food excess from bread, vegetables and fruits and other products can be reused on another food production as in the example of Netherlands’ company “Upprinting Food” (Upprinting Food – Sustainable 3D Food Printing). Various ingredients are mixed together to create puree, a “liquid ink” for the 3D printer and make new recipes and dishes.
The company produces unique designs and provides trainings for other restaurants to work with food waste and 3D printing technology.
Alternate application frequently mentioned in the papers is the customization of the food.
One of the properties of additive manufacturing is ability to construct geometrically complex items that otherwise would require specialized molding equipment and skilled technical users (Lipton et al., 2015) Moreover, research conducted by Van Rompay et al.
(2018) revealed that the textures can influence taste assessment of the food. The experiment was conducted in the ice-cream shop, two types of cups were produced with 3D printing technology: with a spikey and smooth surface, in which the ice-cream was served, and later customers filled in survey on taste evaluation and intensity. The findings revealed that sourer or sweeter taste experience might be influenced by sharper or smoother surfaces respectively. Consequently, there is a possibility that particular taste perceptions can be designed through the experiments with shapes and surfaces, 3D printing can assist in quick prototyping of models for further testing prior the production begins.
Furthermore, development of the personalized gifts market such as numerous chocolates and biscuits decorations and logos on the food creates opportunity for the companies to capture share in it (Sun et al., 2018). Food printing technology can assist by offering more possibilities in shapes and colors and reduce personnel skills required. Moreover it can promote consumer participation in the process of customization and stimulate co-creation model implementation (Li et al., 2014). Additionally, one of the drivers for the food
16
technology development is the first sugar extraction from the sugarcane plants followed by the discoveries of substitutes for individuals with diabetes ( German & Watzke, 2004).
Taking in consideration the above-mentioned, market of confectionary can be alleged as the one having the potential for attracting customers with introduction of novel approaches as well as promoting the 3D technology to the mass market. As an existing example, one of the world’s largest chocolate manufacturers Barry Callebaut launched 3D printing studio through its brand for decorations Mona Lisa and is now offering personalized 3D chocolate (Barry Callebaut opens world's first 3D Printing Studio 2020). Moreover, innovative technology and equipment accuracy allow to quickly produce the final product at scale.
In addition, implementation of alternative ingredients such as insects and algae for 3D food production is following the bottom-up approach according to Lipton et al. (2015) as oppose to top-down that uses existing edible materials. Edible insects can serve as a source of high protein as well as satisfy growing demand for meat (C. Severini et al., 2018). The results of the experiments exposed that combination of wheat and specific ground insects can be an appropriate ingredient for 3D printing with enhanced nutritional quality. One of the obstacles can be consumer perception on insect-based food that will be examined in the next part or this paper.
Another opportunity for 3D technology in food sector is meat production or plant-based options for vegetarians. However, one of the complications for the 3D printing is to extrude appropriate printing material due to specific fibrous and heterogeneous meat structure (C.
Liu et al., 2018). Nevertheless, variety of promising start-ups with diverse approaches and technologies exist in this field at the present time. Some of the companies took a step further and implemented 3D bioprinting of cells that are later incubated to grow a real meat (3D Printed Clean and Real Meat 2020). This approach imitates meat in texture, moreover, creates an alternative to conventional farming and animal slaughtering and is known as
“cultured” or “clean” meat (“How cultured meat is made”, n.d.). Though instead of growing the livestock the most eatable parts are produced that can decrease usage of lands for farming and consequently environmental impact from greenhouse gases.
Additionally, as an illustration Novameat (Carrington, 2020) and Redefine Meat (For the Love of Meat: Redefine Meat: Why redefine meat? n.d.) companies put their effort on the
17
conception of animal-free meat with the assistance of 3D modelling as well. The ingredients of plant-based alternative include pea, seaweed and others in order to recreate real meat structure and flavor.
As additional point in 3D food printing application, indirect one such as packaging or labels can be named (3D Printing: Rapid Prototyping from Food to Food Packaging 2014). 3D printing can contribute in personalization of packaging and similarly provide visual effects that differentiate product on the shelf and consequently attract customer’s attention. In the same way, 3D printed silicone molds for the pastry are another opportunity to create complex geometric shapes that can be compared with architecture (Ruiz, 2018).
Furthermore, 3D printing can assist in globalization of food technologies, in particular can help to merge culinary knowledge and also stimulate consumers participate not only in the consumption but also in the food production (Halassi et al., 2019) Apart from potential applications Nachal et al. (2019) distinguished limitations in the 3D food printing, one of the key factors is the speed of the printing that is a large-scale production obstacle. In addition, consumer attitude towards innovation and new approaches in such a traditional market can represent restrictions for the organization decided to implement it (Halassi et al., 2019).
Moreover, Sun et al. (2018) discern a gap between current functionality and consumer need as one of the boundaries on the way to commercialization, additionally even though large 3D printing companies are investing in the technology and making steps toward the development and penetration of 3D technology in food sector, industrial scale production is still limited by the fact that speed, cost and reliability should be aligned to cover this segment and no machines designed for it have been officially launched to the market.
Also, printing precision and stability can be another obstacle (Lipton et al., 2015).
Similarly, printing materials and recipes are limited since decrease or increase in the ingredients can drastically change printing material characteristics and final shape reliability. Likewise the texture of the product produced can be hardly imitable specifically the meat tissue, moreover the ethical concerns may arise from consumer’s side on products designed in the laboratory (Sun et al., 2015).
Furthermore, 3D printers may be sensitive to the digital recipe, various food formulations should be tested prior, environmental parameters such as temperature or humidity can alter the ingredient composition and subsequently block the nozzle or print deformed shapes
18
(Yang et al., 2017). Optimization of the process requires precise technical parameters settings, e.g. nozzle diameter and temperature control, thus food recipes designs create additional complication and limitations in 3D production.
2.3 Consumer perspective and media coverage on 3D printed food
There is still a limited number of papers exists on the consumer viewpoint in relation to 3D printed food. Nevertheless, for the successful introduction of any new technology, it is important to evaluate innovation activities in sector as well as consumer acceptance and expectations towards them. This aspect was presented by Kühne et al. (2010) and research behind revealed opportunities based on matching results from industry and consumers, packaging and quality innovations the high share in food chain innovation activities and also were ranked high on the 7-point Likert scale consumer innovation acceptance.
Additionally, one of the researches identified three clusters of respondents based on their answers to survey questionnaire that was intended to discover 3D food safety perception, cooking habits, willingness to try or buy a printer and possible benefits compared to traditional food. The major cluster consisted of 42% of all respondents was classified as
“markedly interested” in a new technology, who was enthusiastic to try and buy 3D printed food, the second cluster included “moderately interested” consumers with the perception that 3D application is to some extent safe but still were keen to try it, and finally the third cluster represented “not interested” group that believed 3D products are unsafe and unacceptable, the majority of which were 40 or more years old (Manstan & McSweeney, 2020).
Another study was performed on consumer perception regarding laboratory- cultured meat and insect-based alternatives (Lupton & Turner, 2018). People participated in online group discussion and were asked to response on 3D printed food images with ingredients description and explain their answers afterwards. The results revealed that 3D meat produced in the laboratory using animal cells tend to be identified as unnatural and overly processed. Similarly, 3D printed food made from insect flour was classified as strange, disgusting and artificial. Some people even stated that they would unwillingly consume such food just for the survival purposes if no other alternatives existed.
19
Also, numerous topics resulted from participants’ responses including culture, religion aspects and the importance of eating traditional food as factors influencing food choices.
On the other hand, the study investigated preferences of Australian population and the market value for edible insects in Asia-Pacific region were 173,9 million U.S. dollars in 2018 with a potential growth up to 476,9 million U.S. dollars in 2023. Potentially, some other country from this region such as China can be less hesitant to this trend. Likewise, Latin America and Europe market value for insect-based food may grow to more than 250 million U.S. dollars each in 2023 (Statista, 2018).
Apart from personal consumer preferences sociotechnical imaginaries can frame collective ideas on emerging technologies (Lupton, 2017). The study of media coverage showed that evolving innovations can be exposed in various ways depending on the agenda and what topic is to be covered. For instance, technology can be illustrated from the point of potential benefits and increased sustainability as well as related risks and health concerns.
However, the author identified that 3D printing food is mostly demonstrated in the media from the positive side emphasizing its futuristic, creative and efficient characteristics balancing between sci-fi images and more familiar to the customers pictures such as slightly modified kitchen appliance.
2.4 Safety and regulations of 3D printed food
In spite of the fact that 3D food may be produced in another way and using another materials than conventional products, it is still can be considered as “food” and should be compliant with related health and safety regulations, in particular labelling of foods that is covered in the EU through 1169/2011 Regulation and outlines the necessity of information provided to the customers on the food composition by means of comprehensible and clear labels (Ramundo et al., 2016).
In addition, Tran (2016) argues that 3D food will still be regulated by the authorities in line with traditional food unless some specific guidelines will be implemented in the future. Additionally, author discerns labelling as one of the potential issues with 3D- printed food, moreover in his work he provides scenarios on potential safety problems (Figure 1). In the short-term period two possibilities can be distinguished: single case and multiple case poisoning. The first one is less viable and can be alleged as a personal food allergy and can be prevented with precise information on labels with probable allergens.
20
On the other hand, more practical case as mass food poisoning is differentiated with more complex contingent actions needed including clarification of responsibilities of the parties that participated in 3D-food production, e.g. ingredient producer or food printer manufacturer. It should be also mentioned that less parties are involved, the chance of error in the production potentially decrease.
It is hard to discern long-term issues as 3D printing technology in its initial stages of development and there are no studies yet investigating 3D food implications, however if there are cases of negative health implications due to printed food consumption, potentially some protocol on parties’ liabilities should be initiated.
Figure 1: 3D-printed food label and safety issues
Source: Tran (2016), figure created by Author
Overall label issues by author are liable on the way from absence of 3D printed food on the market to one with entirely printed food, starting from fully labelling regulation needed
Safety issues
Short-term
Scenario 1:
Food allergy Scenario 2:
Contamination Long-term Changes to human
body
Label issues
Scenario 1: Entire foodprinting
Scenario 2: Partial foodprinting
Scenario 3: Foodprinting on-demand
Scenario 4: Foodprinting at home
21
to no label at all correspondingly. If the company’s complete production includes food printing, it could be strictly regulated with labelling as per customers rights to know what they consume. In case of only some batches are printed out of all scope, it can be controlled based on the quantity of 3D food in each package. The third situation covers on-demand production, if the 3D food is produced in front of consumers ant they are aware that it was printed, then it can be the weaker case for labels, however if it is also sold afterwards to the customers who might not know or discern by sight that it was 3D printed, then labelling case is closer to Scenario 2 where only part of the batch should be labeled. Another option suggests home production of 3D food and consequently no labels needed.
According to Yeh & Chen (2018), one of main critical success factors in adopting 3D printing technology includes competitiveness and pressure on the company, market trends and government support that can be specified as technological infrastructure that contributes to development or in some cases delays 3D printing adoption. In addition, new technology implies protection of rights and intellectual property including digital recipes (Nachal et al., 2019). In regards to 3D design in industry it can imply watermarking similar to one implemented on paper, however as we are talking about 3D printing, the stability of process should be verified to avoid product deformations (Macq et al., 2015).All the above mentioned illustrates the need for legal regulation of 3D printed food, furthermore establishment of inclusive protocols defining parties’ responsibilities if any issue arise.
2.5 Business model dynamics and competition in food sector
New technology such as 3D printing can create a value for the customer, however there is a question if the company can capture this value and how in this case business model should adapt to create a competitive advantage (Rayna & Striukova, 2016). Additionally, 3D food printing can be considered as an emerging technology in mature market that creates additional complexity for commercialization. In order to diminish uncertainty companies may integrate several business models and strategies for testing more suitable one (Flammini et al., 2017). Similarly, Rong et al. (2018) claim that business model development is frequently an investigative process based on trial and errors. Moreover, in 3D printing sector it is built on the two types of ecosystems, i.e. product or platform based and evolve over time due to stakeholder interactions or new actors involved to the
22
ecosystem. In that case business models are examined as dynamic process going through three stages: initiation, execution and extension.
Additionally, Hartmann & Vanpoucke (2017) tested the applicability of UTAUT2 model (Venkatesh et al., 2012) that investigates user intentions towards new technology, e.g.
performance and effort expectancy, social influence, price value and others. In the research one more factor DIY mentality towards 3D printing technology was introduced, the results showed that the model is applicable to the early stage technologies as well as mature one.
In addition, analysis revealed that based on DIY mentality and hedonic motivation various fields of 3D printing application can be implemented and business model suitability verified.
Taken into account constantly growing food industry and increasing competition, companies should evolve and business model innovation is one of the options following the examples of fast-food chains (Franceschelli et al., 2018). As one of the significances, 3D food printing can bring transformation on the value chain making the way from the manufacturer to the customer shorter. Moreover, the new food alternatives such as insect- based or plant-based meat create a new market opportunity (Otcu et al., 2019).
Furthermore, 3D printing technology allows to test new product before launching to the market, additionally small companies can take advantage of low cost printers and make a prototype first with less financial risks (Ferreira & Alves, 2017). In addition this approach encourages shifting value chain activities from company’s core competencies to customer centric philosophy (Webb & Gile, 2001). Apart from that, shift in demand tendencies can be also rapidly covered by agility and flexibility of 3D printing technology.
On the other hand, right business model by itself cannot be considered as a success for the firm. Moreover, we should separate strategy from business model, former describes how the business works while strategy includes rivalry and implementation. It also explains situations where several firms applying one business model can have opposite outcomes.
Then again, simulation of possible business model changes can benefit in foreseeing future and assist in nurturing innovation (Osterwalder et al., 2005).
When it comes to the established market with enormous competition and big players as a food industry can be perceived, small companies often must find a roundabout to enter or
23
stay on the market and beat the competition. Contesting for customers’ loyalty can bear an excessive financial burden. Moreover, research on product competition in food industry conducted more than 40 years ago by Padberg & Westgren, 1979 is still applicable to the current market reality.
Authors suggested hypotheses on product evolution, consumer acceptance and firm decisions with regards to technological advancement (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Product evolution hypothesis
Source: Padberg & Westgren (1979), figure created by Author
Product evolution implies that presenting new technology to the market requires holistic approach and cannot be limited by advancement and new characteristics per se. Otherwise, new product risks to fall into group of “redundant” technology. Consequently, it cannot be easily suggested that small companies have a priority to innovate due to agile processes, this characteristic can assist at the stage of new product development, however large company has more strength in marketing activities, e.g. communication, advertising and thus may introduce innovation to the market with fewer effort.
Additionally, communication and proper promotion benefits not only individual but public interest and collective values such as nutrition education, food safety and public health. In
Product evolution Broad marketing
process
Consumer incrementalism Public interest
24
order to gain maximum competitive advantage firm must balance these social and individual concerns. Once more, larger firms with strong brands and customer devotion may be more successful in pursuing this goal.
Moreover, there is another specificity in innovation adoption, i.e. consumer incrementalism. Consumers are overloaded with information and it is easier to select a product they are familiar with, another point that they are mostly risk aversive and seek ways to minimize it taking signals form the environment they live in. In terms of food consumption, it can be family or country traditions, personal experience, recommendations from friends and relatives, or advertising that also can give a sense of familiarity and reduce hesitations.
Furthermore, it is also mentioned by authors that customers tend to pick products that remind familiar goods, in that case 3D food printing companies should be cautious as big changes can be risky and bring no value or even confusion and repugnance to customer.
In addition, food industry suggests many possibilities in modifications, e.g. recipe, taste, shape, texture (Padberg & Westgren, 1979). However, a firm should select appropriate one based on numerous factors, i.e. financial and current sales cannibalization risks, possible regulation restrictions, consumer perception and capability to clearly distinguish and promote new product attributes.
Apart from regular competition based on constant benchmarking with rivals there is a concept of Blue ocean strategy, implying rather than focusing on incremental improvements a company can search for possibilities of value innovation and manage to create new value curve (Chan Kim & Mauborgne, 2005). On the other hand, value innovation is based on delivering higher value for lower price, though 3D printing technology is rather costly especially in the early stages of development and cannot guarantee lower pricing, which is the case for 3D food sector. Nevertheless, authors presented tools that assist in identifying various possibilities that exist on the way to market borders extension, e.g. ERRC grid and Six path framework built to concentrate on eliminating and reducing redundant factors while creating and raising perspective ones.
25 2.6 Research gap and research questions
Based on the literature review stated in the section above, several topics on 3D food printing highlighted in the research papers where identified. The search of relevant studies was conducted through the internet resource Web of Science, the key words was "3D printing AND food". Number of total results revealed 291 papers, they were all categorized by the field of topic (Table 2).
Table 2: 3D food research papers classification
Topic Number of
papers
Not relevant 117
Printing technology and quality control 125
Application in Food Industry 40
Consumer perspective 5
Business model 3
Licensing 1
Source: Author
117 papers were categorized as “Not relevant” due to other field of technology application or not concerning 3D technology in general, e.g. “3D printed utility dielectric core manufacturing process for antenna prototyping”, “Bite Glasses - Measuring Chewing Using EMG and Bone Vibration in Smart Eyeglasses”. The major number of papers felt into category “Printing technology and quality control” covering technical and chemical characteristics of 3D printers and printing materials, e.g. “Effect of Temperature on 3D Printing of Commercial Potato Puree” However, they were eliminated by reason of irrelevance to aim of the paper to test current applications of 3D printing technology in food sector and business perspective for the company applying new technology. 40 research papers covered 3D printing application in food industry, e.g. “State of the Art of Sustainability in 3D Food Printing” (Otcu et al., 2019) ; 5 studies highlighted consumer perspective, e.g. “Consumers' attitudes and change of attitude toward 3D-printed food”
(Manstan & McSweeney, 2020); 3 papers studied business models, e.g. “Business model configuration and dynamics for technology commercialization in mature markets”
(Flammini et al., 2017); 1 research paper covered licensing, i.e. “Applicability of Watermarking for Intellectual Property Rights Protection in a 3D Printing Scenario”
(Macq et al., 2015). All the 49 papers were considered relevant for literature review,
26
however some of them were disqualified due to low impact factor. Overall, 45 research papers were used in the literature review from Web of Science source. Additionally, some papers were additionally found while conducting research on other sources such as Google Scholar and added to theoretical background overview. Most of the papers are emphasizing 3D printing technology perspective in different fields including construction, medicine and food sector (Nachal et al., 2019b; Sun et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2017).
Additionally, limitations of this emerging trend were revealed, e.g. cost, scalability, safety regulation, texture and printing precision and intellectual property rights (C. Liu et al., 2018; Z. Liu et al., 2017; Macq et al., 2015; Yeh & Chen, 2018). Nevertheless, placing technology per se into the middle of company attention can create redundant products (Padberg & Westgren, 1979). Moreover, there can be a distance created between customer’s expectations and product characteristics (Sun et al., 2018). Taking into consideration above mentioned, research gap was revealed in matching customers perception and technology possibilities with business perspectives on 3D food commercialization. Many papers are concentrated on technology possibilities and its limitations, other on 3D food acceptance by customers, there is limited information in research papers on connection between factors influencing customers’ acceptance, firm’s strategy and 3D technology limitations (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Business strategy in 3D printed food industry
Source: Author
3D food business
strategy
Customer expectations
Technology possibilities
Company
resources
27
Therefore, research questions were identified as follows:
RQ1. How 3D food can be aligned with customer’s perception?
RQ2. What are the technological possibilities and limitations to address existing needs?
RQ3. How the company can implement 3D food innovation in business model?
In order to fill this gap, questionnaire for the potential customers was created and shared, additionally, semi-structured interviews with 3D printer creator and food industry representative were conducted to grasp holistic perspective on 3D food topic. The research method and data collection will be covered in the next section of this paper.
28
3. Methodology
This thesis methodology is based on mixed research methods (Borrego et al., 2009).
Simultaneous triangulation using quantitative and qualitative methods was selected in order to get a holistic perspective on the research problem (Morse, 1991). Firstly, a quantitative method data collection was performed in the form of online questionnaire.
The aim of the quantitative research is to explain numerically trends, attitudes and opinions by gathering and analyzing data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), in terms of this research the objective is to get insights on potential customers’ acceptance towards 3D printed food and its factors.
Primary data was collected by means of Google Forms, this free online tool was selected due to user friendly design and convenient visual representation of responses. Questions were formulated based on the literature review and topics revealed regarding 3D printing existing implementations consumer perception. Moreover, in the study by Manstan &
McSweeney (2020) results of the quantitative study exposed the cluster of not interested group towards new 3D technology who found it unsafe and unacceptable, which mostly consisted of people older than 40 years. As one of the suggestions for further research from authors was to analyze what are the factors that keep away this cluster from technology, however as this study also aims to investigate how company can align 3D food technology with the strategy, paper will concentrate on younger group of potential customers who are more enthusiastic regarding new technologies .
Consequently, this quantitative research applied non-probability quota sampling method (Acharya et al., 2013) to target younger group, that is “millennials”, born between 1981 and 2000, on the date of study between 20 and 39 years old. Furthermore, studies name them as “digital natives” and research conducted on technology motivation of millennials or generation Y revealed hedonic incentive, namely entertainment as the main factor to accept technology while generation X (born from 1965 to 1980) are concentrated on the practical value of innovation (Calvo-Porral & Pesqueira-Sanchez, 2019).
The pilot version of questionnaire was shared with 3 potential respondents to check wording and the sequence of questions. After feedback, the introduction part and GDPR note were shortened as it took a lot of time to read it, also the order of questions was altered leaving descriptive questions to the end of survey as the main attention should be drawn
29
to technology related topics. Additionally, time to response was tested and on average took 11 minutes. The questionnaire was prepared in English and shared among the university colleagues and their friends who are suitable target group, additionally through Facebook platform providing the link to the Google form as well as description from author regarding the topic and purpose of research.
The survey is starting with a short description of the topic, additionally claiming the anonymity of the data collected and voluntary participation followed by the GDPR consent note and obligatory checkbox regarding agreement with its terms. Participants are offered to watch a short video (2:37 minutes) to get a bit familiar with 3D food printing process and asked to answer 11 questions afterwards. The first question is examining if the respondent has ever heard before about 3D food to analyze the awareness of this technology presence in food sector. Following two questions are based on Likert-type scale (Vagias & Wade, 2006). and built to get insights on consumer attitudes toward this innovation. One of them suggests considering 3D alternatives for traditional food such as pasta, meat, confectionary and pastry, the options for answers are “Would not consider”, Might or might not consider” and “Definitely consider”. The next question is testing importance of 3D application in food sector, e.g. “Nutritionally-enhanced food for children”, “Food waste recycle/reuse” and others. The participants were asked to evaluate importance on the 5-level scale from “Extremely important” to “Not at all important”.
Subsequent questions were in multiple choice format with possibility to pick only one. The following question is collecting data on possible motives to try 3D food in the specialized restaurant, e.g. “New personal experience: textures and flavors”, “Entertainment: idea for a creative birthday party or kid amusement”, participants could also choose if all of the variants are applicable or none of them. Additionally, information is gathered on the amount of money a respondent would spend on 3D dinner, the options are “up to $50”,
“up to $100”, “up to $200”, “more than $200” or “I wouldn't spend money for such a dinner”. After that respondents are asked on the reason to buy 3D printer for the household, e.g. “Save time on food preparation”, “Create complex food design and feel myself a professional chef” followed by question on the biggest obstacle for printed food adoption, e.g. “Cost”, “Perception (ethical and cultural perspective)” and others. The next four questions are gathering descriptive data on participants, namely age, gender, nationality and yearly income.
30
Collected responses were downloaded in CSV format and put in the Excel for further evaluation. The results of the survey on consumer acceptance and motivation towards emerging technology in food sector can be found in the next part of this thesis. The questionnaires are presented in the Appendix 1.
The total number responses collected is 101. Age distribution of participants to evaluate is presented in the Table 3. The major group (73% of the total respondents) is between 24 and 39 years old. The second group (22%) fell into category from 18 to 23 years old, followed by the respondents older than 40 years (5%). Therefore, it can be stated that participants represent the target group of this survey.
Table 3: Socio-demographics distribution of respondents
Characteristic Responses (n=101) (%)
Age 18-23 24-39 40-54
22 73 5 Gender
Female Male
Prefer not to say
67 32 1 Yearly income
$10,000 to $19999
$20,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999 Less than $10,000 Over $100,000
23 15 8 10 1 38 6 Source: Author
Furthermore, in order to obtain business perspective on 3D printing technology in food industry, qualitative data research was performed, 2 semi-structured interviews were conducted with the representatives of 3D printer’s production and traditional food sector to gain different standpoints on the same topic. The optimal sample of qualitative research varies considerably in the literature. Authors Sim et al. (2018) argue that identifying sample size of qualitative research is challenging due to absence of key themes in advance and thus is the on-going process that can be determined during the analyses of topics that
31
appeared during interviews. Additionally, Parse (1990) suggest 2 to 10 participants are enough until reaching saturation.
Two separate interview guides were prepared to get a comprehensive overview on the research topic, the questions are presented in the Appendix 2 and Appendix 3. The interviews were conducted online by means of voice messages, Skype and Zoom, afterwards they were transcribed, coded and analysed with MaxQDA software.
One of the respondents is Natalia is a former restaurant manager with 15 years of experience in food businesses, including opening cafes and restaurants from very beginning. The interview lasted 40 minutes with video recording in Skype software. Guide consisted of seven question on the interviewee background and opinion on 3D food related topic. Another interviewee is Alexander, with a background in electronic engineering, additionally has a 5-year experience in 3D printer’s production. The questions were shared in advance, the interview lasted 1 hour and 50 minutes with video recording in Zoom application, additionally some extra comments were shared in the form of voice messages.
32
3. Results
3.1 Analysis of online questionnaire
As mentioned in the previous section and according to the research gap, online survey was built to gather data on consumer’s attitude towards 3D printing in food industry. Firstly, the split between respondents who have earlier heard about 3D food was almost equal:
54% of total respondents were familiar with this technology application, 46% stated that it’s their first time they encounter any information on 3D food.
Analysis of survey results on consumers’ attitude towards various types of 3D food can be found in Table 4. Out of all variants presented, the major part (63% of total respondents) would definitely consider trying 3D confectionary, on the other hand 56% of participants rejected idea to try 3D printed meat as opposed to only 6% for confectionary group of products.
Table 4: Consumers’ attitude towards 3D food
Responses (n=101) (%) Type of food Definitely
consider
Might or might not consider
Would not consider
Pasta 52 38 10
Meat 22 22 56
Confectionary 63 31 6
Pastry 55 33 12
Source: Author
Nevertheless, analysis of 3D printing application importance (Table 5) revealed that 21%
and 22% of total respondents find meat alternative, such as plant-based meat “extremely important” and “very important” accordingly. However, most of the participants selected food waste reuse and recycle (50%) as well appealing pureed food for elderly population (47%) as “extremely important”, moreover no one selected “not at all important” meant for addressing issues with chewing and swallowing. New food flavours and diet adjustment are considered by highest number of participants as “very important”, followed by “moderately important” option. Possibility to create 3D food at home, longer shelf life
33
and nutritionally enhanced food for children got most of the responses as “moderately important” technology application. Additionally, globalization of food and nutritionally enhanced food for children were ranked as “not at all important” by more respondents compared with other options, 11 and 8 of total answers correspondingly.
Table 5: Importance of 3D application in food industry
Responses (n=101)
3D printing application 1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD
New food flavors, textures and food design
6 16 26 30 23 3,48 1,2 Diet adjustment based on consumer's
health data
6 10 27 33 25 3,60 1,1 Nutritionally enhanced food for children 8 14 32 25 22 3,39 1,2 Creating appealing pureed food for people
with chewing and swallowing difficulties,
in particular elderly population 0 6 15 33 47 4,20 0,9
Food waste recycle/reuse 2 11 11 26 51 4,12 1,1
Extension of the shelf-life of food 7 25 25 23 21 3,26 1,2 Possibility to experiment and create 3D
printed food at home
7 18 30 23 23 3,37 1,2 Globalization of food, help to share
culinary knowledge
11 20 21 28 21 3,28 1,3 Meat alternatives (e.g.plant-based steak) 7 25 25 23 21 3.26 1,2
*Survey Scale: 1=Not at all important 2=Slightly important 3=Moderately important 4=Very important 5=Extremely important
Source: Author
Furthermore, the question on amount of money respondent would spend on 3D dinner in the restaurant revealed that almost half (48%) are ready to spend up to 50$ for such a dinner, followed by 39% who would spend up to 100$. Only 8 out of 101 respondents are willing to pay 200$. Some of the participants wouldn’t spent a cent to try 3D food (5% of total respondents) and only one is ready to pay more than 200$. Additionally, it should be
34
mentioned that yearly income of the most respondents varies from “less than $10,000”
(38% of total respondents) to $10,000 to $19999 (23%).
Table 6: Consumers’ motivation on visiting 3D restaurant
Responses (n=101) (%) Entertainment: idea for a creative birthday party or kid amusement 2
Investigating new technology: observing the process of creation 12 New personal experience: textures and flavours 28 Participation: be involved in the process (e.g. choose design, ingredients)
8
All of the above is applicable 48
None of the above, I would not go to 3D restaurant 3
Source: Author
In order to study deeper the factors influencing respondent’s motivation to visit specialized restaurant with 3D food, options presented in Table 6 were suggested. At this point only 3% of total participants chose the option “I would not go to 3D restaurant”, new personal experience would inspire 28% of respondents to try 3D food followed by 12% interested in technology and process of creation. On the other hand, it is hard to distinguish the most desirable option as almost half of the respondents (48%) would prefer all the above mentioned, in addition to be involved in the process and entertain themselves with 3D food. Different situation is observed with incentive on buying 3D printer for personal use at home (Table 7). Almost 30% of respondents wouldn’t consider using this technology at home regardless the possibilities suggested. 14 respondents would buy it to feel themselves as chefs at home. Similar number of respondents would like to save time on food preparation (13%), reduce food waste and save energy (11%) as well as get personalized nutrition (11%). All the above mentioned found applicable 19% of participants.
Moreover, some respondents wrote other options, specifically “entertainment”, “If I had a lot of money, I would buy a 3D food printer for entertainment”. Another reply from participant stated, “I would not consider buying it as I'm not interested in it enough and expect it would be very expensive”. Moreover, possibility to decrease expenses for food found attractive only 2% of total respondents.
35
Table 7: Consumers’ motivation on buying 3D printer
Responses (n=101) (%) Possibility to upload health and preference data for personalized
nutrition
11
Save time on food preparation 13
Decrease expenses for food 2
Reduce food waste and save energy consumption while meal preparation
11
Create complex food design and feel myself a professional chef 14
All of the above 19
None of the above, I would never consider buying it 28
Source: Author
As it was already mentioned in theoretical background, apart from possible advantages there are some limitations as well. One of the survey questions aimed to test if consumer’s perception on this topic correlates with existing in literature. The question formulation was
“What in your opinion can be the biggest obstacle in 3D printed food adoption by consumers?”. The results revealed (Table 8) that cost is perceived as the biggest restraint (35%) followed by 28 respondents perceiving safety concern as the main obstacle. Ethical and cultural perspective was selected by 22% of participants, less than 10% assumed limited availability and taste difference as an obstacle and one respondent suggested another option: “The idea feels dangerous and unnatural”.
Table 8: Consumers’ opinion on 3D printed food adoption obstacles
Responses (n=101) (%)
Cost 35
Limited availability on the market 5
Perception (ethical and cultural perspective) 22
Safety concerns of the 3D food 28
Texture and taste difference 8
Source: Author
36 3.2 Multiple regression results
The aim of multiple regression analysis conducted with the SPSS program (Version: 26.0) is to see the relation between people’s perception on type of food (pasta, meat, confectionary and pastry and total food i.e. including all 4) and importance of 3D food printing factors. Multiple linear regression can assist in measuring the strength of the connection between set of variables.
Potential predictors were prepared and named “NFFTFD” – New food flavor and food design, “DAD” – Diet adjustment, “NFC” – Nutritionally enhanced food for children,
“APSD” – Creating appealing purred food , “FWR” – Food waste and recycle, “MALT”
– Meat alternatives, “ESLF” – Extension of shelf life, “GLOF” – Globalization of food.
Additionally, three controlled variables were entered such as age, gender and income.
Factors with p-value<0,1 and consequently confidence interval 90% were considered as significant. The results in the form of SPSS output tables are presented in this section in the Table 9.
The results revealed three statistically significant factors in the pasta acceptance by customers, specifically significant positive relationship between perception of 3D pasta, new food flavor (β =.209, p = 0.002), and diet adjustment (β =.142, p = 0.94). Additionally, there is a significant negative relationship with β = -.164 between pasta acceptance and creating appealing pureed food (p = 0.090).
Furthermore, customers’ perception on 3D meat showed unexpected significant positive relationship with meat alternatives (β =.161, p = 0.43). As for the next category, there is a strong positive relationship revealed (β = .145, p = 0.18) between 3D confectionary perception and meat alternatives importance. Moreover, there is a strong positive relationship (β = .325, p = 0.000) between 3D pastry acceptance and new food flavors and food design factor.
Finally, after analysis of all 4 food types, i.e. pasta, meat, confectionary and pastry only one but significant positive relationship revealed with novelty in flavors and food design (β = .164, p = 0.02). The above-mentioned outcomes of multiple regression analysis will be further deliberated in the discussion section of this paper.
