Assessment of Impacts and Resilience of Online Food Services in the Post-COVID-19 Era

Abstract

The expansion of the online food services (collectively referred to as ‘OFS’) sector has been accelerating at high rates worldwide over the last few years. This sector is widely acknowledged, especially by urban consumers, for making life more convenient. During the strict lockdown following the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic, the OFS sector saw major growth, as many restaurants and grocery stores turned to the delivery format. Conversely, the sector has also been facing many challenges, which have lasting social, economic, and environmental impacts. Considering this situation, this study carried out a review of existing literature on the social, environmental, and economic impacts of OFS and explored the resilience gaps of this fast-growing food service business. To achieve this, relevant literature was collected through Elsevier’s SCOPUS database and other sources. The authors have documented specific social, environmental, and economic impacts of OFS on consumers and providers. Furthermore, various changes in this sector following the pandemic have also been underlined in this study. A combination of policy actions at the national, local, private sector, and individual levels is crucial to mitigate the adverse impact of OFS; hence, greater resilience will be ensured.

1. Introduction

The term ‘Food Resilience’ has gained huge importance in the development of dialogues and discussions regarding food systems [1]. However, the global COVID-19 pandemic, along with the rise of e-commerce services, has transformed global eating habits [2]. The effects of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the global need for resilient food systems, and present challenges to people’s attitude toward environmentally sustainable and, more importantly, resilient food consumption, since the resilient food systems program is enhancing long-term sustainability and resilience for food security [3]. Adverse impacts and long-term stressors are pressurizing the food systems, and it is highly necessary to improve the understanding of the food system to deal with such adversity successfully.

In recent years, the food system has changed remarkably due to the adoption of online food services (collectively referred to as ‘OFS’ hereafter). The OFS sector is at the nexus of food production and consumption and, thus, is considered critical to revolutionizing related systems and practices within the food sector [4]. The online food supply can be classified into two categories: (i) Restaurant to Consumer and (ii) Platform to Consumer. In the first category, providers (such as KFC, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Dominos, etc.) prepare the food and directly deliver it to the end consumers. In the latter category, restaurants take orders via third-party online platforms like Uber Eats (USA, Japan), Just Eat (UK), Swiggy (India), and Eleme (China).

The wake of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the growth of OFS as in-person shopping declined in urban areas and consumers started to order food directly to their homes [5]. To ensure food security during the pandemic, food providers were prompted to adopt online food services. In 2019, the global online food delivery market size was valued at USD 330 billion, and by 2023, the market was estimated at USD 920 billion. By 2027, this online food delivery market is forecasted to reach USD 1.45 trillion [6]. The pandemic gave a tremendous boost to the online grocery market sector across the world. In 2019, online grocery sales were 4.9% worldwide, whereas, in 2021, e-commerce jumped to 7.2% [7]. In the US, 79% of consumers buy groceries online, and adoption of this practice is predicted to grow rapidly in the EU and Japan [8]. Online grocery stores are expected to dominate the EU grocery market by 2030. In India, the OFS market was valued at USD 3 billion in 2020, and the sector is predicted to escalate by 35% to USD 13 billion by 2025 [9]. Although the utilization rate of OFS is relatively lower in Japan, the market growth of online food delivery services was 23.6% in 2020, up from 14.7% in 2019. While in-person shopping has resumed since pandemic restrictions were lifted, online food deliveries appear to be longer-lasting [10]. New factors have (re)shaped OFS both upstream and downstream, shifting power relations and prompting concerns about social equity, health, worker rights, and the environment.

At this point, there is a large amount of existing literature focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of online food services. However, there is little research on the impact of online food services during the recent pandemic, but there is a gap in identifying the resilience challenges of the OFS and the way the resilience challenges can be overcome in the post-COVID-19 era. This study explores answers to the following research questions:

(i)

What are the resilience challenges of OFS involving social, environmental, and economic dimensions?

(ii)

What policy interventions are necessary to make online food services resilient?

2. Literature Review

In this section, the authors summarize the advantages and disadvantages of OFS. At a later stage, the authors synthesize the role of OFS in the global agenda.

2.1. Advantages of OFS

Online food supply services offer many positive changes to accelerate sustainable food consumption and production [11] and can increase access to and consumption of healthy food [12,13,14,15,16,17]. For mobility-restricted consumers, OFS can increase competition and lower costs [18]. Another significant advancement in the online food supply system can be achieved for food consumption practices, by creating new consumer-producer interfaces and markets for local food producers [19]. Some studies reported that purchasing food online may reduce unhealthy impulse buying [20,21,22]. While websites and apps have the potential to publish information related to the nutritional value of the food, some online providers do not convey this information consistently [23]. Additionally, online price promotions and targeted messages, along with nutrition advice, may affect online interfaces. In some cases, consumers receive help from personalized online food retailers to lower the energy content, fat, and sodium content from food ordered online [24]. OFS also provides access to culturally relevant food that serves consumer needs and preferences.

2.2. Disadvantages of OFS

However, there are also some negative effects of OFS. Independent or small startups may be affected adversely by online retailers; food delivery may have environmental impacts and may be affected by insecure food labor; online food purchases may shift consumer priority to unhealthy ultra-processed foods; and most importantly, consumers may face digital privacy risks when they shop online [25]. Online supermarkets have begun to reconfigure shopping patterns and gendered workloads, empowering corporations with significant financial capital (e.g., Amazon) and raising concerns about the effects (e.g., traffic, packaging, wasteland use) on urban environments [26]. One study of online food shopping shows the need for technical knowledge and how it limits participation in these programs [27]. The OFS sector is responsible for heavy traffic and longer delivery times, which may reduce customer satisfaction [28]. Studies point to the negative effects of online innovations on the participation of women in food production, as that work is rationalized [29]. An analysis of innovative infrastructures of food services reveals that social hierarchies, alongside gender, race, income, and education, shape OFS practices [30].

2.3. Role of OFS in Global Agenda

Global impacts of climate change, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid urbanization, and unhealthy diets have exposed present cracks and are recognized as serious threats to public health [31]. In 2015, the United Nations announced 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) covering social, economic, and environmental aspects promoting healthy and secure lives and making cities safe and sustainable by 2030 [32]. In recent years, e-commerce and OFS have undergone sustained but uneven growth worldwide [33]. While SDG 2 (Zero hunger) is a major goal, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, people experienced less economic access to food because of income loss and hikes in food prices due to sudden shortages, and ultimately, it was difficult to maintain food security [34]. Although it can be expected that OFS plays a role in enhancing food security, studies showed during the strict lockdowns after the pandemic, people faced food security due to negative experiences with dietary quality, and people started to intake less food to combat the food shortage [34]. Simultaneously, OFS is potentially impeding the progress of some other SDGs. OFS may create severe risk for SDG 3 (Good health and well-being) by offering poor nutritional quality food. A study reported popular food outlets on the market-leading OFS in Sydney; popular fast-food franchise stores were found selling discretionary foods that contain high saturated fat, sodium, and sugar [35]. Leading OFS platforms like Uber Eats and Menulog in Australia are partners with the top 10 fast food franchise stores [36]. With increased accessibility to food outlets, OFS encourages excess food consumption, and for this reason, waste generation is also increased [37]. Thus, OFS may add burden and threaten the progress of SDG 12 to “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns”. OFS may enhance sustainable economic growth, stimulating the gig economy that will facilitate quality jobs. While OFS offers new job opportunities and work flexibility, the quality of jobs creates challenges to employment rights, work health, and safety conditions [38]. These facts will slow the achievement of SDG 8 to “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all” [39]. Plastic waste, which is one of the major global environmental concerns, is exacerbated by online food delivery [40]. Eventually, OFS may have enormous climate costs to impede SDG 13 to “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” [39].

3. Materials and Methods

To identify relevant literature on online food services in the post-COVID-19 era, this study utilized the Scopus database (accessed on 5 January 2023) following recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [40]. We gained coverage of online food services, social impacts, economic impacts, environmental impacts, and COVID-19 by using relevant search terms. Figure 1 illustrates the results obtained through the Scopus search. A search string was applied to the article title, abstract, and keywords fields of Scopus, with publication dates confined to the years 2020 to 2023: TITLE-ABS-KEY (online AND food AND supply) AND (social OR economic OR environmental) AND (COVID-19 OR pandemic). A total of 126 publications were identified. After the initial search, the search fields were narrowed by searching the four main keywords separately: “digital food supply”, “online food supply”, “digital food provisioning”, and “mobile application food supply”. Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in China occurred at the end of 2019, we selected the publications from 2017 to 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) and 2020 to 2022 (after the COVID-19 pandemic), respectively. Furthermore, in addition to the Scopus database search, research papers from Google search and gray literature were adopted for the review. PRISMA checklist is presented in Supplementary Materials.

Figure 2 shows an upward trend in the number of publications for the four main search terms. Specifically, for the term “digital food supply”, a total of 1369 publications were identified, with 287 from 2017 to 2019 and 745 from 2020 to 2022. For “online food supply”, 1164 publications were identified, with 227 from 2017 to 2019 and 658 from 2020 to 2022. “Digital food provisioning” had 28 publications in total, with five from 2017 to 2019 and 18 from 2020 to 2022. Finally, “mobile application food supply” had 296 publications in total, with 54 from 2017 to 2019 and 139 from 2020 to 2022.

Figure 3 shows an upward trend in the number of articles addressing the social, environmental, and economic impacts of online food provisioning and COVID-19. In 2020, a total of 21 publications were released. However, the number of publications increased substantially in 2021, with 57 articles published that year. The following year, the number of publications decreased slightly to 46.

4. Results and Discussions

This section consists of several sub-sections, including the social, environmental, and economic impacts of OFS. The resilience challenges of OFS have also been discussed in this section, followed by an enabling environment policy framework for improved resilient OFS in the post-COVID-19 era. Finally, the section has been concluded with a set of policy recommendations for key stakeholders.

4.1. Social Impacts of OFS

With the economic expansion and progress in terms of the internet and transport, OFS has gained more acceptance these days for making people’s lives more convenient. However, this has resulted in some impacts on the relationship between consumers and food. Consequently, human relationships have been affected as people are changing how they obtain, prepare, and consume food. This transition creates a considerable debate on whether OFS has positive or negative effects on family time and community interactions. People’s lives were different before OFS, as they had a chance to communicate with each other during grocery shopping, preparing, and cooking food at home [41,42]. On the other hand, some studies reported positive effects of OFS, as consumers can save time and quickly serve meals using OFS, resulting in more quality family time [43,44].

While OFS is promoting a convenient lifestyle for consumers, it is also creating unavoidable challenges to public health. With the increase in food availability and choices, people are making less effort in terms of obtaining food. Generally, people procure their food in their neighborhood within about 1.6 km, which is approximately a 20-min walk from their home, office, or school. However, OFS can expand the area from which food is obtained to 10 km and beyond [45]. Furthermore, consumers often buy unhealthy food options like fast food online [46]. Effortless food procurement makes consumers’ lives very unhealthy. Another study in the USA also expressed concerns about the negative impacts of OFS on public health [47]. In India, one study reported that online platforms rarely emphasize menu design or nutritional information. It was evident that unhealthy fast food was cheaper but had higher calories [48].

Another social issue of OFS is public traffic. With the growth of the OFS industry, there has been an increase in the number of workers in this sector, in particular, delivery workers. Consequently, traffic congestion on the roads has also increased. Furthermore, many online platforms have a commission and management system, and so delivery workers are often in a race against time for deliveries to obtain higher commissions. This exacerbates the risk of violating traffic regulations and may lead to road accidents [49].

Another study in Indonesia reported the impact of OFS on eating behavior. It was reported that consumer preferences depend on the delivery time and delivery cost of OFS. Since online services require long waiting times, consumers switch to going out to eat. Some other factors result in changes in consumer preferences, such as less flexibility of online food delivery services to schedule modifications and longer delivery times, meaning that it may not be possible to deliver freshly cooked food [50].

There is another risk for consumers when they order food online. Online platforms collect a huge amount of data about consumers from restaurants to create a customer database. These data include what customers order and when and how they order. Delivery service companies have easy access to this kind of important consumer information. Through data collection, online platforms become aware of consumer behavior and purchasing habits [51], which may have ethical implications for OFS.

Looking at another point, in India, it is very important to improve agricultural productivity and simultaneously boost farmers’ income to ensure inclusive growth. Online grocery retailers like Big Basket and others are engaging with smallholder farmers by providing access to a large market and offering to sell such farm products at a high rate (10–14% higher compared to the local market). A fully integrated supply chain model such as that at Big Basket is impactful and gives security to the farmers so that they have a better idea about what and when to plant, where to sell their products, and how to invest for their future [52].

Japan has seen gender-based neoliberal reform since the growth of OFS. Green Co-op Consumers Cooperative, a food distribution company, has become a platform for women workers, indicating one very positive impact of OFS [53]. Another aspect of gender equality ensures that women are better educated and empowered by going out to work and earning their income. Working women spend more time at their jobs, as well as commuting to and from work, and thus have less time to carry out household tasks such as cooking. One study has shown that many working women order food online [54].

In

Table 1. Social issues raised by OFS in different countries.

Country	Social Issues	References	Gray Literature
USA	Community interaction; Human-food relation; Public health.	[41,42,47]
UK	Family interaction.	[43]
China	Convenient urban lifestyle; Lack of social interaction; Public health; Impacts on public traffic.	[44,45,46,49]
Japan	Gender neoliberalism.	[53]
India	Nutritional imbalance; Gender equality; Supply chain.	[46,54]	[52]
Indonesia	Eating-out behavior.	[50]
Global	Cyber risk.		[51]

, different social issues were listed from different countries.

4.2. Environmental Impacts of OFS

The environmental effects of OFS vary based on local geography, how the service is designed, and which effects are considered. For example, air pollution from food delivery vehicles may be significant in communities where people usually carry out their shopping on foot or by bicycle. On the other hand, OFS may prove more efficient in areas where automobiles are used for shopping. Online ordering and delivery have the scope to optimize food preparation planning, thereby minimizing food waste. In contrast, there may be more food waste when consumers purchase online, as they have lower perceptions about what they are purchasing and are thus more likely to discard purchased food items [55]. Another reason that food waste is generated may be due to so-called ‘minimum price’ campaigns by different companies. In these campaigns, consumers purchase more food than they need. They then cannot store it or do not want to eat it again for their next meal, and ultimately, they discard it [44]. OFS means that customers cannot gauge the portion size, and then they cannot finish the whole meal because it is too much for them. There is also the issue of not being able to check the taste of the food [44].

One major environmental concern that has emerged from OFS is the massive volume of plastic waste. Countries manage their plastic waste generated by OFS depending on their recycling infrastructure and the growth of their OFS [56]. Food delivery services use additional plastic bags over closed containers to allow delivery persons to carry the food conveniently. In addition to this, single-use spoons, forks, sachets, cups, and straws are used for food delivery. It has been estimated that around 10% of the world’s mismanaged plastic waste was generated in Indonesia in 2015, and by 2020, this percentage jumped to 47% [57]. It was also reported in China that packaging waste from food delivery increased from 0.2 million metric tons (Mt) in 2015 to 1.5 Mt in 2017. Additionally, food delivery packaging waste is considered around 1% of the annual municipal solid waste in China [58]. In Japan, food delivery has become an increasingly important segment of the food service industry, and it was reported that due to the popularity of online food delivery, production of plastic products surged by 3% in 2021 to 4.71 million tons, putting it on track to increase in consecutive three years [59]. In the USA, plastic production accounts for around 1% of greenhouse gas emissions [60].

Another major environmental issue that cannot be overlooked is the carbon footprint of OFS. The food habits of modern consumers have accelerated the OFS systems, and partly because of this, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to double by 2025. These emissions can be classified as (i) emissions from direct operations, (ii) electricity emissions, and (iii) emissions from indirect sources [61]. The Southeast Asia region is responsible for generating a combined 31 million tons of plastic waste per year [62]. Leading online retailers in this region acknowledged the carbon emissions from their business operations. The parent company of Tokopedia, GoTo, stated that it produced 828,898 tons of CO₂e in 2021, out of which 88% was produced by its digital operations. Shopee was responsible for 112,014 T CO₂e in 2021, and more than half of these emissions were from electricity use. Delivery operations (from the manufacturer to restaurant, from restaurant to consumer, and from consumer to disposal) account for 5% of total environmental impacts. The most severe environmental impact is solid waste pollution, followed by water and air pollution. One study showed that OFS generated 0.1185 kg of solid waste and 0.68 kg CO₂ eq/kg from one online food order, whereas manufacturing accounted for 45% and disposal of packaging accounted for 50% of the total environmental impacts. Rather than the delivery operations, it seems that plastic manufacturing and disposal processes have higher environmental impacts across the whole industry [63].

In

Table 2. Environmental issues raised by OFP in different countries.

Country	Environmental Issues	References	Gray Literature
USA	Food waste; Plastic waste.	[55]	[60,62]
Indonesia	Food waste; Plastic waste; Carbon footprint.		[57,61]
China	Plastic waste; Food waste; Carbon footprint.	[44,58,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]
Japan	Plastic waste.		[59]
India	Plastic waste; Eco-friendly packaging.	[56,71]
UK
Asia	Plastic waste.	[72]	[73]
Global	Plastic waste; Carbon footprint.	[74]	[75]

, various environmental issues were listed from different countries.

4.3. Economic Impacts of OFS

The rise of OFS has become a global trend over the last decade in many countries, with China in a leading position, closely followed by the USA and India. The annual growth rate is higher in India compared to China and the USA [76], and with that, huge job opportunities have been provided for many people in this market. The range of jobs includes staff for restaurants, delivery staff, as well as IT personnel behind the online platforms. Moreover, companies selling and servicing bicycles, as well as those that are involved in the manufacturing and distribution of food packaging, are supported by the OFS market [70]. Data shows in Japan that the number of employees involved in the takeaway and food delivery industry was roughly 610,000 in 2021 [77]. The leading US-based online food delivery company, Uber Eats, has 10,000 employees [78], the India-based online food delivery company has around 50,000 employees [79], and in China, Meituan and Eleme have employed around 1.17 million people as delivery staff [80]. With the growth of this base market and the accompanying job opportunities, many OFS platforms are facing various challenges to enter the market, as it is getting more competitive. There have been additional concerns, especially in the delivery sector, such as low job satisfaction and attrition rate due to poor working conditions, which raise questions about the ethical performance of the current practices of OFS. For instance, delivery staff have high workloads despite only receiving limited training, and this may increase the risks to their safety during the food delivery process [81]. Moreover, a lack of hygiene among delivery staff can leave many customers with concerns.

Online platforms provide subsidies and promotions to attract more customers and orders in the early stages of operations. However, over time, restaurant profits may decrease as a higher commission is required for global delivery giants [82]. For this higher commission of online platforms, restaurants may search for other platforms, but due to a virtual monopoly, restaurants may decide to halt their online delivery [47]. Furthermore, online platforms charge the cost for any delivery error to restaurants or delivery workers [83]. In the context of Japan’s gig economy, the Uber Eats union has taken various actions to solve some regulatory issues faced by online food delivery staff, like compensation for accidents and injuries, transparency in operations, and adequate remuneration [84].

With the successful emergence of OFS, ‘cloud kitchen’ has become popular recently and has put an exclusive focus on takeaway food, resulting in a range of benefits—there is a need to provide a seating or waiting area for customers, which reduces the cost of rent, and reception staff and serving staffs are not required. Thus, cloud kitchens are a good way to increase the capacity of restaurants to serve the growing food services market by reducing overheads [85]. Leading online platforms such as Uber Eats are also now expanding their businesses using the cloud kitchen concept [86]. While there are some apparent advantages of cloud kitchens, there are also several concerns about the challenges that cloud kitchens may face, including late delivery, dependency on the internet, absence of the so-called human touch, and maintenance of hygiene standards. Despite these concerns, cloud kitchens are getting ever more popular [87].

In

Table 3. Economic issues raised by OFS in different countries.

Country	Economic Issues	References	Gray Literature
USA	Increased job opportunities; Cloud kitchen.		[78]
UK	Cloud kitchen.		[86,88]
China	Increased job opportunities; Low job satisfaction; Reduction in profit over time.	[70,81]	[80]
India	Increased job opportunities; Low job satisfaction and a high attrition rate; Cloud kitchen.	[87,89]	[79]
Japan	Gig economy.	[84]	[77]
Asia	Cloud kitchen;		[90]
Global	Reduction in profit over time; Undue costs; Obtain sales during the pandemic; Virtual monopoly.		[47,82,85]

, various economic issues were listed from different countries.

4.4. Online Food Servicing after COVID-19

In recent times, OFS has been on the rise all over the world. The outcome of the SCOPUS search (Figure 2 and Figure 3) clearly shows that there were more publications related to this issue from 2020, which indicates a growing interest in OFS, with a significant surge in research conducted between 2020 and 2022 (after the COVID-19 pandemic) compared to previous years. The recent pandemic caused a profound and severe impact on every aspect of people’s lives, as well as having a major impact on the global economy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many food businesses faced huge economic losses, with some facing business closure [91], and according to the restaurant association report, the restaurant industry lost around $240 billion in 2020. The restaurants that survived found it crucial to adapt to OFS [92]. Although the online food delivery sector has its challenges post-COVID-19, it managed to overcome any challenges thanks to constant developments in technology, behavioral changes of consumers, and an active and competitive environment [93]. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, OFS was in the warming-up stage for urban consumers. In 2020, due to various strict lockdowns, the online food delivery market flourished and became the most significant global trend [94]. The growth of online food delivery was recorded at 65% in the Asia Pacific region, 150% in the Latin America region, 21% in North America, and 23% in Europe [95,96,97]. One study reported that customer spending on food delivery increased by 70% during the first COVID-19 wave in March 2020 compared to March 2019 [98].

However, there were several challenges, both personal and social, faced by the service providers of online food supply platforms during the pandemic period, ranging from loss of jobs to exposure to COVID-19 [99]. Online food providers needed to take more precautions during food delivery to avoid exposure to the virus for both providers and consumers [100]. The expectations of consumers regarding food delivery companies were entirely changed [101,102] due to fear of the virus, and there were also changes in marketing strategies during the pandemic, creating insights into various brands and affecting region and market size and public listing [103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112].

It was not only the food delivery sector that saw changes; during the pandemic, people began to rely more on online grocery shopping compared to the pre-pandemic period. Post-COVID-19, food consumption patterns have changed dramatically, as people started to buy more groceries during lockdowns, including processed food like canned foods, frozen foods, rice, and pasta. During the first lockdown, daily groceries increased sharply, as panic buying led supermarkets to empty and people began to stockpile at home [113]. Although the supermarkets were open during the lockdowns, people wanted to carry out contactless grocery shopping, avoiding overcrowded stores with long waiting times, due to the fear of exposure to COVID-19. In response, grocery stores worldwide expanded their online availability as an alternative to in-store shopping. Data showed that US-based retail store Walmart increased its online sales by 87% between November 2019 and November 2021, whereas online giant Amazon’s profit grew around 200% (partially for food purchases) during the pandemic [114]. Another study reported that in the US, 34% of households adopted online grocery shopping since the pandemic started, and 60% of these households planned to continue after the pandemic. The top three reasons for this were listed as avoiding germs and COVID-19 (81%), convenience (44%), and better selection of products (17%) [107].

When the COVID-19 pandemic first started, there were many reasons to consider shorter supply chains along with home deliveries. Although it was a major challenge to deliver food from store to doorstep at that time, UK-based vegetable box suppliers delivered 3.5 million fresh produce boxes to homes after adopting an online system. In this case, hyperlocal food projects helped to reduce the gaps in a globalized food system. When the lockdown started, many online marketplaces helped producers by introducing excess perishable products to new customers. Many online platforms offered their platforms to companies that were struggling to sell or buy food products during the lockdown [115].

4.5. Resilience Challenges of OFS

Based on the above discussions, the major impacts of OFS covering both positive and negative perspectives have been outlined in Figure 4 and have been categorized into social, economic, and environmental impacts. For example, OFS emerged as the major food supply chain during emergencies, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis. OFS also created new job opportunities at a time when many people lost their jobs due to imposed quarantine restrictions. However, many negative impacts of OFS were discussed in the earlier sections, including loosening social interactions, concerns about public health, cyber risks, poor marginal profits, poor working conditions, increased volume of plastic waste, and high carbon footprint.

4.6. Policy Framework for the Resilience of OFS

To ensure the resilience of OFS, it is critical to mitigate its negative impacts, and this needs a set of policy interventions at the national, local, and company levels, as well as requiring individual decisions (Figure 5).

National government:

• High dependency on unsustainable plastic packaging is one of the challenges of OFS. National governments can regulate the use of packaging materials for OFS by introducing economic incentives, including subsidies to use alternative and recyclable or reusable packaging materials. National governments can also provide financial support for alternative packaging industries;
• National governments can play a vital role in improving working conditions for employees through regulatory measures such as setting up a minimum wage rate and ensuring coverage for social insurance etc.;
• Advertising junk food online or in the mass media can be regulated on a national level. For example, the UK government enacted a ban in 2023, prohibiting the advertising of junk food online [116].

Local government:

• Local governments can take action to make neighborhood food ecosystems healthier by developing the necessary infrastructure, such as providing footpaths or cycling paths to access healthier food sources. One example of such local action is the 15-min urban transformation in Paris that advocates access to basic amnesties within 15 min on foot or by bicycle [117];
• Local governments can establish online platforms for all restaurants where OFS providers can upload their menu information, including nutritional labeling and eco-labeling. This scheme is useful for consumers when they wish to order healthier food items. For example, the Yokohama City Government established the Takeout and Delivery Yokohama online platform for restaurants where owners can upload useful information for consumers [118].

Private sector:

• To reduce food waste, OFS providers can give more useful information about the volume of food items, so that consumers can avoid over-purchasing when they order;
• To ensure OFS is resilient, a company should take necessary policy actions to improve working conditions that will improve the work satisfaction of employees. For example, Menu Log Australia has set up a minimum wage to improve workers’ rights [39];
• OFS providers can play a vital role in reducing plastic waste by shifting from single-use plastic packaging to recyclable or reusable packaging items. Several OFS providers, including Cup Club in the UK and Globelet in Australia, have already started replacing single-use items. This action can also create new business opportunities, such as leasing reusable packaging items, as seen in companies like Go Box (USA) and Re-Cup (Germany) [119].

Consumers:

• The resilience of OFS businesses depends on improving the level of customer satisfaction. Therefore, consumer choice can be an important factor in bringing about changes for resilience concerning OFS. Ordering more environment-friendly food choices can contribute to reducing food waste and plastic waste and minimizing the carbon footprint.

5. Conclusions

Our study highlights the social, environmental, and economic impacts of OFS, especially in the post-COVID-19 era. Based on a review of existing literature, this study developed a precise understanding of the current online food services. OFS was the only safe way for people during the pandemic to obtain food from outside their homes. Moreover, many lost their jobs during the pandemic, and many job opportunities were created in this sector. In a modern and fast-paced society, OFS provides valued convenience, but OFS has a high potential to disrupt human health and the environment, and OFS interferes with the overarching group of SDGs. However, it is also important to understand the various long-term impacts of OFS. This study gave an outline of major social, environmental, and economic issues. It also synthesized the impact of COVID-19 measures on this sector and suggested a framework on how to enable necessary policy by the national government, local government, private sector, and consumers aiming to make the OFS sector more resilient in the post-COVID-19 era and to ensure sustainable food business.

The authors acknowledge that this study has certain limitations, as research is mainly based on a review of existing literature. Although the study findings are expected to remain relevant for the long term, the future scope of this research could conduct case-specific studies at a local level to ensure the resilience of this sector.