Next Article in Journal
Health Effects of PM2.5 Exposure in China from 2004 to 2018: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Brazilian Coal Tailings Projects: Advanced Study of Sustainable Using FIB-SEM and HR-TEM
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/su15010221
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Institutional and Individual Effects of Greenwashing on Food Waste

by
Robert Lee Cavazos
*,
Keelyn Taylor
,
R. Brandon Eary
and
Scott Doty
Division of Sociology, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TX 76401, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 221; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010221
Submission received: 2 November 2022 / Revised: 8 December 2022 / Accepted: 19 December 2022 / Published: 23 December 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Greenwashing is when organizations deceive consumers by making false claims regarding the environmental advantages their products have over other products. Institutional, greenwashing leads to “individual greenwashing”, which perpetuates the problem of people believing they are environmentally conscious when, in reality, they are not. This is evident in individuals’ behavior regarding food waste; therefore, our study examines the effects of individual greenwashing on food waste. It uses a mixed-methods approach to demonstrate how institutional barriers socialize patrons into routines, making it difficult to implement sustainable practices. We conducted a plate-waste audit at a university over an eight-day period, collecting 1443 pounds (≈654.5 kg) of food waste from 7775 patrons. The audit demonstrated that individuals generated 0.79 ounces (≈22.4 g) less plate waste when they controlled their portions than when the institution controlled their portions. Our surveys revealed that only 15.6% of patrons were aware of composting options; however, 83.3% were willing to compost. The field experiment increased patrons’ awareness of the compost bin, creating a 2.5 percentage point increase in usage, resulting in 13.4 pounds (≈6.1 kg) of waste being diverted from the landfill. Therefore, institutions should recognize their role in socializing individuals to adopt environmentally sound food-waste habits.

1. Introduction

Food waste consists of unconsumed edible food intended for human use [1,2,3]. It has environmental, economic, and human-health costs [4]. Environmentally, it contributes to global warming and degrades water supplies and land [5,6,7]; 20% of land and water, in the United States, goes to produce food that is wasted [8]. Economically, global food waste leads to costly overproduction of food and overuse of resources, which raises the annually cost of food valued by $1 trillion [2,5,9]. One-third of global food production is wasted annually [10,11,12]. In the United States alone, over one-third of the food supply goes uneaten, costing $160 billion annually [2]. Human-health costs include increasing barriers to food access, which is important because a much of the population suffers from food insecurity [13].
Food waste is a broad category; it consists of wasted food at any stage of production. Plate waste is more narrowly defined as edible food that, after being served to a consumer, is uneaten and left behind [5,14,15,16]. Edible food is safe for human consumption while inedible foods (such as bones, eggshells, peels, etc.) cannot be consumed [15]. Food waste is a serious threat, making it crucial to understand food consumption and food wastage patterns [2]. Food waste is expected to increase by 33% by 2030 [7]. Plate waste is unavoidable as offering consumers exactly what portion sizes they desire and how they want their food is difficult, which is why composting is seen as a vital way of combating plate waste.
Composted plate waste is still a form of food waste; however, composting is preferable to sending food to landfills [5]. It recovers energy which decreases the CO2 and other emissions that edible non-composted food would otherwise release [8,17]. Composting is only an interim solution; a more sustainable alternative would be fundamental institutional changes that alter individual behavior to prevent waste from being generated and accumulating in landfills.
Wasteful processes stem from unsustainable subconscious routinized behaviors and social norms. The Treadmill-of-Production (ToP) theory describes a cycle in which economic motivations separates humans from their natural environment. The theory concerns the need to overproduce to create profit. It demonstrates that capitalism has direct ramifications for culture, natural resources, and the environment [18]. It is the nature of companies to increase production at an unsustainable rate to increase profits and production requires resources and often leads to environmental degradation. ToP theory directly relates to food waste. This wasteful process is found in restaurants, as restaurants create a system of excessive food waste by serving inadequate portion sizes [6]. Wasteful operations are also evident within the hospitality sector as buffets are seen as primary way of serving food; however, this high demand of production and consumption leads to high amounts of plate waste [15]. For example, universities typically offer buffet-style dining which increases food consumption, food production and consequently increasing food waste which is a major contributor to overall environmental harm [7,15].
An increase in production spurs an increase in consumption, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of waste and environmental destruction. The Treadmill-of-Consumption (ToC) theory concerns an additional cycle, one in which any movement to get ahead results in zero gain in satisfaction [18]. Pressure from the ToP socially constructs an insatiable need to consume. Just as producers are never economically satisfied, consumers are never materially satisfied. Consequently, the two treadmills make environmental harm unavoidable [19].
Individuals are unable to influence the ToP, as they do not control the means of production. Therefore, responsibility for reducing food waste should not be assigned entirely to individuals. Institutions should also be accountable as they are responsible for consumer plate waste [20,21], and they limit individual agency, which serves to either promote waste or reduce it [22,23]. Institutions can (1) socialize their patrons in meaningful ways and instill good habits by educating them, (2) reduce plate sizes, (3) modify the menu, (4) remove trays, and (5) increase food quality.
When institutions fail to implement these green initiatives, this is called greenwashing. Greenwashing is an institutional practice, product, or service that institutions claim promotes environmental sustainability but actually fails to bring individuals on board, thereby creating a pseudo-green image [5,24,25]. Greenwashing businesses make false claims about their products and promote vague messaging in their ad campaigns, both of which create uncertainty and confusion for consumers [26]. The uncertainty and confusion limit individuals’ ability to make genuine decisions about environmental products.
Instead of moving toward sustainability, companies engaging in greenwashing present themselves as environmentally friendly as an effort to increase sales [24,25,27,28]. This conception of greenwashing focuses on the institutional aspects of greenwashing rather than individuals’ ideologies; as a result, the role of the individuals who greenwash their own intentions has been largely ignored in the literature.
To fill the gap we study what we call individual greenwashing Individual greenwashing is a behavior that individuals learn from institutions that greenwash their own ideologies Individual greenwashing reflects how institutions limit individual agency with their decisions and parallels to businesses and other organizations that attempt to promote a positive self-image but fail to do so in reality. Individuals’ and institutions’ motivations are both an important parts of the solution to greenwashing. Individuals do maintain some agency but institutions are responsible for creating new norms, customs, and behaviors. Institutions’ and universities’ present a unique opportunity to create new, sustainable norms, as they create an atmosphere that allows individuals to express themselves. As centers for socialization and the formation of new habits, universities can instill new norms to discourage food waste. While individuals have agency, institutions have influence. If an institution educates its patrons on food waste and the patrons still choose not to compost, yet claim they are composting, we classify this as individual greenwashing. Individual greenwashing perpetuates the problem of people believing they are environmentally conscious when, in reality, they are not. We cannot expect individuals to act sustainably if institutions do not.
When greenwashing techniques are employed within higher education, individuals in their role as consumers do not help curb unsustainable practices. Under pressure from ToC, consumers only exacerbate environmental problems. Greenwashing allows individuals to believe they are being more sustainable than they really are, leading to continued overproduction by institutions [28]. This creates the self-reinforcing cycle mentioned above. The more companies produce, and greenwash their production, the more consumers consume in a blissfully ignorant state [27].
Previous food waste studies have considered a variety of institutional settings (for example hospitals, hotels, worksite cafeterias, restaurants, and educational facilities) to examine bulk plate waste, with an emphasis on health and nutrition [29,30]. However, these studies do not focus on analyzing individual plate waste or institutional influences on individuals from an environmental perspective [15,18,19]. Nor do these studies focus on solutions to food waste which require stopping the ToC and ToP [31].
Our study examines both individual and bulk waste collection to determine the effects of individual greenwashing on food waste. Further, it ascertains the difference in plate waste between portion-controlled (PC) stations (in which an institution controls the portion sizes) and self-serve (SS) stations (in which individuals have the freedom to choose their food and portions).

2. Literature Review

2.1. Socialization of Food Waste

The socialization of food wase is environmentally damaging norms are learned in social settings [32,33,34]. While individuals are typically enculturated in their homes, collegiate and professional settings provide opportunities for them to adopt new values and norms. Academic institutions are distinctive as settings that can nudge individuals toward more sustainable food-consumption and food-waste habits [32]. The ability to change one’s mind or beliefs toward a particular act or subject when one is introduced to legitimate evidence classifies as a nudge [32,35]. Once the evidence is introduced an individual must have the right, the freedom to make their decisions. Nudges are propositions/suggestions for schemes focused on enhancing decision making [32,35]. Shifting the decision-making from one ideology to another.
Prior research has indicated that institutions, such as colleges, are the ideal setting for developing new ideas because they create an atmosphere of unconstrained scientific inquiry, which promotes critical thinking, innovation, and creativity [36]. Only half of all US citizens know that excessive food waste is an environmental issue [37], which indicates a disconnect from the need to socialize individuals to reduce food waste. In addition, dining facilities, such as on-campus cafeterias, contribute to large amounts of food waste because of the sheer number of students enrolled; therefore, finding ways to reduce the waste is critical [38].
Acculturation is a powerful tool for human development and can be used to instill sustainable practices in contrast to enhancing individualistic traits that have repercussions beyond the individual [32]. The acculturation of new habits in educational and work settings can be tuned to match the core values and mission statements of institutions that wish to introduce and maintain sustainable practices [33]. Social institutions can instill environmentally conscious food habits in individuals by implementing practices that encourage them to internalize new food-waste norms.
Wasteful and unsustainable practices are not considered to be inherently human. Thus, they can be reduced. Plate waste is relatively new to humankind, having surfaced only with our ability to overproduce and create a surplus [39]. This further indicates that unsustainable food-waste habits are socially constructed and can be turned into environmentally friendly habits.

2.2. Plate Waste

Reusing food waste for agricultural purposes prevents it from entering landfills. Research suggests that when food waste cannot be reduced, the wasted food can be reused by local farms to help feed livestock or turned into fertilizer through composting [5,40]. Composting for local farms raises awareness of waste and demonstrates steps that institutions can take to reduce food waste.
Institutions can influence how individuals perceive and produce food waste because established practices help acculturate people to increase, maintain, or reduce their routinized wastefulness. For example, University of California Davis and Allegheny College held educational meetings, constructed compost bins, and delivered composting lectures [22,23,41]. The combination of better management practices and new socialization techniques to reduce food waste is essential for any institution striving for sustainability. Given the potential for environmental harm, it is rational to educate people in institutional settings to encourage sustainable goals, such as those found in collegiate core values and mission statements.
Institutions can implement effective plate-waste-reduction strategies by removing trays [42,43], reducing both dish and portion sizes [29,36,44,45,46], seasoning foods [23,47,48], and giving patrons choices [15,30,49,50,51].
Wasteful behaviors normalize plate waste, particularly in all-you-can-eat settings, where patrons can overload their plates with favorite dishes or experiment with different options [15,52,53] but end up wasting 17% of the entrées they try [52]. One way for institutions to reduce this waste is to remove the option to use trays [43]. Trays allow individuals to overestimate how much food they will eat and to carry multiple dishes, potentially leading to plate waste [15]. Studies show trayless buffets can reduce food waste by approximately 32% [15], partly because the design of the buffet forces patrons to re-enter the line with a new plate, which can discourage excessive trips and thus waste.
Freedman and Brochado [45] and Berkowitz et al. [44] both studied the effect of reducing dish sizes on plate waste. Berkowitz et al. [29] found that reducing portion sizes reduced plate waste by 0.5 ounces (≈14.2 g) per plate in a cafeteria setting and 1.1 ounces (≈31.2 g) per plate at a private golf course restaurant. Freedman and Brochado [45] found that reducing french fry servings from 88 g to 44 g decreased plate waste by a significant amount (30%). Similarly, Vermote et al. [36] found that university dining halls that reduced their french fry portions by 20% saw a decrease in plate waste of 66% and a decline in overall consumption of 9%. Ravandi and Jovanovic [46] found that reducing dish sizes reduced plate waste by 30%, as smaller dishes prevent patrons from putting excessive amounts of food on their dishes. Studies show that institutions can freely implement portion-reduction measures because such measures do not reduce their patrons’ satisfaction [36]. Patrons are likely to notice the changes but generally do not object to them [36,44,45]. For example, Vermote et al. [36] conducted a follow-up survey after their plate-waste study and found that while 86% of patrons noticed the smaller portions, only 32% were opposed to the change.
Additionally, research has shown that consumers want to have a say in what they eat, and if given the opportunity to do so, they reduce their food waste [29,50]. Ofei et al. [29] found that, in a hospital setting, when individuals had to select food from a buffet setting, they tended to waste more than those who were able to pick and choose from a menu. While a buffet allows for consumer choice, it does not allow the consumer to control the selection as much as customized meals do, which leads to more food waste [15,30]. A planned meal is customized to include more of what individuals want to eat, which can reduce plate waste. Thorsen et al. [30] found that meals prepared at home produced less waste than institutionally planned meals but had less nutritional value. They found that when implementing a meal plan from their school, students produced 3.10 ounces (≈87.9 g) of waste, while home lunches resulted in only 1.52 ounces (≈43.1 g) of waste [30]. Similarly, research suggests that increased consumer customization in the dining process can reduce plate waste [49,50]. Using room service, hospital patients can order the food they desire, leading to greater satisfaction with their meals and less plate waste [50].
Therefore, institutions that allow patrons to customize their meals are offering a solution to the growing issue of individual plate waste. Some institutions have even incorporated chef-enhanced meals into their food service to reduce plate waste [47]. They found that seasoning food reduced fruit and vegetable waste but had a minimal effect on the waste of entrées. Institutional plate-waste-reduction techniques provide support to individuals when they are given agency, palatable food, or the ability to plan their meals. Institutions can offer options that individuals can choose to meaningfully reduce their plate waste.

3. Materials and Methods

We conducted a three-phase, mixed-methods study at a rural southwestern public university with a student population of 13176. Mixed methods were necessary for this study due to the complexity of interactions and influence on individuals within an institutional environment cannot be studied by looking at food waste alone and researchers had to consider the structure or availability of compost methods and influence given or allotted by the institution. First, we conducted a plate-waste audit by weighing the total amount of uneaten edible food per plate (To obtain accurate records, we considered waste over one ounce (≈28.4 g) as plate waste.). The audit found over half a ton (≈500 kg) of waste, which indicated the need for further investigation to understand why students wasted buffet-style food at such high rates. Thus, we conducted a survey that measured the dining hall patrons’ and the institution’s awareness of food waste and their willingness to reduce it. The survey highlighted the cultural and institutional aspects of waste and revealed that individuals want to reduce food waste. Finally, we conducted a field experiment to compare the institutions’ and patrons’ attitudes toward composting with their actual practices to determine whether the patrons’ behavior can be characterized as individual greenwashing.

3.1. Plate-Waste Audit

Our plate-waste audit took place over 15 nonconsecutive days during summer. A total of 7775 dishes were collected. They were weighed using a digital scale, with the output in ounces or pounds. Our choice to conduct the audit during the annual student-orientation session ensured that a mix of socialized patrons (current students, faculty, and staff) and unsocialized patrons (new students) were present. These orientation sessions were ideal because the participants had yet to be socialized to the norms of the institution. Therefore, we could estimate how much students wasted in the initial conditions in which the institution attempted to acculturate patrons via signs and sampling options.
We decommissioned the trash bins and did not move the compost bin from its original position at the front of the dining hall, far from the food stations and 21.6 m from the dish return. Patrons had no option to dispose of their food other than to compost it or bring it to the dish return for us to dispose of it correctly. The normal layout of the cafeteria funneled patrons to our researchers at the dish return without interfering with their ability to compost (see Figure 1), which allowed us to accurately measure the amount of waste.
Our researchers labeled the different plate types (see Figure 2), which allowed our team to identify the station and serving style that patrons chose during dining hours. This was important because it allowed us to ascertain whether patrons used self-serve options or the institutionally determined options and to determine which of these serving styles produced more plate waste per dish.
We scanned lunch menus beforehand to identify food waste as either edible (i.e., plate waste) or inedible (e.g., corn dog sticks and corn cobs). The audit required four researchers, who monitored the disposal of plate waste to ensure accuracy. The first researcher was positioned nearest to the entrance of the dish return and collected patrons’ dishes and discarded any inedible items. The second and third researchers ensured accuracy in the data collection by placing each dish on a scale for measurement and then removing the dishes from the scale. These two researchers were also tasked with sorting dishes so that they could measure them in clusters of the same type, which reduced error. The final researcher recorded and logged the measurements of the amount of food waste per individual plate.
Previous studies conducted plate-waste audits from an institutional perspective in which they aggregated the waste and weighed it in bulk [22,23,41]. While our study acknowledges that institutional norms socialize patrons’ plate-waste habits, we also recognize that individuals are still able to choose between portion sizes. As we measured individual plate waste, we were able to identify how much edible food was wasted per plate and which serving style produced the most waste.
Further, as our study focused on individual decisions regarding food waste and how individuals receive their food, patrons were given two serving options across seven stations in an all-you-can-eat dining hall: (1) SS stations, which included the salad bar and pizza stations, gave the patrons the ability to choose both the contents and portion sizes of their meal and (2) PC stations, which included the traditional plate lunch line, provided predetermined items with predetermined portion sizes.
Although the institution we studied offered composting as a method to reduce food waste, and it displayed educational posters in this regard, a significant amount of food waste was collected. Therefore, a survey was necessary to answer the question of why so many patrons wasted their food.

3.2. Survey Method

As a follow-up to the plate-waste audit, we administered 272 surveys in the following summer period, over four nonconsecutive days. The surveys tested patrons’ awareness of the compost bin and willingness to compost food waste. The purpose was to gain a general understanding of patrons’ food-waste behavior in their homes and within the institution. We recognize that composting is the last resort that the institution provided to patrons in order to prevent food waste from entering landfills [5]. This study is concerned with the options available to patrons once they have generated plate waste. The decisions made by individuals are influenced by what options an institution offers. For example, in this study, the institution’s policies do not allow patrons to take uneaten food outside of the dining hall. Thus, to avoid food waste, the patrons must either eat all their food or compost it.
Our surveys used convenience sampling; thus, the surveyors approached anyone that entered the dining hall in order to capture as much information as possible in the limited time available during student orientation [54]. The purpose of the surveys was to study the food-waste views of both those who were acculturated and those who were not acculturated with institutional norms. Those who had attended the university for more than six months 27% were considered acculturated; while 73% of those who had attended for less than six months were deemed unacculturated. The goal was to survey individuals patronizing the dining hall for the first time. Orientation lunches only occurred during orientation weeks, which is why convenience sampling was an ideal method.
We administered the surveys during the same hours (at lunch time) as our food-waste collection. This is important because it meant the survey was taken by respondents who were accultured to dining hall norms and those who were not. Focusing on incoming students ensured respondents were not yet socialized to the dining hall norms. This is significant as we did not want to study individuals who were already routinized into wasteful habits within the institution; instead, we wanted to see whether individuals who had not formed these habits would decide to compost. As universities attract individuals from different cultures, with different socioeconomic statuses, and of different races/ethnicities, the survey covered a diversity of patrons. The patrons’ varied perspectives allowed us to understand how people become acculturated to producing food waste within this institutional setting. Additionally, surveying enculturated participants was a valuable method because it provided insight into whether composting norms had already been enculturated. Patrons touted their desire to take green actions, as they claimed to be aware of the issue, and they claimed that they would compost uneaten food. To answer the question as to what was keeping patrons from making decisions that would prevent food waste, we conducted an experiment.

3.3. Field-Experiment Methods

This experiment was conducted over 10 nonconsecutive days in the spring semester after the surveys took place. The experiment aimed to show how individuals, with their own composting knowledge (or lack thereof), are influenced by their institutions and contribute to the growing problem of food waste. For the duration of the experiment, all trash bins were decommissioned. However, the compost bin contains a trash compartment, which is meant for non-compostable waste; nonetheless, patrons may choose to use it to dispose of their compostable waste. Therefore, individuals could consume their meals or dispose of their uneaten food by composting it or throwing it in the trash compartment of the compost bin. Using (or not using) the compost bin is an observable and measurable action, unlike the perceptions measured in the surveys. Given the above, the compost bin represented the ideal means to test greenwashing and socialization in this study.
The experiment was rooted in the logic that the proper “nudge” [32,35] to motivate individuals to compost could come from an institution through positioning compost bins in the right place. The ideal position is a visible, high-traffic location, such as the dish return. Thus, altering the position of the bin allowed us to measure patrons’ food-waste behavior subject to structural influences.
In its original location (see Figure 3), the compost bin was located 21.6 m from the dish return and near the exit of the dining hall. Our researchers used a mechanical tally counter to record how many patrons composted their uneaten food. Individuals with empty plates and inedible waste (non-compostable food items or trash) were not counted. All non-composted food was directed to the dish return, where we classified patrons as having chosen not to compost their plate waste.
Researchers attempted to nudged patrons by making the opportunity to compost more simplistic [32,35]. This was done by moving the compost bin to a location 2.4 m from the dish return (see Figure 4), where another plate audit. Placing the compost bin closer to the dish return made it more visible. Researchers intended to create a more simplistic opportunity for any individual with plate waste to choose between throwing away their uneaten food or composting.
Initially, our researchers were present at the site of the food-waste collection when making their observations. Later, they mounted a camera to minimize their influence on participants. Opportunities to compost were recorded using Holsti’s [55] method of intercoder reliability, which allowed our researchers to calibrate accurate numbers concerning individual opportunities to compost.

4. Results

All three methods used in this study allow us to better understand individual greenwashing. Our survey revealed that individuals claim to be willing to compost but abstain from using methods made available by their institutions. Individual greenwashing is further illustrated by our social experiment as we made the compost bin more noticeable but saw only a small increase in composting, thus emphasizing that individuals see themselves as actors with ecofriendly intentions but fail to produce green results.

4.1. Plate-Waste-Audit Results

Our plate-waste audit found that the institution, and the individuals enculturated by the institution, wasted food at an alarming rate. The audit results are especially disturbing because our collection took place only during the lunch hour, which produces a fraction of the total food waste. As we did not account for how many plates an individual uses in the various meals they eat throughout the day, our findings can be considered to be very conservative about the overall food waste at the institution.
From the 7775 dishes analyzed during the fifteen-day audit, 1443 pounds (≈654.5 kg) of food waste was collected. Each dish contained an average of 2.97 ounces (≈84.2 g) of compostable food. Thus, each individual, on average, can be estimated to create 0.93 pounds (≈0.4 kg) of plate waste per five-day week, or 14.85 pounds (≈6.7 kg) per sixteen-week semester, during lunch hours. Therefore, over the course of a semester, the entire student body could potentially waste 195,663.6 pounds (≈88,751.5 kg) of food at lunch alone. These numbers are based on individuals using a single plate (and not going back for seconds or thirds).

4.2. Serving Style: Self-Service versus Portion-Controlled Stations

This study recognizes that all dining hall patrons have agency in that they can choose which foods to eat inside the dining hall, but they do not have agency with respect to the food provided by the institution nor its portion sizes at PC stations. Thus, we place an emphasis on the difference between SS and PC stations. We found that this factor contributes to how much food is wasted.
It is important to understand the implications of SS and PC service stations and which type produces less plate waste in order to reduce individual plate waste (see Table 1). At one station, both PC and SS meals were available; therefore, to account for this “serving style”, we labeled it “hybrid”. Alarmingly, the PC stations created 792 pounds (≈359.3 kg) of waste, 3.36 ounces (≈95.3 g) per dish on average. Meanwhile, the SS stations yielded a total of 584 pounds (≈264.9 kg) of food waste, or 2.57 ounces (≈72.9 g) per dish on average. Therefore, PC stations generated 0.79 ounces (≈22.4 g) more waste per dish than SS stations. Based on these results, we infer that giving dining hall patrons the ability to choose their own portions creates less plate waste. Specifically, if the institution used an all-SS serving style, as opposed to an all PC-serving style, an estimated 384 pounds less waste would have been generated during our 15-day plate-waste audit; the institution should decrease portion sizes if they choose not to switch to an all-SS option.

4.3. Survey and Experiment Results

Survey data revealed that only 15.6% of all respondents were aware that the institution offered a composting option. In addition, after being made aware of the compost bin’s existence, 54.8% of all respondents, both acculturated and unaccultured, claimed they would use it (see Table 2). However, our experiment results suggest that most of those respondents were engaging in individual greenwashing because only 0.2% of them chose to compost their food when the compost bin was in the institutionally placed position (see Table 3). This finding is disturbing given that only 25% of the acculturated diners who were aware of the option to compost affirmed they used the bin. This further confirms the claim that individuals engage in greenwashing.
The survey indicated that the more acculturated the students were, the less likely they were to use the compost bin, even though they were aware of it, thus indicating institutional greenwashing. The institution offered a green option, but the culture of the institution discouraged its use. This may be because the compost bin was at an undesirable location—at 21.6 m away from the dish return—and because only one compost bin was available for the entire dining hall compared with an entire wall designated for collecting trash. Therefore, we observed only 2.7% of patrons using the bin, indicating that individuals, much like their institution, were engaging in greenwashing.
In addition, 85.3% of acculturated patrons admitted they were not aware of the compost bins, illustrating a failure of the institution to socialize its patrons to reduce their plate waste. We would expect to see a much larger increase in awareness and usage over time if the institution’s green initiatives were working. Specifically, we would expect the acculturated students to be much more aware of the compost bin than the unacculturated students; however, surprisingly, we found a 1.2% difference in favor of the unacculturated students., thus indicating that the institution’s techniques to reduce food waste were not working. The surveys established that 15.9% of unacculturated patrons and 14.7% of acculturated patrons claimed to be aware of the compost bin. The surprising similarity indicates a failure of the institution to inform the patrons of the presence of composting receptacles. Further, only 25% of acculturated patrons claimed to use the compost bin, whereas this figure was 66.7% for unacculturated patrons. In addition, 12.2% of patrons claimed to have knowledge about composting techniques prior to arriving at the university. This indicates a failure of the institution to integrate individuals who claimed to have green habits, such as composting, before being enculturated into the institution.
The intention to compost is created from people’s self-awareness regarding composting, along with the direction institutions provide to individuals. However, the university in this study never educated patrons about what food is compostable; therefore, patrons were not sufficiently informed to make decisions about food waste. Nonetheless, we measured the decision to compost for each participant and how they responded to structural changes within the institution.
In the survey, 87% of patrons indicated “they would use the compost bin, given that they are now aware of its presence.” However, we recognize the limitations of survey data; thus, we conducted an experiment in which we positioned the compost bin in control and experimental locations. We found that only 0.2% of patrons used it in the control position (see Figure 5). This figure increased to 2.7% when we moved the bin 19.2 m closer to the dish return (see Figure 6). Approximately 14 pounds (≈6.4 kg) of plate waste was composted in the experimental condition and 0.56 pounds (≈0.3 kg) in the control condition.

5. Discussion

The results of our study are concerning, which is why institutions must educate patrons on the proper techniques of composting; guidance is essential in changing the viewpoints of individuals in order to promote green behaviors. Research has shown that environmental advocacy groups inform consumers to identify greenwashing marketing techniques [27]. Furthermore, these programs provide patrons educational techniques that enable them to combat food waste, reduce environmental degradation, and to promote sustainability practices [22,23,41,42,43]. Institutions provide the social structure that individuals mimic. We know that individuals create the waste, but it is not completely their fault. We are not placing blame on individuals but rather acknowledging their role in the larger problem that institutions create by greenwashing. This problem can be solved as institutions have the capability to educate and instill green behaviors that reduce individual plate waste.
Our results are especially unsettling given that the university received a bronze rating from STARS (Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating Systems (https://reports.aashe.org/institutions/participants-and-reports/, accessed on 1 August 2020)), which recognizes universities across America that implement sustainability practices. This indicates that institutions will do whatever is necessary to give the illusion that they are green, whereas, in reality, they are simply greenwashing. Furthermore, the university touts a green image as they use posters across the dining hall to educate and enculturate students to use green practices (see Figure 7 and Figure 8), but the institution fails to implement the necessary structure for students to make those decisions [24]. As the placement of the compost bin is located by the exit door (which is located on the opposite side of the cafeteria) instead of having it located in the plate return area.
TOP and TOC are related by how institutions and individuals influence each other. Institutions influence behavior on how individuals consume, and we assert that institutions can also influence how individuals manage their waste after consumption. This paper implies that intuitions do not hold up to their green image nor will individuals. We examine the results of composting as a safety net for overconsumption and how individuals’ decisions to deal with this behavior by institutional influences and resources available. Composting is a response to the growing issue of food waste; it mitigates some of the negative effects of overconsumption. Composting is not the ultimate solution to our growing environmental crisis; rather, the solution lies in placing greater emphasis on reducing overconsumption and, in turn, the need for composting. We also recognize that the mere presence of means to divert plate waste from landfills, such as compost bins, may actually increase individual plate waste [56]; however, we argue that the waste is the direct result of institutions (such as universities) allowing improper composting techniques to arise and not correcting the behavior of individuals or educating them about proper composting methods, thus allowing greenwashing practices to be implemented.
The institutional practice of overserving at PC stations causes increased food waste. Our findings reaffirm that individuals are better at reducing plate waste than institutions are. By providing options and giving patrons agency to choose the content and size of their meals, institutions can influence patrons to waste less plate [15,30,49,50,51], As patrons are provided the nudge that is needed to reduce food, as the compost bin provides this opportunity. Our findings reveal once the compost bin was moved 2.4 m closer to the dish return area, we saw a 2.5% increase in compost usage. Thus, indicating that people follow the path of least resistance. The position of the compost bin and its availability provided the nudge that was needed, as it allowed them to choose to compost or not to compost [32]. Thus, we confirm that through providing options and giving patrons agency to choose the content and size of their meals [15,30,49,50,51], institutions can influence patrons to waste less per plate [5,14,15]. Patrons cannot have enhanced decision-making in regard to choosing to compost food if institutions do not make the means easily available, instead we see, the opposite. The cafeteria design is encouraging individuals not to compost. We view the compost bin and its availability as a nudge to patrons to choose to compost [32,35] However, we acknowledge that this might not be the case at other institutions and might not be the case with children [15].
Nonetheless, as revealed by our survey, the institution does not adequately educate patrons about green practices related to food waste, which is why we observed the mixed messaging about composting in the cafeteria, i.e., the cafeteria posters [21,24,25,26]. Our results also indicate that when patrons were educated about green food-waste practices, they desired to adopt them, showing the potential for green practices to develop. However, the university creates barriers to green behavior by positioning its compost bin in an unsuitable location and by having one bin versus a whole wall of trash bins. Furthermore, the original location of the compost bin hampered patrons’ ability to compost their food waste. Although, they could choose whether to compost, differentiating between the trash compartment and the compost compartment was often difficult, as they were exactly the same in appearance (see Figure 3). This supports our notion of individual greenwashing, as institutions make it difficult for individuals to employ green techniques, even though individuals may desire to go green.
The notion was further supported by observing the student-orientation tours. Our researchers made observations of the guided tours, which presented an opportunity for the institution to acculturate patrons on green behaviors and create awareness of green practices, such as composting. However, they did not mention green initiatives, such as food samples or how to dispose of uneaten food items via the compost bin, which was concerning given that the dining hall had posters on conservation and sustainability practices. Although, institutions must create a setting for individuals to take sustainable actions, individuals are not innocent actors. They must value the green messages that institutions are advocating—and value them enough to incorporate them in their lifestyles [37]. It is necessary to normalize environmentally sound plate-waste behavior through raising awareness within educational institutions about the origins and environmental impacts of unconsumed food. We argue that food waste on college campuses will continue to grow if no institutional change occurs [38,56].
Greenwashing was evident not only in our audit, survey, and experimental results but also in our field notes. Sometimes, we had trouble gaining access to the dining hall to collect our data, particularly during the audit and experiment. We documented instances in which employees dumped recyclable plastics into the compost bin, and we regularly saw them move the compost bin back to its original position after many sessions of the experiment. Researchers also noted cafeteria employees’ conversations in which they mentioned that waste from the compost bin was never collected, and its contents were added to the facility’s daily trash outtake. The staff further stated that the compost bin contents are accessible to anyone; they just needed to ask for it; however, there is no signage or training to indicate this is an option. These actions explicitly demonstrated the institution’s unwillingness to make composting a priority or to make it easy for its patrons. In fact, after the experiment, the compost bin was moved back to its original position 21.6 m away from the dish return, despite visible increases in its usage when it was placed in the experimental position (refer back to Figure 5 and Figure 6).
If the bin had been left in the experimental position, additional food waste could have been kept out of landfills. Institutions, such as universities, can influence decision making [32,35], which is why proper placement of the compost bin is critical, given that it, in this study, represented the only means of acting sustainably. Our results demonstrated that individuals were mimicking institutions by greenwashing their own actions as we only observed 0.2% of lunch patrons utilize the compost bin in its institutionally chosen position. We maintain that individuals would not change their behavior without guidance from institutions. Indeed, the experiment showed that the opportunity to compost had little effect on patrons’ green behavior, even when the bin was moved into a more visible location. This could reflect the institution failing to acculturate patrons on the beneficial practices of composting, thus allowing them to engage in nongreen practices. Providing only one compost bin to service an entire tray return wall is an indication of the institution’s values.
Our study demonstrates that it can be replicated. While we used a university dining hall as the prime focus of our study, it can be reproduced with the information that we detail within our methods [new source here. The scenario can be played out at restaurants, other types of dining hall facilities like middle schools, high schools, other universities, etc. We also provide the framework that allows researchers the opportunity to expand and improve on our existing research [57] as we list these improvements within our limitations
Although our study found evidence of individual greenwashing, it has several limitations. First, during our research, we encountered obstacles that forced us to modify our research design. Although we used composting to measure individual food-waste behavior, we understand the counterproductive impact composting can have: If people are educated about the positive impact of composting on the environment, then they may feel that composting mitigates their food waste and hence they may be less inclined to limit the amount of food they take and waste. In effect, composting helps people individually greenwash, which is why it cannot be seen as a salvation; rather, it is a form of food waste.
Second, the digital scale used in the plate-waste audit was only able to measure in ounces and pounds; however, measurement in grams would have been more precise.
Third, we were not able to separate waste by types (proteins, fruits, vegetables, desserts, and sugary foods) because our researchers were busy ensuring they accurately measured individual plate waste. Collecting information on types of food would have required at least one more researcher to sort the waste after weighing each plate that was sorted by serving style. This information would have revealed what types of foods produce the most plate waste.
Fourth, we were only able to collect data during the summer, which was beyond our control. We were told we would otherwise have interfered with daily operations during the busy fall and spring semesters, which is why we provided predictive statistics for our waste totals.
Fifth, given that our researchers interacted with respondents as they administered the surveys, social desirability bias may have occurred. Respondents may have changed their answers from their actual values or beliefs in an attempt to look better, be liked, or obtain a sense of self-satisfaction when presented with questions about greenwashing [58]. Our survey indicated that 87% of students who were unaware of the compost bin claimed they would now use it, having been informed of its location. In addition, 54.8% of students knew of the bin’s location and claimed that they use it. However, these results conflict with those of the experiment as the controlled experiment revealed that only 0.2% of patrons composted their uneaten food compared with the 2.7% that did so in the experimental location were acculturated students hence the experiment took place during the spring semester.
Finally, employees moved the compost bin to its original position after data collection; thus, the compost bin was only in the experimental position for a short time. We were then forced to move the bin back from its control position when we were ready to test. This is problematic because respondents may have seen us, which could have altered their perceptions of our experiment. We expect that the compost bin would have been used more over time if it had stayed in the experimental position.
Our study determined that simply deploying easier and new methods to break environmentally harmful habits is not enough to reduce individual plate waste. Our surveys showed that few patrons were aware of the opportunity to prevent their plate waste from entering the landfill through composting; therefore, we acted on behalf of the institution in the experiment by relocating the compost bin to a more visible location, 19.2 m closer to the dish return. The compost bin was now the last object students would encounter before the trash line. However, this proved to increase its use only slightly. Therefore, further research is needed to understand why patrons waste food instead of composting and how new social norms can be established to encourage consumers to compost their plate waste.
Future studies should go beyond experiments on awareness and ease of use and study education about food waste as a useful method to combat plate waste [44]. Universities need to educate individuals and make it clear what is compostable and what is not. People might be hesitant to use the compost bin because they fear experiencing embarrassment as a result of not knowing the proper techniques and norms of composting.
Our experiment resulted in a 2.5 percentage point increase in the number of individuals choosing to compost, resulting in ≈13.4 pounds (≈6.1 kg) of waste being diverted from the landfill, but findings from other studies suggest that educational initiatives within the institution could help boost these numbers [59]. Individuals must be educated because educational campaigns have been found to be successful in reducing plate waste by 15% [60]. If people are unaware of the benefits composting has, then nudging individuals in the right direction will have no effect [36]. Future studies may also want to consider a longitudinal approach that would leave the compost bin in the experimental position for an extended period in order to increase awareness of and enculturation in composting.
Various institutional decisions and influences that decrease plate waste, such as decisions about what types of food to serve, should also be considered in future studies. Cole et al. [61] found that “competitive foods” like sweet and savory foods, such as french fries, do not produce high rates of plate waste compared with other foods, such as salad. They found that sweet and savory foods may skew plate-waste-audit results because they create the appearance of low dish waste but actually increase plate waste for other food types. Therefore, closely examining different types of competitive foods would allow future researchers to gain insights on how to minimize plate waste.

6. Conclusions

Our mixed-methods approach proved to be valuable for understanding why the individuals in our study exhibited wasteful habits. They stated that they were conscious of their wasteful habits; however, when they were given the opportunity to act on their green intentions, their claims proved false. The problem was magnified by the university because placing ads in the dining hall and falsely promising to implement green initiatives, such as composting, created the illusion that it was going green.
We maintain that the failure of the institution led to the failures of individuals. Even when survey respondents expressed that they wanted to use the compost bin and waste less food, they failed to do so. This study revealed that the institution was creating more plate waste than individuals, even when it touted green initiatives. This is because it portioned meals instead of giving patrons the ability to choose their own portion sizes. Institutions directly influence individuals’ behavior; thus, when the values of an institution are a facade, individuals reflect this in their own decisions.
As noted earlier, food waste exacerbates other contemporary environmental challenges, such as climate change and loss of natural resources [17,62]. Thus, this study maintains that composting is vital in combating global warming. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, food security and malnutrition are expected to increase steadily over the next 30 years, which creates the need to understand why individuals continue to waste food [63]. Our microlevel analysis suggests that, to combat this problem, institutions should recognize their role in socializing individuals to adopt environmentally sound food-waste habits.
The plate-waste audits in this study, along with the surveys and experiments, showed that the patrons expressed the desire to make better decisions about their waste. However, the institution did not offer a means for the individuals to follow through. The percentage of patrons who said they were unaware of the compost bin, but would now use it, was 83.3% for acculturated patrons and 88.5% for unacculturated patrons. However, 54.8% said they were aware of the compost bin and currently use it; yet, during the control portion of the experiment, only 0.2% actually used it, and during the experimental portion, only 2.7% used it.
The evidence from this study about the human desire to be perceived positively is at the core of individual greenwashing. Institutions can offer the means for individuals to make good decisions about food waste by making it easier for them to compost and guiding them in the right direction; they can also offer a way for individuals to form new goals about food waste through their educational and green initiatives. Our study documented 2.97 ounces (≈84.2 g) of plate waste per dish; thus, if the institution performed better at socialization and everyone composted their uneaten food during our 10-day field experiment, an estimated 743 pounds (≈337 kg) of food would have been diverted from the waste stream.
We expect that if institutions educate people and enculturate better food-waste habits, habits can change in ways that prevent the environmentally harmful impacts of wasted food. Composting plate waste might not fix climate change; however, normalizing food waste on a grander, institutional level is important. If institutions do not provide education and simple means to compost food, individuals are more likely to continue to waste food that could be composted and, in turn, cause environmental harm while preventing nutrients from contributing to future food production. Thousands of pounds of plate waste in a few days is alarming. Institutions, such as the one we studied, that fail to uphold standards that encourage individuals to make better decisions about food waste are simply greenwashing.

Author Contributions

R.L.C., K.T., R.B.E. and S.D. contributed extensively to all sections of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding was obtained from National Institute of Food and Agriculture\United States of Agriculture (USDA); award no: 2016-70001-24621.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The following IRB No: 2017-120816-17033 has been determined EXEMPT under 45 CFR 46 1019(b) (2). The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tarleton State University (protocol code 45 CFR 46 1019(b) (2) on 7 February 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All datasets were created by authors and are stored on computer hard drives with data encryption; datasets are available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflict of interest to report.

References

  1. Kibler, K.M.; Reinhart, D.; Hawkins, C.; Motlagh, A.M.; Wright, J. Food waste and the food-energy-water nexus: A review of food waste management alternatives. Waste Manag. 2018, 74, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Attiq, S.; Habib, M.D.; Kaur, P.; Hasni, M.J.S.; Dhir, A. Drivers of food waste reduction behaviour in the household context. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 94, 104300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Smith, T.A.; Landry, C.E. Household Food Waste and Inefficiencies in Food Production. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2021, 103, 4–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gillon, S. Food, agriculture, and the environment. In Twenty Lessons in the Sociology of Food and Agriculture; Konefal, J., Hatanaka, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 201–221. [Google Scholar]
  5. Buzby, J.C.; Farah-Wells, H.; Hyman, J. The estimated amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States. SSRN J. 2014, 121, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Aamir, M.; Ahmad, H.; Javaid, Q.; Hasan, S.M. Waste not, want not: A case study on food waste in restaurants of Lahore, Pakistan. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 591–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aydin, A.E.; Yidirim, P. Understanding food waste behavior: The role of morals, habits, and knowledge. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Read, Q.; Muth, M.K. Cost-effectiveness of four food waste interventions: Is food waste reduction a “win-win”? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Septianto, F.; Tjiptono, F.; Kusumasondjaja, S. Thanks, but not thanks: The influence of gratitude on consumer awareness of food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mazzucchelli, A.; Gurioli, M.; Graziano, D.; Quacquarelli, B. How to fight against food waste in the digital era: Key factors for a successful food sharing platform. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rosenlund, J.; Nyblom, A.; Matschke Ekholm, H.; Sorme, L. The emergence of food waste as an issue in Swedish retail. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 3283–3296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schanes, K.; Stagl, S. Food Waste fighters: What motivates people to engage in food sharing? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1491–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Coleman-Jensen, A.J. Working for peanuts: Nonstandard work and food insecurity across household structure. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2011, 32, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Buzby, J.C.; Guthrie, J.F. Plate Waste in School Nutrition Programs: Final Report to Congress; Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
  15. Juvan, E.; Grün, B.; Dolnicar, S. Biting off more than they can chew: Food waste at hotel breakfast buffets. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Williams, P.; Walton, K. Plate waste in hospitals and strategies for change. e-SPEN Eur. e-J. Clin. Nutr. Metab. 2011, 6, e235–e241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Zhao, Y.; Deng, W. Environmental impacts of different food waste resource technologies and the effects of energy mix. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 92, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gould, K.A.; Pellow, D.N.; Schnaiberg, A. Interrogating the treadmill of production: Everything you wanted to know about the treadmill but were afraid to ask. Organ. Environ. 2004, 17, 296–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Konefall, J.; Mascarenhas, M. The shifting political economy of the global agrifood system: Consumption and the treadmill of production. Berkeley J. Sociol. 2005, 49, 76–96. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellison, B.; Muth, M.K.; Golan, E. Opportunities and challenges in conducting economic research on food loss and waste. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2019, 41, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ellison, B.; Savchenko, O.; Nikolaus, C.J.; Duff, B.R.L. Every plate counts: Evaluation of a food waste reduction campaign in a university dining hall. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 144, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eatmon, T.; Pallant, E.; Laurence, S. Food production as an integrating context for campus sustainability. In Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives; Leal Filho, W., Muthu, N., Edwin, G., Sima, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 325–336. [Google Scholar]
  23. Merrow, K.; Penzien, P.; Dubats, T. Exploring Food Waste Reduction in Campus Dining Halls; Western Michigan University: Kalamazoo, MI, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  24. Delmas, M.A.; Burbano, V.C. The drivers of greenwashing. CA Manag. Rev. 2011, 54, 64–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Marquis, C.; Toffel, M.W.; Zhou, Y. Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organ. Sci. 2016, 27, 483–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. De Jong, M.D.T.; Harkink, K.M.; Barth, S. Making green stuff? Effects of corporate greenwashing on consumers. J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 2018, 32, 77–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Bingaman, J.; Kepkoech, G.; Crowley, J.P. Inoculation & Greenwashing: Defending Against Misleading Sustainability Messaging. Commun. Rep. 2022, 35, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, W.; Li, W.; Seppanen, V.; Koivumaki, T. How and when does perceived greenwashing affect employees’ job performance? Evidence from China. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 1722–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ofei, K.T.; Holst, M.; Rasmussen, H.H.; Mikkelsen, B.E. Effect of meal portion size choice on plate waste generation among patients with different nutritional status: An investigation using dietary intake monitoring system (DIMS). Appetite 2015, 91, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thorsen, A.V.; Lassen, A.D.; Andersen, E.W.; Christensen, L.M.; Biltoft-Jensen, A.; Andersen, R.; Damsgaard, C.T.; Michaelsen, K.F.; Tetens, I. Plate waste and intake of school lunch based on the new Nordic diet and on packed lunches: A randomised controlled trial in 8- to 11-year-old Danish children. J. Nutr. Sci. 2015, 4, e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). A National Strategy to Reduce Food Waste at the Consumer Level; The National Academics: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25876/a-national-strategy-to-reduce-food-waste-at-the-consumer-level (accessed on 5 December 2022).
  32. Levy, N. Nudges in a post-truth world. J. Med. Ethics 2017, 43, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Ferguson, G.M.; Costigan, C.L.; Clarke, C.V.; Ge, J.S. Introducing remote enculturation: Learning your heritage culture from afar. Child Dev. Perspect. 2016, 10, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Simmel, G. The Metropolis and Mental Life; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1903. [Google Scholar]
  35. Eliades, F.; Doula, M.K.; Papamichael, I.; Vardopoulos, I.; Voukkali, I.; Zorpas, A. Carving out a Niche in the Sustainability Confluence for Environmental Education Centers in Cyprus and Greece. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vermote, M.; Versele, V.; Stok, M.; Mullie, P.; D’Hondt, E.; Deforche, B.; Clarys, P.; Deliens, T. The effect of a portion size intervention on french fries consumption, plate waste, satiety and compensatory caloric intake: An on-campus restaurant experiment. Nutr. J. 2018, 17, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Filpic, M. Why Americans Waste So Much Food; Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences: Columbus, OH, USA, 2016; Available online: https://cfaes.osu.edu/news/articles/why-americans-waste-so-much-food (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  38. Burton, K.; Serrano, E.; Cox, H.; Budowle, R.; Dulys-Nusbaum, E. Benefits, barriers, and challenges to university-level food waste tracking. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2016, 11, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Von Massow, M.; McAdams, B. Table scraps: An evaluation of plate waste in restaurants. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2015, 18, 437–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Myer, R.O.; Brendemuhl, J.H.; Johnson, D.D. Evaluation of dehydrated restaurant food waste products as feedstuffs for finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 77, 685–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kosoff, S. Love Food, Hate Waste: Fourth Biannual Food Waste Report. UC Davis Dining Services. Available online: https://sustainability.ucdavis.edu/goals/food (accessed on 18 December 2022).
  42. Kim, K.; Morawski, S. Quantifying the Impact of Going Trayless in a University Dining Hall. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2012, 7, 482–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Thiagarajah, K.; Getty, V.M. Impact on plate waste of switching from a tray to a trayless delivery system in a university dining hall and employee response to the switch. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2013, 113, 141–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Berkowitz, S.; Marquart, L.; Mykerezi, E.; Degeneffe, D.; Reicks, M. Reduced-portion entrees in a worksite and restaurant setting: Impact on food consumption and waste. Public Health Nutr. 2016, 19, 3048–3054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Freedman, M.R.; Brochado, C. Reducing portion size reduces food intake and plate waste. Obesity 2010, 18, 1864–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ravandi, B.; Jovanovic, N. Impact of plate size on food waste: Agent-based simulation of food consumption. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2019, 149, 550–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cohen, J.F.W.; Richardson, S.; Rimm, E.B. Impact of the updated USDA school meal standards, chef-enhanced meals, and the removal of flavored milk on school meal selection and consumption. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2019, 119, 1511–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fritts, J.R.; Fort, C.; Quinn Corr, A.Q.; Liang, Q.; Alla, L.; Cravener, T.; Hayes, J.E.; Rolls, B.J.; D’Adamo, C.; Keller, K.L. Herbs and spices increase liking and preference for vegetables among rural high school students. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. McCray, S.; Maunder, K.L.; Krikowa, R.; MacKenzie-Shalders, K. Room service improves nutritional intake and increases patient satisfaction while decreasing food waste and cost. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2018, 118, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. McCray, S.; Maunder, K.L.; Norris, R.; Moir, J.; MacKenzie-Shalders, K. Bedside menu ordering system increases energy and protein intake while decreasing plate waste and food costs in hospital patients. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2018, 26, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Orlowski, M.; Patton, S.; Narayan, R.; Patrick, A.; Pobocik, R.S.; Lodge, A.; Irick, K.; Roberts, S.; Kennel, J.; Lee, M.; et al. Evaluation of a Statewide Project to Nudge Healthy Choices in School Lunchrooms; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kuo, C.F.; Shih, Y. Gender differences in the effects of education and coercion on reducing buffet plate waste. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2016, 19, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Quan, S.; Wang, N. Towards a structural model of the tourist experience: An illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Etikan, I.; Musa, S.A.; Alkassim, R.S. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Holsti, O.R. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  56. Qi, D.; Roe, B.E. Household food waste: Multivariate regression and principal components analyses of awareness and attitudes among U.S. consumers. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Machery, E. What is Replication. Philos. Sci. 2020, 87, 545–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Larson, R.B. Controlling social desirability bias. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2019, 61, 534–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liz Martins, M.L.; Rodrigues, S.S.P.; Cunha, L.M.; Rocha, A. Strategies to reduce plate waste in primary schools-experimental evaluation. Public Health Nutr. 2016, 19, 1517–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Pinto, R.S.; Pinto, R.M.D.S.; Melo, F.F.S.; Campos, S.S.; Cordovil, C.M. A simple awareness campaign to promote food waste reduction in a university canteen. Waste Manag. 2018, 76, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cole, J.W.; Aloia, C.R.; Dodd, L.M.; Knight, K.B. Settings The impact of competitive foods on children’s fruit and vegetable consumption: An observational plate waste study. J. Hum. Sci. Ext. 2016, 4, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Brancoli, P.; Rousta, K.; Bolton, K. Life cycle assessment of supermarket food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 118, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Prosekov, A.Y.; Ivanova, S.A. Food security: The challenge of the present. Geoforum 2018, 91, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 00221 g001 550
Figure 1. The dish return.
Figure 1. The dish return.
Sustainability 15 00221 g001
Sustainability 15 00221 g002 550
Figure 2. Plate-waste audit. Note: These are all the types of dishes in the dining hall. Knowing these types allowed us to determine which serving-station style was used for each dish.
Figure 2. Plate-waste audit. Note: These are all the types of dishes in the dining hall. Knowing these types allowed us to determine which serving-station style was used for each dish.
Sustainability 15 00221 g002
Sustainability 15 00221 g003 550
Figure 3. Compost bin in its original position. Note: Here, we can see the distance between the control (institutionally controlled) location of the compost bin and the dish return, 21.6 m away.
Figure 3. Compost bin in its original position. Note: Here, we can see the distance between the control (institutionally controlled) location of the compost bin and the dish return, 21.6 m away.
Sustainability 15 00221 g003
Sustainability 15 00221 g004 550
Figure 4. Compost bin in the experimental position.
Figure 4. Compost bin in the experimental position.
Sustainability 15 00221 g004
Sustainability 15 00221 g005 550
Figure 5. Content of the compost bin in the control (institutionally controlled) position. Note: Observe that there is little to no visible compost.
Figure 5. Content of the compost bin in the control (institutionally controlled) position. Note: Observe that there is little to no visible compost.
Sustainability 15 00221 g005
Sustainability 15 00221 g006 550
Figure 6. Content of the compost bin in the experimental position. Note: Notice the increased amount of food waste in the new position.
Figure 6. Content of the compost bin in the experimental position. Note: Notice the increased amount of food waste in the new position.
Sustainability 15 00221 g006
Sustainability 15 00221 g007 550
Figure 7. Posters located in the university dining hall showing green practices.
Figure 7. Posters located in the university dining hall showing green practices.
Sustainability 15 00221 g007
Sustainability 15 00221 g008 550
Figure 8. Another poster in the dining hall displaying green practices.
Figure 8. Another poster in the dining hall displaying green practices.
Sustainability 15 00221 g008
Table
Table 1. Total waste per serving style.
Table 1. Total waste per serving style.
Serving StyleNo. of DishesTotal Waste: Pounds (kg)Waste per Dish: Ounces (g)
Hybrid36767 (≈30.4)2.93 (≈83.1)
Portion-controlled3773792 (≈359.3)3.36 (≈95.3)
Self-serve3635584 (≈264.9)2.57 (≈72.9)
Total77751443 (≈654.5)2.97 (≈84.2)
Table
Table 2. Unacculturated vs. acculturated students’ awareness of composting.
Table 2. Unacculturated vs. acculturated students’ awareness of composting.
Are You Aware That This Cafeteria Has a Compost Bin?
UnacculturatedAcculturatedTotal
Yes(28) 15.9%(10) 14.7%(38) 15.6%
No(148) 84.1%(58) 85.3%(206) 84.4%
Total(176) 100.0%(68) 100.0%(244) 100.0%
Aware of the Compost Bin and Use It.
UnacculturatedAcculturatedTotal
Yes(20) 66.7%(3) 25.0%(23) 54.8%
No(10) 33.0%(9) 75.0%(19) 45.2%
Total(30) 100.0%(12) 100.0%(42) 100.0%
Now That You Are Aware of the Compost Bin, Are You Likely to Utilize It?
UnacculturatedAcculturatedTotal
Yes(123) 88.5%(45) 83.3%(168) 87.0%
No(16) 11.5%(9) 16.7%(25) 13.0%
Total(139) 100.0%(54) 100.0%(193) 100.0%
Prior to Arriving at This Institution Did You Participate in Food Composting?
UnacculturatedAcculturatedTotal
Yes(19) 10.7%(11) 16.2%(30) 12.2%
No(158) 89.3%(57) 83.8%(215) 87.8%
Total(177) 100.0%(68) 100.0%(245) 100.0%
Notes: Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of respondents. Some respondents did not answer all the questions in the survey.
Table
Table 3. Number of patrons who wasted or composted their food in the experiment.
Table 3. Number of patrons who wasted or composted their food in the experiment.
Compost Bin PositionWastedCompostedTotal
Original(1323) 99.8%(3) 0.2%(1326) 100.0%
Experiment(2681) 97.3%(75) 2.7%(2756) 100.0%
Total(4004) 98.1%(78) 1.9%(4082) 100.0%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cavazos, R.L.; Taylor, K.; Eary, R.B.; Doty, S. Institutional and Individual Effects of Greenwashing on Food Waste. Sustainability 2023, 15, 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010221

AMA Style

Cavazos RL, Taylor K, Eary RB, Doty S. Institutional and Individual Effects of Greenwashing on Food Waste. Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010221

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cavazos, Robert Lee, Keelyn Taylor, R. Brandon Eary, and Scott Doty. 2023. "Institutional and Individual Effects of Greenwashing on Food Waste" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010221

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop