Next Article in Journal
A Novelty Model Employing the Quality Life Cycle Assessment (QLCA) Indicator and Frameworks for Selecting Qualitative and Environmental Aspects for Sustainable Product Development
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of African Swine Fever on the Efficiency of China’s Pig Farming Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177820
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

How Do the Representatives of Small and Micro Restaurants Perceive Food Waste in Their Own Restaurant? Empirical Evidence from The Netherlands

by
Enno Masurel
1,*,
Kees van Montfort
2 and
Anne Nederhorst
3
1
VU Center for Entrepreneurship, Management and Organization Department, School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Center of Economic Transformation, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Fraijlemaborg 133, 1102 CV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3
Independent Researcher
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7820; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177820
Submission received: 4 July 2024 / Revised: 30 August 2024 / Accepted: 3 September 2024 / Published: 8 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The focus of this paper is on the generation of food waste by small and micro restaurants, specifically on the perceptions of representatives of these restaurants. Do they perceive this generation of food waste as problematic, and do they perceive that they have enough knowledge about how to minimize this generated food waste? With data from a sample of 200 Dutch restaurants, which were collected through surveys and analyzed with regression analysis, we came to two key findings. The first key finding is that our respondents hardly perceive the food waste that is generated in their own restaurant as problematic. The second key finding is that they perceive they have limited knowledge about how to minimize the food waste that is generated in their own restaurant. The main influencing factor for both perceptions appeared to be the actual level of food waste generated in their own restaurant. This paper continues with a number of recommendations for future research, to apply other research techniques and to study other sectors as well. The paper ends with practical recommendations for the representatives of the small and micro restaurants, as the findings of this paper suggest a need for targeted educational and training programs to enhance food waste management in their restaurants, contributing to broader sustainability goals.

1. Introduction

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) form the framework for understanding that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand in hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth while tackling climate change and working to preserve oceans and forests [1]. For this paper, SDG #12 is most relevant.
SDG #12 deals with Responsible Consumption and Production in order to ensure responsible consumption and production patterns. SDG #12 consists of eight targets. In the context of this paper, Target 12.3 is most relevant: “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses”. Two specific key performance indicators (KPIs) are mentioned under that target: the Food Loss Index and the Food Waste Index. The Food Loss Index measures “losses for key commodities in a country across the supply chain, up to but not including retail” [1], whereas the Food Waste Index measures “food waste at retail and consumer level (households and food service)”. Considering the focus group of this paper (viz., small and micro restaurants), the term ‘food waste’ is used here and not the term ‘food loss’, although the two concepts clearly cannot fully be separated from each other. Obviously, food waste is a form of solid waste, as it is neither liquid nor gaseous.
Too much food continues to be lost [2] as the world faces rising food insecurity. In 2020, an estimated 13% of the world’s food was lost after harvesting and before reaching retail markets. An estimated 17% of the total food available to consumers was wasted at the household, food service, and retail levels. According to the same source, both food loss and food waste have substantial environmental, social, and economic consequences. Food waste is called “a multidimensional issue with environmental, economic and social dimensions” [3].
Measuring food waste still has its challenges [2]. The two major challenges are the heterogeneity of (sub-)sectors and the absence of robust national data. Restaurants are often mentioned in the academic literature when it comes to the issue of food waste, although they are not the only culprits when it comes to food waste. However, restaurants are one obvious place to study food waste, as meals are prepared and served there. Restaurants are also very visible in the street scene.
Many different sorts of restaurants can be distinguished, from high cuisine to fast food, from pizzerias to kebab houses, etc. Within the group of restaurants, small and micro restaurants form one interesting niche. These restaurants are especially interesting because of the crucial position of the owner–managers (a.k.a. the entrepreneurs) and the short lines between the owner–managers and the other key players within the organization. However, hardly anything has been published about the perception of the involved owner–managers and other key players concerning whether they perceive the food waste that is generated in their own restaurant as problematic, let alone in combination with the actual level of food waste that is generated in their own restaurant. Also, hardly anything has been published about how they perceive their own knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant, again let alone in combination with the actual degree of food waste generated in their own restaurant. However, these perceptions may be important input for the relevant behavior of the people involved concerning the food waste generated in their own restaurant, or an explanation for the absence of such behavior. Both angles are relevant for developing educational or training programs to minimize the food waste generated. The global statistics of food waste are reflective of the relevance of the phenomenon of food waste generation at restaurants. This research gap has led to the Research Objective of this paper, which is to provide evidence on the perceptions of representatives of small and micro restaurants about food waste that is generated in their own restaurants. Next, we came to the Research Question for this paper: How do representatives of small and micro restaurants perceive food waste that is generated in their own restaurant? We used the Netherlands to collect our data, as small and micro restaurants play an important role there: 99.3% of the almost 30,000 restaurants in the Netherlands are small and micro restaurants (employing less than 50 people). The representatives of these small and micro restaurants are the owner–managers, the directors/managers, and the chefs of these restaurants, who are all in the position to have good insights concerning both their own restaurant in general and the food waste generated in their own restaurant specifically. No structured evidence on food waste by these restaurants was available.
Next, following the above-mentioned research gap, we distinguished the following two sub-questions, corresponding to the overarching Research Question: (1) Do the representatives of small and micro restaurants perceive the food waste that is generated in their own restaurant as problematic? (2) Do the representatives of small and micro restaurants perceive that they have enough knowledge about how to the minimize food waste that is generated in their own restaurant?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Food Waste at Restaurants: Literature Review

The literature review for this paper proceeded in two steps: (1) an initial review of academic papers and non-academic reports concerning food waste in general and food waste at restaurants specifically in order to compile the questionnaire; (2) an extended review of academic papers and non-academic reports concerning food waste in general and food waste at restaurants specifically in order to find out what has been published relating to the subject of this paper, i.e., food waste at small and micro restaurants. The first step took place in the first half of 2021. The second step started in December 2021 and was continued in 2022, and it is dealt with in this section. The results of the two steps were very much in line with each other.
One paper appeared to be very instructive in this context [4] with its systematic literature review about food waste in hospitality and food services. Based on a number of keywords (among them food waste and restaurants but also other kinds of outlets, like food service businesses and workplace canteens), they identified 63 key papers that were published between 1983 and March 2020. The top 5 of the most frequently mentioned journals were as follows: Waste Management; Journal of Cleaner Production; Resources, Conservation and Recycling; Sustainability; and International Journal of Hospitality Management. It should be noted that in this overview, food loss and food waste were treated as the same, although they are basically different phenomena (see the Introduction of this paper).
The second step of our own literature investigation (the ‘extended review’, as mentioned above) first focused on these five journals in the period 2020–2022, with the keywords ‘food waste’ and ‘restaurants’ (although we had a broad interpretation of the latter keyword, with extensions to related concepts like hotels, canteens, and dining halls, as a number of papers did not focus only on restaurants but also on organizations that exercise restaurant functions). Excluded from our investigation were papers that focused only on quantitative studies beyond calculating percentages of food waste, like studies on the calculation of the actual composition of food waste. Furthermore, other academic journals were studied on the subject of food waste and restaurants for the period 2020–2022. We again conducted a search using the keywords ‘food waste’ and ‘restaurants’ (with a broad interpretation of the latter). The selected journals and the other journals were also investigated for the period 2015–2019, specifically for percentages of food waste in restaurants. In addition, a number of other papers were added that fit in with the line of this paper.
Based on the literature study, we came to the identification of five main subjects for our theoretical framework: the designation of food waste at restaurants; the measures to minimize food waste; the percentage of food waste; the place where food waste takes place; and the role and commitment of the owner–managers and other representatives of restaurants in minimizing food waste. These subjects are all dealt with below.
The first focal issue of our desk research was to find out what these papers were about. The main emphasis in these papers on the designation of food waste at restaurants are plate leftovers and related terms [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. The determination of the plate leftovers was conducted in multiple ways, most often with different definitions and different descriptions of food waste. One key definition of food waste in the hospitality literature was quoted by [16] (p. 1): “food that is unwanted and disposed of, such as leftovers from guest plates and peels from meal preparation that occur during cooking”. This definition goes back to [17] (p. 237). However, as said above, there was no unanimous approach in the papers studied; in a number of other papers, the concept of plate leftovers was blurred with other issues, like food that was already processed but was not distributed, or even food that was not processed at all, or no distinction was made between food waste and food loss, or different aspects of food waste were dealt with [18,19,20,21,22].
Given the main emphasis on plate leftovers in the studied papers, as such, it is not surprising that various measures to minimize food waste were also mentioned, like downsizing the served portions and serving the right portions [8]; giving incentives to customers to leave clean plates [11]; encouraging diners to take plate leftovers home [12]; nudging to prevent food waste [23]; providing smaller servings and information [24]; introducing preventive measures and recycling practices [25]; and creating consciousness and a changing attitude toward avoiding food waste [15]. Also, the application of modern technologies was suggested, like food delivery apps [26]; online platforms for excess food [27]; waste-tracking devices [28]; coupons and points in digital applications [29]; food waste-reducing platforms [30]; and machine learning to reduce the food waste generated [31].
From our review of the top 5 journals, we only found that the percentage of food waste per day was 15% to 17% [5]. When we went further back in time (2015–2019, see above), we found waste scores of 13% for purchased food in the food service sector [32]; 7% to 28% for cooked food in the food service sector; and 19% for food waste in restaurants, diners, and hotels [33]; 17.5% of all prepared food ended up as waste [34] and 17.4% as leftovers [16]. From a systematic review [35], in particular the part focusing on the quantification of food waste, it became clear that very different terms had been used. The dispersion in results was also caused by the period of research (going back even as far as to 2014); the use of studies from different continents, focusing on different institutions; the use of different measurement methods; and the use of different terminologies. A careful calculation of the evidence from [35], with a selection of the terms ‘food waste’ and ‘leftovers’ (whether or not in combination with other terms), led to an average score of 17.8%, with a surprisingly low standard deviation (10.9%) and a median of 14.9%.
Where does food waste take place in the restaurants? One standard for this characterization is the basic approach of pre-kitchen, in kitchen, and post-kitchen. In this context, the ordering of ingredients (pre-kitchen), preparation of food (in kitchen), and plate leftovers (post-kitchen) were mentioned [36]. Also in this context, food waste while the food is being delivered from the supplier to the restaurant, food waste while the food is in storage by the restaurant (pre-kitchen), food being wasted in preparation and food waste during cooking and serving (in kitchen), and food waste as a result of leftovers from the customer plates and buffets (post-kitchen) were mentioned [37]. Other approaches concerning the place of food waste are from procurement to consumption [4]; in-house/management operations, guest behaviors/characteristics, and kitchen operations [38]; plate leftovers, overproduction, food spoilage, and preparation and serving waste [5]; and preparation waste [39]. The stages of restaurant operations are clearly interdependent and overlapping, and the origin of food waste cannot always be determined unequivocally.
In relation to the explicit role and the commitment of the owner–managers and other representatives of restaurants in minimizing food waste, besides the above-mentioned measures, only a limited amount of studies were available. The main approaches were the senior managers’ perspectives [40]; the use of forecasting as a main approach to prevent food waste by restaurateurs [41]; restaurant owners’ awareness of food waste recycling [21]; horeca managers‘ recognition of the importance of food waste [36]; independent restaurants taking measures to manage food waste [37]; and awareness of the sustainability-oriented innovation opportunities and challenges of minimizing food waste [42].

2.2. Bridge from Theory to Practice

With the Research Question of this paper in mind, we concluded that the literature overview clearly reveals a research gap: not much is known about the perceptions of representatives of micro and small restaurants about the generation of their own food waste. However, this perception is a vital element in fighting food waste, as this perception can be an important determinant of the behaviors of the respondents of the micro and small restaurants [43]. So, on the basis of our literature review, there is not enough information to come to testable hypotheses that are related to, respectively, the overarching Research Question and the sub-questions of this paper. Therefore, we developed the questionnaire for the respondents without elaborating on the testing of any hypotheses. We developed the questionnaire mainly by making use of what we had learned from our literature review, supplemented with the consultation of other people and internal discussion sessions. As well as demographic information about the respondent (age, gender, education, and role within the restaurant), firm information (type of restaurant, location, number of employed persons, and founding year), and the actual level of food waste generated in their own restaurant, we asked whether the respondent thought that the generated food waste was a problem in their own restaurant, both in general and in a financial, social, and environmental way, respectively. We also asked about the perception of their knowledge about how to combat or minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant, all from the point of view of the respondent, the employees, and the business environment. This possible minimization can be part of the management of the small and micro restaurants by the representatives. In this way, data could be collected to answer both the overarching Research Question and the two sub-questions of this paper. During the construction of the questionnaire, a number of people were consulted in order to gain a clearer picture of the subject and to optimize and to validate the questionnaire with their feedback. Also, the internal discussion sessions led to the optimization and validation of the questionnaire.

2.3. Fieldwork

Restaurants play an important role in the Netherlands. At the beginning of the year 2021, almost 30,000 of them were counted, officially defined as “restaurants and other eateries” (Standard Industrial Classification or in Dutch: Standaard Bedrijfsindeling, abbreviated SBI, code 561), consisting of restaurants (SBI code 56101) and fast-food restaurants, ice cream parlors, etc. (SBI code 56102) [44]. A total of 99.3% of all the restaurants employed less than 50 people. This number and this percentage are good points of departure for our fieldwork. Firms with less than 50 employees in the Netherlands are called small and micro-enterprises (including the criterion of annual sales of not more than EUR 10 million and/or annual balance sheet of not more than EUR 10 million). This definition is fully line with the EU definition of small and micro-enterprises. Small enterprises employ between 10 and 50 people, have annual sales between EUR 2 million and EUR 10 million, and/or an annual balance sheet of between EUR 2 million and EUR 10 million. Micro-enterprises employ less than 10 people and have annual sales of not more than EUR 2 million and/or an annual balance sheet of not more than EUR 2 million [45]. In this paper, we focused on small and micro restaurants because we expected that the representatives of these restaurants (viz., owner–managers, directors/managers, and chefs) all have good insights into both their restaurants in general and the food waste in their own restaurant specifically. We focused on the western part of the Netherlands because that is where most people in this country live and where most hospitality firms are located [44].
As said, the target group was not only the owner–managers of the restaurants but we also consulted the restaurants’ directors/managers and chefs, especially in the absence of the owner–managers, as they were also expected to have a relevant overview of their own restaurants. By the word ‘own’ we mean that these people belong to the restaurants, not that they necessarily own them. We also consulted them for practical reasons, as the owner–managers were not always available to complete the questionnaire. In practice, it appeared that there was a great deal of overlap between the functions of the owner–manager, director/manager, and chef (see next section). The owner–managers, directors/managers, and restaurant chefs are the representatives of the small and micro restaurants mentioned in the title of this paper.
The first wave of the data collection was in May and June 2021 (n = 102), and the second wave in September and October 2021 (n = 99). So, in total, 201 surveys were collected. We decided to exclude one observation concerning a restaurant with 80 employees because this can be seen as a real outlier in our sample. Apart from that, this observation with 80 employees is the only restaurant that belongs to the category of medium-sized enterprises, whereas all other observations fit in the categories of small enterprises and micro-enterprises. This single exclusion resulted in a response of 200 observations for this paper.
The restaurants were selected through non-probability sampling or convenience sampling. More specifically, the data were collected through conducting questionnaires at the restaurants via the random walk procedure [46]. This meant that various cities in the western part of the Netherlands (i.e., in the Dutch provinces North Holland and and South Holland, the main provinces in the western part of the Netherlands) were explored in order to approach the target group and to have the questionnaire filled in on the spot. On a number of occasions, questionnaires were left at the restaurant and picked up later. Moreover, data were also collected via Internet-delivered questionnaires. The first selection of the restaurants involved skipping the restaurants that were visible from the outside as being part of a large chain, possibly with multiple sites. In addition, the impression beforehand should have been that the restaurants employed 50 or fewer employees, an impression based mostly in terms of the size of the building concerned. This approach appeared to work very well, as only one of the 201 surveys had to be excluded from the data analysis on the basis of its size.

2.4. Collected Data

The demographic information about the respondents is presented in Table 1 (not all respondents answered all questions). Note that only gender, education, and role within the restaurant are dealt with in the table, as age is dealt with as a continuous variable in our analysis. The average age of the respondents was 35.9 years, The dispersion in age was rather low, with a standard deviation of only 12.6 years. The youngest respondent was 20 years old, while the oldest respondent was 73 years old. A total of 53.5% of the respondents were female, while 46.5% were male. We clustered the level of education into two categories: higher education (research university or university of higher vocational education: 55.7%) and lower education (secondary school vocational education, high school, or no schooling completed: 44.3%). A total of 49.5% of the respondents were owner–managers (or active owners) of the restaurants (6.5% of them were also restaurant directors/managers, and 1.5% of them were also restaurant directors/managers and restaurant chefs); 32.5% of the respondents were restaurant directors/managers (not owner–managers; 2.0% of them were also restaurant chefs); and 18.0% of the respondents were restaurant chefs (not owner–managers or restaurant directors/managers). As there is a clear distinction between the owner–managers and the two other categories (the first of these categories carries the financial risk of the firm, the other two do not), and as there is no clear hierarchy between restaurant managers/directors and restaurant chefs, for the regression analyses, we compared the owner–managers with the restaurant managers/directors and restaurant chefs together.
The information about the firms is presented in Table 2. Note that only the type of restaurant and location are dealt within the table, as the number of employed people and firm age are dealt with as continuous variables in our analysis. Here, 56.0% of the participating restaurants were casual-dining restaurants; 25.5% were fine-dining restaurants; and 18.5% were fast-food restaurants. As there is no hierarchy in the types of restaurants, for the regression analyses, we compared the casual-dining restaurants (the largest category of the three) with the combined categories fine-dining restaurants and fast-food restaurants. A total of 52.5% of the restaurants were located in Amsterdam (the capital of the Netherlands), and the remaining restaurants (47.5%) were located elsewhere in the western part of the Netherlands (mainly in the cities The Hague and Leiden). Again, as there is no hierarchy, here, in terms of location, for the regression analysis, we compared Amsterdam with elsewhere in the Netherlands. The average number of employed persons, consisting of regular employees and owner–managers, as of 1 May 2021, was 10.8, with a rather high dispersion (the standard deviation was 8.2; the minimum was 1 person, and the maximum was 42 persons). For the age of the restaurants, we took the difference between 2021 (the year in which the data collection took place) and the year that the respondent filled in as the starting year. This means that the youngest firms are zero years old, as they had been founded in 2021. The oldest restaurant was 46 years old. The mean age of the restaurants was 8.4 years, and the corresponding standard deviation was 8.2 years, meaning a rather high dispersion.
In addition, we asked the respondents what percentage of the total amount of food was wasted in one specific week (in January 2021) in their own restaurant, in intervals of 10%, from 0% to 100%. Thirteen respondents answered that they did not know. From Table 3, it is clear that almost half of all respondents have generated food waste at an amount lower than 10%. The intervals of 10–20% and 20–30% both show shares of almost one quarter. Only a minority of all respondents have generated food waste at a level higher than 30%, with a single peak at the interval of 60–70%. No scores higher than the interval 60–70% were provided. The median percentage of generated food waste is in the range of 10% to 20%. This score fits rather well with the overview of the scores in Section 1 of this paper.

3. Results

The first sub-question of this paper is as follows: Do the representatives of small and micro restaurants perceive the food waste that is generated in their own restaurant as problematic?
In order to answer the first sub-question, we asked whether the respondent thought that the food waste generated was a problem at his/her own restaurant, both in general and in a financial, social, and environmental way, respectively. We used a recoded 5-point Likert scale with the following labels: strongly disagree (score 1); largely disagree (score 2); neither disagree nor agree (score 3); largely agree (score 4); and strongly agree (score 5). In other words, the higher the score, the greater the problem. From Table 4, it is clear that the respondents have quite a neutral position towards the food waste generated as a general problem in their own restaurants, with an average score of 3.1. The corresponding standard deviation is rather low at 1.1, which confirms a more or less consistent score. The respondents, in general, perceive the food waste generated in their own restaurants as somewhat more problematic from an environmental point of view, with an average score of 3.3 (standard deviation = 1.1). The food waste generated in their own restaurant is slightly less seen as a social problem (average score = 2.7; standard deviation = 1.1) and also slightly less as a financial problem (average score 2.6; standard deviation = 1.1).
We analyzed whether the four different indicators of food waste generated in their own restaurant being a problem all pointed in the same direction. The factor analysis showed unambiguously that the four indicators represent one factor, as the explained variance is higher than 50% (i.e., 62.8%), and the factor loadings are all higher than 0.7. That is why we continued with one combined variable called “generated food waste being problematic”, i.e., food waste generated in their own restaurants perceived as being problematic by the respondents themselves. It also makes sense in terms of content to combine these four indicators, as they approach the issue from different but related angles. The aggregated score of the combined variable is 2.9, indicating that the respondents feel quite neutral about the problem of food waste generated in their own restaurant.
We ran a multiple regression analysis in order to find out what causes the perceived generated food waste to be problematic at the respondent’s own restaurant (the latter is the dependent variable). As the independent variables, we used the four above-mentioned demographic variables, the four above-mentioned firm variables, and the actual percentage of generated food waste. All VIF values were between 1.0 and 1.5. This indicates that there is no multi-collinearity in the regression model. We used the bootstrapping method to estimate the regression coefficients and the corresponding test statistics because a number of variables are skewed and not normally distributed. The values of R2 and the adjusted R2 are acceptable.
From Table 5, it is clear that the actual percentage of generated own food waste is very significant (p < 0.001) in explaining whether the generated food waste was perceived by the respondents as problematic: the higher the level of the actual food waste generated, the more it is perceived as problematic by the respondents. Note that the Beta and the T value are positive. In addition, at a lower significance level, the age of the respondent, the function of the respondent, and the size of the firm all influence the level of generated food waste perceived as being problematic: younger respondents score higher than older respondents (negative Beta and T value); directors/managers and chefs score higher than active owners (positive Beta and T value); and respondents from larger firms score higher than respondents from smaller firms (positive Beta and T value). These explanatory variables are dealt with in the Discussion section. The two other personal characteristics and the three other firm characteristics do not influence the perceptions of the respondents that the food waste generated in their own restaurant is problematic in a significant way.
We also ran four regression analyses in order to find out what determines food waste as a perceived general problem, financial problem, social problem, and environmental problem, respectively. Similar to the results in Table 5, it turned out that in all four regression analyses, the age of the respondent and whether the respondent is an active owner have a negative influence on perceiving food waste as problematic. Furthermore, the number of employees and the level of actual food waste have a positive influence in all four regression analyses. In addition, whether the restaurant is located in Amsterdam has a negative influence on the perception of food waste being a financial problem and a positive influence on the perception of food waste being a general problem and an environmental problem, respectively.
This brings us to the answer to the first sub-question: the representatives of the restaurants in our study hardly perceive the food waste generated as problematic in their own restaurant. The most important factor influencing the perception of generated food waste as being problematic in their own restaurant is the level of actual food waste generated in their own restaurant, in a positive way. In addition, the perception of generated food waste being problematic in their own restaurant is influenced on a lower level by the age of the respondent, the function of the respondent within the restaurant, and the size of the restaurant.
The second sub-question of this paper is as follows: Do the representatives of small and micro restaurants perceive that they have enough knowledge about how to minimize the food waste that is generated in their own restaurant?
In order to find the answer to the second sub-question, we asked whether the respondent did not know how to minimize (or combat) the food waste generated in their own restaurant. In addition, we also asked whether, according to the respondent, the employees of the respondent’s restaurant did not know how to minimize food waste, and the business environment of the respondent’s restaurant did not know how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant. We used a 5-point Likert scale with the following labels: strongly agree (score 1); largely agree (score 2); neither agree nor disagree (score 3); largely disagree (score 4); and strongly disagree (score 5). In other words, the higher the score, the higher the level of perceived knowledge. From Table 6, it is clear that the respondents perceive they have limited knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant, with an average score of 2.30. The corresponding standard deviation is rather low at 0.97, which confirms a more or less consistent score. The score concerning the employees is slightly higher, with an average score of 2.41 (standard deviation = 0.90). The score concerning the business environment is again slightly higher, with an average score of 2.54 (standard deviation = 0.92). This means that the respondents estimate their employees’ knowledge and their business environments’ knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant somewhat higher than their own knowledge.
Next, we analyzed whether the three indicators of perceived knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant pointed in the same direction. The factor analysis showed unambiguously that the three indicators represent one factor, as the explained variance is higher than 50% (i.e., 60.3%), and the factor loadings are all higher than 0.7. That is why we continued with one combined variable called “knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated”. It also makes sense in terms of content to combine these three indicators, as they all represent knowledge that is available to the firm. The aggregated score of the combined variable was 2.42, which indicates a rather low level of knowledge about how to minimize food waste in their own restaurant, or in other words, the respondents perceive the knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant as being rather limited.
We ran a multiple regression analysis in order to find out what influences the perception of the level of knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant (the latter is the dependent variable). As the independent variables, we used the four previously mentioned four demographic variables, the four previously mentioned firm variables, and the actual percentage of generated food waste. All VIF values were between 1.0 and 1.5. This indicates that there is no multi-collinearity in the regression model. We used the bootstrapping method to estimate the regression coefficients and the corresponding test statistics because a number of variables are skewed and not normally distributed. The values of R2 and the adjusted R2 are acceptable.
From Table 7, it is clear that the actual percentage of generated food waste is the only variable that is significant (even very significant) in explaining the perception of knowledge about how to minimize the generated food waste (p < 0.001): the higher the actual amount of food waste generated, the higher the perceived level of knowledge of how to minimize food waste generated in their own restaurant. Note that the Beta and the T value are positive. This explanatory variable is dealt with in the Discussion section. The four personal variables and the four firm variables did not influence the perceived level of knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant.
This brings us to the answer to the second sub-question: according to the representatives of the small and micro restaurants, there is only a limited amount of knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant. The only factor influencing the perceived knowledge about how to minimize this generated food waste is the actual level of food waste generated in their own restaurant: the more food waste generated, the higher the perceived knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant.

4. Discussion

In Section 2 of this paper, we already mentioned that not much is known in the literature about the perceptions about the generation of their own food waste of representatives of micro and small restaurants. This is the main reason why we cannot compare our findings in this paper with findings from any previous studies.
From our research, it appeared that the representatives of small and micro restaurants hardly perceive the food waste generated in their own restaurant as problematic despite the fact that the average percentage of food waste generated in their own restaurant is considerable. Why is that so? Possible practical explanations for the acceptance of a rather high percentage of generated food waste as being not really problematic might be that the level of food waste generated is perceived by the respondents as quite normal and, thus, acceptable for them and/or that the respondents have the feeling that not much can be done about it.
The actual level of food waste generated in their own restaurant has a significant influence on the perceptions of the respondents that the generated food waste is problematic in their own restaurant. This sounds logical, as the problem becomes more pressing as the actual level of the food waste generated rises. Furthermore, younger respondents perceive the generated food waste as being more problematic than older respondents do. The explanation here could be that younger people are more aware of societal issues than older people. Furthermore, the directors/managers and chefs perceive the generated food waste as being more problematic than the active owners do. Here, the explanation could be that the directors/managers and chefs are more directly confronted with the generated food waste in daily practice than the active owners. Finally, representatives from larger firms score higher than representatives from smaller firms; this may be due to the physical amount of the generated food waste, which is assumed to be larger at bigger restaurants than at smaller restaurants.
Moreover, according to our respondents, there is limited knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant. Again, why is that so? Apparently, the representatives of the restaurants, their employees, and their business environments have not been properly trained to minimize the food waste generated and/or do not have an incentive to acquire (more) knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated. The only factor influencing the level of perceived knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated is the actual level of food waste generated in their own restaurant. And, again, this sounds logical: if the problem becomes more pressing, as the actual level of food waste generated rises, the persons involved become more eager to acquire knowledge about how to minimize the problem.

5. Conclusions

From our research, it became clear that the representatives of the restaurants do not really perceive the food wasted in their own restaurant as problematic. Furthermore, their knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated in their own restaurant is perceived as limited. The most important driving factor behind these perceptions is the actual level of food waste in their own restaurant: this determines both the respondents’ perceptions about food waste as being problematic and their perceived level of knowledge about how to minimize the generated food waste. The perception of food waste as being problematic is also influenced by the age and the function of the respondents and by the size of the restaurant. The perceived knowledge was not influenced by any personal or firm characteristics.
Food waste is a global issue. The United Nations is very clear about that by presenting unambiguous figures and by presenting SDG #12 in order to ensure responsible consumption and production patterns in the future. Food waste applies clearly to restaurants, among others. Nevertheless, hardly anything is known about the perceptions of the representatives of small and micro restaurants regarding how they perceive the amount of food waste generated in their own restaurant. This paper contributes to filling this research gap, especially by paying attention to the extent to which representatives of small and micro restaurants perceive the amount of food waste generated in their own restaurant as a problem and to the extent to which the respondents perceive their own knowledge about how to minimize food waste generated in their own restaurant. For this purpose, we collected data from 200 small and micro restaurants in the Netherlands.
This paper has a number of limitations. The first limitation is that we asked the respondents, using quantitative surveys, about their perceptions. Although this is a well-accepted way of conducting research among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), this may not be identical to the precise truth about food waste generated in their own restaurants. Moreover, we only studied one sector, i.e., small and micro restaurants in the Netherlands.
These limitations are connected to our research recommendations. The first recommendation for future research is to apply other research techniques, like qualitative research and observation. The second recommendation for future research is to study other sectors as well, i.e., to include both medium-sized and large restaurants in the Netherlands and restaurants in other countries as well. In this way, evidence can be provided to determine whether the findings of this paper are specific for small and micro restaurants and for the Netherlands, respectively.
Finally, we provide a number of practical recommendations for the representatives of small and micro restaurants in the Netherlands on how to minimize the food waste that is generated in their own restaurant in order to come closer to the realization of SDG #12 in the future. Obviously, new official regulations can influence the minimization of food waste. First, it should be communicated to the representatives of these restaurants that the actual level of food waste generated in their own restaurant might not be normal: after all, who determines what is normal? Second, more attention should be paid to the representatives of these restaurants in order to create awareness that more can be done about the food waste generated in their own restaurant. Finally, more attention should be paid to the creation of knowledge with the representatives of these restaurants about how to minimize food waste generated in their own restaurant, e.g., with vocational education and training, as support programs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M. and A.N.; Methodology, E.M., K.v.M. and A.N.; Validation, E.M., K.v.M. and A.N.; Formal analysis, E.M. and K.v.M.; Investigation, E.M. and A.N.; Data curation, E.M. and A.N.; Writing—original draft, E.M. and A.N.; Writing—review & editing, E.M. and K.v.M.; Supervision, E.M.; Project administration, E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

References

  1. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  2. Available online: https://www.unep.org (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  3. Bhajan, C.; Neetoo, H.; Hardowar, S.; Boodia, N.; Driver, M.F.; Chooneea, M.; Ramasawmy, B.; Goburdhun, D.; Ruggoo, A. Food waste generated by the Mauritian hotel industry. Tour. Crit. Theory Pract. 2022, 3, 120–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Kaur, P.; Malibari, A. Food waste in hospitality and food services: A systematic literature review and framework development approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Afzal, N.; Basit, A.; Daniel, A.; Ilyas, N.; Imran, A.; Awan, Z.A.; Papargyropoulou, E.; Stringer, L.C.; Hashem, M.; Alamri, S.; et al. Quantifying food waste in the hospitality sector and exploring its underlying reasons—A case study of Lahore, Pakistan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Coşkun, A.; Filimonau, V. ‘I waste food but this is not my fault!’: Exploring the drivers of plate waste in food services of Turkey through the prism of neutralization theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 329, 129695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dolnicar, S.; Juvan, E.; Grün, B. Reducing the plate waste of families at hotel buffets: A quasi-experimental field study. Tour. Manag. 2020, 80, 1040134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Eckert Matzembacher, D.; Brancoli, P.; Moltene Maia, L.; Eriksson, M. Consumer’s food waste in different restaurants configuration: A comparison between different levels of incentive and interaction. Waste Manag. 2020, 114, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Filimonau, V.; Matyakubov, U.; Allonazarov, O.; Ermolaev, V.A. Food waste and its management in restaurants of a transition economy: An exploratory story of Uzbekistan. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 29, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Filimonau, V.; Matute, J.; Kubal-Czerwińska, M.; Krzesiwo, K.; Mika, M. The determinants of consumer engagement in restaurant food waste mitigation in Poland: An exploratory study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Filimonau, V.; Ermolaev, V.A. A sleeping giant? Food waste in the foodservice sector of Russia. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. van Herpen, E.; De Hooge, I.E.; de Visser-Amundson, A.; Kleijnen, M.H.P. Take it or leave it: How an opt-out strategy for doggy bags affects consumer food waste behavior and restaurant evaluations. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 325, 129199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. de Oliveira Pontes, T.; da Silva César, A.; Conejero, M.A.; Deliberado, L.R.; Batalha, M.O. Food waste measurement in a chain of industrial restaurants in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 369, 133351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Talwar, S.; Kaur, P.; Okumus, B.; Ahmed, U.; Dhir, A. Food waste reduction and taking away leftovers: Interplay of food-ordering routine, planning routine, and motives. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 98, 103033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, H.; Li, S.; Wei, D.; He, J.; Chen, J.; Sun, C.; Vuppaladadiyam, A.K.; Duan, H. Characteristics, environmental impact, and reduction strategies of food waste generated by young adults: Case study on university canteens in Wuhan, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 12877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Olavarria-Key, N.; Ding, A.; Legendre, T.S.; Min, J. Communication of food waste messages: The effects of communication modality, presentation order, and mindfulness on food waste reduction intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 96, 102962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Filimonau, V.; De Coteau, D.A. Food waste management in hospitality operations: Critical review. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chalak, A.; Hassan, H.F.; Aoun, P.; Abiad, M.G. Drivers and determinants of food waste generation in restaurants serving Mediterranean Mezze-type cuisine. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Filimononau, V.; Nghiem, V.N.; Wang, L. Food waste management in ethnic food restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 92, 102731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Greggio, N.; Serafini, A.; Balugani, E.; Carlini, C.; Contin, A.; Marazza, D. Quantification and mapping of fish waste in retail trade and restaurant sector: Experience in Emilia-Romagna, Italy. Waste Manag. 2021, 135, 256–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liang, Y.; Song, Q.; Liui, G.; Li, G.L. Uncovering residents and restaurants’ attitude and willingness toward effective food waste management: A case of Macau. Waste Manag. 2021, 130, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vizzoto, F.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Strategies to reduce food waste in the foodservices sector: A systematic review. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 95, 102933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vidal-Mones, B.; Diaz-Ruiz, R.; Gil, J.M. From evaluation to action: Testing nudging strategies to prevent food waste in school canteens. Waste Manag. 2022, 140, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Visschers, V.H.M.; Gundlach, D.; Beretta, C. Smaller servings vs. Information provision: Results of two interventions to reduce plate waste in two university canteens. Waste Manag. 2020, 103, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Camilleri, M.A. Sustainable production and consumption of food. Mise-en-place circular economy policies and waste management practices in tourism cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sharma, R.; Dhir, A.; Talwar, S.; Kaur, P. Over-ordering and food waste: The use of food delivery apps during a pandemic. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 96, 102977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Patel, S.; Dora, M.; Hahladakis, J.N.; Iacovidou, E. Opportunities, challenges and trade-offs with decreasing avoidable food waste in the UK. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Goossens, Y.; Leverenz, D.; Kuntscher, M. Waste-tracking tools: A business case for more sustainable and resource efficient food services. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2022, 15, 200112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Igeta, J.; Nakamura, H. Business Incentive to Reduce Food Losses in Japan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Almeida Oroski, F.; da Silva, J.M. Understanding food waste-reducing platforms: A mini-review. J. Waste Manag. 2023, 41, 816–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Faezirad, M.; Pooya, A.; Naji-Azimi, Z.; Amir Haeri, M. Preventing food waste in subsidy-based university dining systems: An artificial neural network-aided model under uncertainty. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Beretta, C.; Hellweg, S. Potential environmental benefits from food waste prevention in the food service sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 147, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Katajajuuri, J.M.; Silvennoinen, K.; Hartikainen, H.; Heikkilä, L.; Reinikainen, A. Food waste in the Finnish food chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 73, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Silvennoinen, K.; Nisonen, S.; Pietiläinen, O. Food waste case study and monitoring developing in Finnish food services. Waste Manag. 2019, 97, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Carletto, F.C.; Ferriani, L.O.; Silva, D.A. Sustainability in food service: A systematic review. Waste Manag. Res. 2023, 41, 285–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Vizzotto, F.; Tessitore, S.; Iraldo, F.; Testa, F. Passively concerned: Horeca managers’ recognition of the importance of food wste hardly 3elads to the adoption of more strategies to reduce it. Waste Manag. 2020, 107, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Filimonau, V.; Uddin, R. Food waste management in chain-affiliated and independent consumers’ places: A preliminary and exploratory study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Okumus, B.; Taheri, B.; Giritlioglu, I.; Gannon, M.J. Tackling food waste in all-inclusive resort hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lévesque, J.; Perreault, V.; Bazinet, L.; Mikhaylin, S. Food waste in a hotel foodservice: A case study identifying hot spots and strategies to prioritize towards a reduction. Int. J. Gastron. Food. Sci. 2022, 30, 100600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Filimonau, V.; Zhang, H.; Wang, L. Food waste management in Shanghai full service restaurants: A senior managers’ perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Filimonau, V.; Todorova, E.; Mzembe, A.; Sauer, L.; Yankholmes, A. A comparative study of food waste management in full service restaurants of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Martin-Rios, C.; Hofmann, A.; Mackenzie, N. Sustainability-Oriented Innovations in Food Waste Management Technology. Sustainability 2020, 13, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moghawemi, S.; Mohd Salleh, N.A.; Standing, C. Entrepreneurs Adoption of Information System Innovation: The Impact of Individual Perception and Exogenous Factors on Entrepreneurs Behavior. Internet Res. 2016, 26, 1181–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Available online: https://www.cbs.nl (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  45. Available online: https://www.rvo.nl (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  46. Frese, M.; Krauss, S.I.; Keith, N.; Escher, S.; Grabarkiewicz, R.; Luneng, S.T.; Heers, C.; Unger, J.; Friedrich, C. Business Owners’ Action Planning and Its Relationship to Business Success in Three African Countries. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1481–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Demographic information about the respondents.
Table 1. Demographic information about the respondents.
Number of Respondents%
Gender
Female10753.5
Male9346.5
All200100
Education
Higher education10755.7
Lower education8544.3
All192100
Role within the restaurant
Owner–managers9749.5
Directors/managers6532.5
Restaurant chefs3618.0
All198100
Table 2. Firm information.
Table 2. Firm information.
Number of Respondents%
Type of restaurant
Casual dining11256.0
Fine dining5125.5
Fast food3718.5
All200100
Location
Amsterdam10552.5
Elsewhere in the western Netherlands9547.5
All200100
Table 3. Percentage of food waste generated at the respondents’ own restaurants.
Table 3. Percentage of food waste generated at the respondents’ own restaurants.
Percentage Food WasteNumber of Respondents%
0–10%9349.7
10–20%4021.4
20–30%4323.0
30–40%84.3
40–50%21.1
60–70%10.5
All187100
Table 4. Generated food waste being problematic.
Table 4. Generated food waste being problematic.
Average ScoreStandard
Deviation		Minimum ScoreMaximum Score
General problem3.11.115
Financial problem2.61.015
Social problem2.71.115
Environmental problem3.31.115
n = 200.
Table 5. Determinants of generated food waste being problematic.
Table 5. Determinants of generated food waste being problematic.
VariableBetaT ValueSignificance
Constant2.67013.660<0.001 ***
Respondent
Age (years)−0.306−2.3290.021 **
Gender (female = 0; male = 1)0.530.4600.646
Education (low = 0; high = 1)−0.088−0.7680.443
Function (active owners = 0; others = 1)0.3272.7680.006 **
Restaurant
Location (Amsterdam = 0; elsewhere = 1)0.1601.3150.190
Type (casual dining = 0; other = 1)0.1671.3800.169
Employees (number)0.0142.0680.04 **
Age (years)−0.001−0.1300.897
Actual percentage of food waste0.2734.688<0.001 ***
n = 200; R2 = 0.245; adjusted R2 = 0.205; *** significant at the <0.01 level; ** significant at the < 0.05 level.
Table 6. Knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated.
Table 6. Knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated.
Average ScoreStandard
Deviation		Minimum ScoreMaximum Score
The respondent does not know how to combat food waste.2.300.9715
The employees do not know how to combat food waste.2.410.9015
The business environment does not know how to combat food waste.2.540.9215
n = 200.
Table 7. Determinants of knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated.
Table 7. Determinants of knowledge about how to minimize the food waste generated.
VariableBetaT ValueSignificance
Constant2.16412.627<0.001
Respondent
Age (years)−0.130−1.1310.260
Gender (female = 0; male = 1)0.0160.1560.876
Education (low = 0; high = 1)−0.008−0.0790.937
Function (active owner = 0; Other = 1)0.0810.7820.435
Restaurant
Location (Amsterdam = 0; elsewhere = 1)0.1401.3180.189
Type (casual dining = 0; other = 1)0.1221.1470.253
Employees (number)0.0010.1930.847
Age (years)−0.002−0.3070.760
Actual percentage of food waste0.2514.909<0.001 ***
n = 200; R2 = 0.171; adjusted R2 = 0.127; *** significant at the < 0.01 level.
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

Masurel, E.; van Montfort, K.; Nederhorst, A. How Do the Representatives of Small and Micro Restaurants Perceive Food Waste in Their Own Restaurant? Empirical Evidence from The Netherlands. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7820. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177820

AMA Style

Masurel E, van Montfort K, Nederhorst A. How Do the Representatives of Small and Micro Restaurants Perceive Food Waste in Their Own Restaurant? Empirical Evidence from The Netherlands. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7820. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177820

Chicago/Turabian Style

Masurel, Enno, Kees van Montfort, and Anne Nederhorst. 2024. "How Do the Representatives of Small and Micro Restaurants Perceive Food Waste in Their Own Restaurant? Empirical Evidence from The Netherlands" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7820. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177820

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