Co-designing food waste services in the catering sector

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present results from the action research project, where sustainability professionals, local businesses and academic researchers collaborated on exploring barriers for food waste recycling in SMEs food outlets in order to inform local policy and business practices in Bristol, UK. Design/methodology/approach The researchers conducted face-to-face, qualitative surveys of 79 catering businesses in three diverse areas of the city. The action research methodology was applied, where a range of co-researchers contributed towards study design and review. Findings The research reveals the main barriers to recycling and how such perceptions differ depending on whether the respondents do or do not recycle, with “convenience” and “cost” being the main issue according to the already recycling participants. On the other hand, participants who do not recycle state that their main reason is “not enough waste” and “lack of space”. Practical implications Participants recommended a range of measures, which could improve the current food waste services in Bristol. For example, they suggest that business engagement should address the barriers voiced by the participants applying the framings used by them, rather than assuming restaurants and cafes are not aware of the issue. By inviting a variety of non-academic stakeholders into the process of research design and analysis, the project addressed the imbalances in knowledge production and policy design. Originality/value Despite the local and qualitative focus of this paper, the results and research methodology could act as a useful guide for conducting food waste action research in the policy context.

Waste not, want not: Managerial attitudes towards mitigating food waste in the Swiss-German restaurant industry

“…The aim of the study is to analyze underlying reasons, behavior, and attitudes; thus, a qualitative research design is appropriate to collect detailed data. Semi-structured interviews proved to be a practical approach to obtain deep insights from various perspectives (Cassell, 2015), also in the context of similar research Martin-Rios et al, 2018;Michalec et al, 2018). Hence, the said method was chosen for this study.…”

“…compost seems unproportionate to the cost savings (Michalec et al, 2018). Further common reasons are lack of space for multiple bins, convenience, increased costs, or scant knowledge about legal obligations as well as environmental repercussions of food in landfills (Radwan, Jones, & Minoli, 2012;Sakaguchi et al, 2018).…”

“…Further common reasons are lack of space for multiple bins, convenience, increased costs, or scant knowledge about legal obligations as well as environmental repercussions of food in landfills (Radwan, Jones, & Minoli, 2012;Sakaguchi et al, 2018). Moreover, staff members fail to separate waste correctly due to busy daily operations and time pressure (Michalec et al, 2018). Thus, a considerable amount of food waste is still disposed into landfill containers.…”

A Conceptual Framework to Analyze Food Loss and Waste within Food Supply Chains: An Operations Management Perspective

“…Most of the studies used descriptive statistics to describe and summarize the results of their investigations (primarily surveys); others employed regression and SEM models to test the relationships within factors that impact FLW and applied the Trial Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method to identify key factors [94]. Other methods, including the Bayesian belief networks model [95], thematic-discourse analysis [96], inverse model [97], and fuzzy cognitive map [10], were used to further analyze the survey results.…”

Alternativas De Melhoria Da Qualidade Nos Processos De Um Restaurante Sob a Ótica Das Práticas Sustentáveis

“…No que tange aos restaurantes, cada vez mais tem se entendido e estudado formas para que haja redução de desperdícios, bem como para que os resíduos gerados por eles sejam reaproveitados e atitudes sejam modificadas (Raab, Baloglu & Chen, 2018;Alegre & Berbegal-Mirabent, 2018;Koo, 2018;Michalec et al, 2018;Vinck, Scheelen & Du Bois, 2019;Salzberg, Gough & Suen, 2019).…”