Abstract
Food waste poses a pressing global challenge with wide-ranging environmental, social, and economic consequences, with the hospitality sector being a significant contributor. This study conceptualizes food waste management (FWM) not only as a sustainability practice but as a strategic capability that can enhance restaurant performance. Drawing on the Enlightened Self-Interest Model, the study identifies four key dimensions of FWM—procurement and storage, menu planning and design, staff and customer engagement, and leftover handling—and theorizes how these practices generate value through distinct mechanisms. Using data from 260 restaurant managers in Japan and applying fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), the results reveal three alternative configurations of practices associated with high expected future performance. The findings demonstrate that restaurants can achieve positive outcomes through multiple pathways, rather than uniformly adopting all practices, highlighting the principle of equifinality. By linking configurations to underlying mechanisms—operational efficiency, demand–supply alignment, behavioral and relational processes, and value recovery/reputation—this study advances the theoretical understanding of FWM and provides actionable insights for hospitality firms balancing resource constraints with sustainability goals. The results illustrate how “win–win” strategies can simultaneously deliver environmental and business benefits.
Introduction
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that global food production is sufficient to meet the nutritional needs of the population. Yet, paradoxically, nearly one-third of this production—approximately 1.3 billion tons annually—is never consumed (FAO, 2011, 2016). This phenomenon of food waste represents a major sustainability challenge with significant environmental, social, and economic consequences. Environmentally, wasted food embodies inefficient use of land, water, and energy, while contributing substantially to greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain (Project Drawdown, n.d.; World Resources Institute, 2016). Socially, it reflects a missed opportunity to address food insecurity (Hao et al., 2022), and economically, it inflates operational costs and reduces efficiency across food systems (Lei et al., 2023).
Food waste is commonly classified into avoidable, unavoidable, and potentially avoidable categories (Dhir et al., 2020), underscoring that a substantial proportion is preventable. The hospitality and foodservice sector is a major contributor to this challenge. Due to demand uncertainty, operational complexity, and supply chain inefficiencies, restaurants and related businesses generate significant volumes of waste, much of which can be reduced through improved managerial practices (Katsarova, 2016; Oliveira et al., 2016; Strotmann et al., 2017). Importantly, food waste in hospitality is not confined to a single stage but emerges across the entire service value chain—from procurement and storage to preparation, service, and consumption (Bux and Amicarelli, 2022). At the upstream level, inaccurate forecasting and over-ordering generate surplus stock, while poor storage practices accelerate spoilage. Within operations, complex menus increase inventory requirements and waste, and at the consumption stage, mismatches between portion sizes and customer preferences result in plate waste. Because these sources are interdependent, effective mitigation requires integrated, multi-stage approaches rather than isolated interventions (Dolnicar et al., 2020).
In response, food waste management (FWM) has emerged as a systematic, organization-wide approach to reducing waste across the foodservice value chain. FWM encompasses coordinated practices across pre-kitchen, kitchen, and post-kitchen stages, including demand forecasting, inventory control, menu design, staff engagement, and redistribution of surplus food (Filimonau and De Coteau, 2019; Filimonau et al., 2020; Magno and Cassia, 2024). It is important, however, to distinguish food waste reduction from FWM. While food waste reduction is primarily a sustainability-oriented activity focused on minimizing environmental impact, FWM represents a broader set of managerial practices that can function as a strategic resource. Specifically, FWM can enhance firm competitiveness through cost efficiency (e.g., reduced spoilage and purchasing costs), reputation building (e.g., visible sustainability initiatives), customer loyalty (e.g., alignment with pro-environmental values), and operational agility (e.g., improved demand–supply alignment).
Despite growing scholarly attention, existing research has predominantly focused on demand-side drivers—particularly consumer attitudes and behaviors—while giving comparatively limited attention to the managerial and organizational practices that shape waste generation and reduction (Filimonau et al., 2022; Long et al., 2024). Moreover, prior studies have largely examined FWM practices in isolation, implicitly assuming linear and additive relationships between individual practices and outcomes. This perspective overlooks the reality that hospitality firms—especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—operate under resource constraints and must make selective, strategic decisions about which practices to implement. As a result, how different combinations of FWM practices jointly influence firm performance remains insufficiently understood.
Drawing on the Enlightened Self-Interest Model (Wallich and McGowan, 1970), which posits that firms enhance their performance by creating value for society, investments in FWM can be conceptualized as strategic decisions that generate both private and social value. By reducing waste, firms improve cost efficiency and operational performance while also contributing to environmental sustainability and reduced food loss. These outcomes are mutually reinforcing: efficiency gains enhance profitability, while visible sustainability practices strengthen reputation, customer trust, and stakeholder goodwill. In this way, FWM exemplifies enlightened self-interest, where actions undertaken to address social and environmental challenges also create competitive advantage.
These value-generating effects are realized through distinct but complementary mechanisms across the service value chain. Procurement and storage capture upstream resource efficiency, reducing overstocking and spoilage through improved demand forecasting and inventory control (Filimonau et al., 2023; Okumus et al., 2020). Menu planning reflects operational and demand alignment, influencing inventory complexity, portion control, and waste generation (Filimonau et al., 2024; Junkrachang et al., 2024). Staff and customer engagement represent behavioral and relational mechanisms that shape both employee practices and customer responses to food waste (Filimonau et al., 2022; Hamerman et al., 2018). Finally, leftover handling captures downstream value recovery including redistribution, resale, and recycling practices (Filimonau et al., 2020; Magno and Cassia, 2024). Together, these dimensions provide a comprehensive yet analytically distinct representation of FWM, illustrating how different mechanisms—individually and in combination—can generate mutually reinforcing pathways to both business and social value.
Building on this framework, this study conceptualizes FWM as a multi-dimensional managerial capability and examines how different configurations of practices relate to expected firm outcomes. Specifically, we focus on four dimensions of FWM: (1) procurement, stock management, and storage; (2) menu planning and design; (3) staff and customer engagement; and (4) leftover handling, which are widely recognized as key domains of FWM across the service value chain (Dhir et al., 2020; Filimonau and De Coteau, 2019; Filimonau et al., 2020; HOTREC, 2017).
To examine how these dimensions interact, we adopt a configurational approach using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). This approach enables analyzes how combinations of conditions jointly produce outcomes, embracing the principle of equifinality—that multiple pathways may lead to the same result (Pappas and Woodside, 2021; Ragin, 2009). In doing so, the study extends the application of fsQCA to the domain of FWM and sustainability performance in hospitality SMEs. Such an approach is particularly appropriate in the context of hospitality SMEs, where heterogeneous resource constraints and strategic choices result in diverse practice combinations rather than a single optimal model.
In this study, firm performance is conceptualized as managers’ expectations of business outcomes over the next 12 months, reflecting forward-looking assessments of sales, profitability, and growth rather than objective financial indicators (see Lee and Hallak, 2020). This perspective captures how managers evaluate the anticipated benefits of FWM practices in strategic decision-making contexts.
The study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, unlike prior studies in sustainability management and hospitality performance, which typically examine practices as independent or additive drivers of outcomes (Sukhov et al., 2023), this study advances FWM research by moving beyond isolated practices and conceptualizing FWM through a configurational perspective that explains how interdependent practices combine to generate performance through multiple, equifinal pathways. Second, it strengthens the theoretical foundation of FWM by linking sustainability-oriented practices to firm competitiveness through clearly specified value-generating mechanisms, thereby moving beyond general claims about sustainability–performance relationships toward a more precise, mechanism-based explanation. Third, it provides empirical evidence of multiple pathways to expected high performance, showing that different combinations of practices—including both the presence and absence of specific dimensions—can yield similar outcomes.
Crucially, this study challenges the implicit assumption in sustainability research that the comprehensive adoption of practices necessarily leads to expected superior performance. Instead, it demonstrates that expected high performance can be achieved through selective, resource-contingent configurations that align with firms’ capabilities and constraints. By reframing FWM as a flexible, strategically configurable capability rather than a uniform ‘set of best practices’, the study shifts the focus from adoption to prioritization. In doing so, it offers a more actionable and theoretically grounded understanding of how firms, particularly resource-constrained SMEs, can strategically combine sustainability initiatives to generate both environmental and business value.
Literature review and theoretical framework
Food waste management in hospitality
Although research on FWM has expanded, its theoretical foundations are still evolving. Scholars have adopted a variety of perspectives to explain why organizations adopt or resist waste-reduction practices, each offering distinct insights into organizational behavior. For example, Magno and Cassia (2024) combined the Technology Acceptance Model with Self-Determination Theory to examine Italian restaurants’ adoption of surplus food platforms, finding that both technological perceptions (e.g., usefulness, ease of use) and motivational factors (e.g., financial benefits, intrinsic satisfaction) significantly shaped adoption. Similarly, Filimonau et al. (2024) applied Social Practice Theory to highlight how chefs’ routines and competencies embed waste practices into daily operations; Social Learning Theory to illustrate the influence of peer observation; and Ecological Systems Theory to situate waste management practices within broader environmental and institutional contexts.
Institutional and organizational theories have also been widely applied. Ng and Sia (2023) demonstrate how coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures influence adoption of food waste separation, while Filimonau et al. (2022) show that market orientation can encourage waste reduction, whereas rationalizations for inaction hinder it. Filimonau et al. (2023) further highlight how staff perceptions and interpretations of sustainability practices shape organizational engagement.
These studies demonstrate that FWM is shaped by organizational routines, managerial attitudes, institutional pressures, and social norms. Empirical studies consistently show that food waste in hospitality is both substantial and largely preventable. On the demand side, customer behavior is a persistent driver. Hao et al. (2022) find that customer leftovers account for a significant proportion of waste, particularly in upscale restaurants where cultural norms of generosity encourage over-ordering. Similarly, Principato et al. (2018) show that dining context and restaurant positioning influence waste patterns. Operational inefficiencies also play a critical role: Papargyropoulou et al. (2019) report that approximately one-third of procured stock is wasted, much of it avoidable, while Okumus (2019) identifies preparation inefficiencies as a key source of waste. Managerial perceptions further shape outcomes, as managers who fail to view waste reduction as a cost-saving opportunity tend to oversee higher levels of waste (Principato et al., 2018).
Despite government and industry interventions—such as Japan’s Basic Policy for the Promotion of Recycling of Food Recycling Resources (Ministry of Finance [Japan] et al., 2019) and HOTREC’s (2017) European guidelines— significant barriers persist. Legal concerns about liability in food donation, irresponsible consumer behavior, managerial apathy, and resource constraints limit adoption of waste-reduction strategies (Filimonau et al., 2020, 2022). Overall, the literature demonstrates that food waste arises from a complex interplay of operational, behavioral, and institutional factors. However, these studies predominantly examine FWM practices in isolation, providing limited insight into how practices interact or combine to influence performance outcomes. What remains underdeveloped is an integrated understanding of how different FWM practices translate into business performance outcomes, particularly in resource-constrained SMEs (Hallak and Lee, 2023).
Food waste management as a strategic capability
To address this gap, this study conceptualizes FWM within the framework of the Enlightened Self-Interest Model (Wallich and McGowan, 1970), which posits that firms enhance their performance by creating value for society. Rather than viewing social and environmental responsibility as pure altruism, the model frames it as a rational strategy that delivers social, environmental, and business returns. Hallak et al. (2013) demonstrate this in tourism SMEs, where community-oriented behaviors enhance profitability, growth, and business satisfaction. Applied to FWM, this perspective suggests that reducing food waste can simultaneously lower costs, improve operational efficiency, and enhance reputation among increasingly environmentally conscious consumers. These outcomes are mutually reinforcing: cost savings improve financial performance, while visible sustainability practices strengthen customer loyalty, employee motivation, and stakeholder relationships.
The Enlightened Self-Interest Model thus helps explain why sustainability initiatives should be seen not as additional burdens but as strategic investments that create both social value and business success. However, as SMEs in the hospitality industry operate under major resource constraints, investment in FWM is often perceived as a financial risk, and the choice of practices must therefore be carefully weighed against expected benefits. Thus, businesses need to evaluate where investments and resources are deployed to achieve both sustainability and expected performance outcomes.
Building on this perspective, four domains of FWM emerge as particularly critical for influencing both waste reduction and expected business performance: procurement and storage, menu planning, staff and customer engagement, and leftover handling. These domains span upstream, operational, behavioral, and downstream processes, capturing FWM as a multi-dimensional organizational capability.
Key dimensions of food waste management
Procurement, stock management, and storage
Failures in demand forecasting, ordering, and stock rotation are among the primary sources of waste. Practices such as automated ordering systems, inventory management technologies, first in first out (FIFO) rotation, and improved storage extend shelf life and reduce spoilage (Filimonau et al., 2023; Okumus et al., 2020). These practices directly improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary costs. However, their consistent application requires staff training and managerial oversight, resources that SMEs often lack.
Menu planning and design
Menu complexity strongly influences waste generation. Simplified menus and portion control reduce inventory requirements and waste, while aligning offerings with customer demand (Filimonau et al., 2024; Junkrachang et al., 2024). These practices simultaneously improve operational efficiency and customer satisfaction.
Staff and customer engagement
Employee engagement and managerial commitments are critical for FWM success. Filimonau et al. (2022) demonstrate that positive managerial attitudes toward sustainability are associated with stronger intentions to reduce food waste, whereas environmental apathy undermines adoption. At the operational level, inadequate staff training and low motivation contribute to careless food handling and increased waste (Okumus et al., 2020). On the customer side, prevailing social norms often discourage diners from taking leftovers home. However, proactive practices—such as offering takeaway packaging as a default—can reduce plate waste while enhancing perceived service quality (Hamerman et al., 2018). Collectively, staff and customer engagement mechanisms not only mitigate waste but also strengthen customer loyalty and improve overall operational performance.
Leftover handling
Redistribution, resale, and composting are increasingly recognized as viable strategies for managing surplus food and recovering value from waste. Magno and Cassia (2024) show that restaurants adopt surplus food platforms not only for financial incentives but also for reputational gains. Similarly, Okumus et al. (2020) note that composting systems can generate biofertilizer for resale, creating additional revenue streams. However, despite these benefits, widespread adoption remains constrained by food safety concerns, legal liabilities, and logistical challenges (Filimonau et al., 2020).
Summary of food waste management practices and business benefits.
Theoretical framework: Mechanisms linking FWM to expected firm performance
The literature demonstrates that food waste in hospitality is systemic yet preventable, with significant implications for both sustainability and business viability. While prior research has identified these domains, it has largely treated them in isolation. Drawing on the Enlightened Self-Interest Model, we conceptualize FWM as generating expected performance outcomes through a set of value-generating mechanisms that link managerial practices to both private and social value.
Moreover, although FWM is widely assumed to generate organizational benefits, empirical evidence linking specific practices to profitability and operational efficiency remains limited. This gap is particularly critical for SMEs, which dominate the sector yet operate under significant resource constraints and limited managerial capacity. For these firms, decisions regarding the adoption of FWM practices are inherently strategic: investments must not only reduce waste but also deliver tangible financial returns. Addressing this gap requires moving beyond isolated practices to examine the underlying mechanisms through which FWM creates value, as well as how these mechanisms operate individually and in combination to influence expected firm performance. To that end, we propose the following four mechanisms. Mechanism 1: Operational efficiency (procurement and storage). Procurement and storage practices enhance expected performance by improving demand forecasting, inventory control, and storage processes. These practices reduce overstocking, spoilage, and unnecessary purchasing costs, thereby improving resource efficiency and lowering operational expenses. Mechanism 2: Demand–supply alignment (menu planning and design). Menu planning and design influence expected performance by aligning supply with demand. Simplified menus, portion control, and menu engineering reduce inventory complexity and demand variability, enabling more accurate forecasting and minimizing waste. Mechanism 3: Behavioral and relational processes (staff and customer engagement). Staff and customer engagement practices shape both employee behavior and customer responses to food waste. Training, managerial commitment, and customer-facing initiatives improve operational practices while enhancing service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty. Mechanism 4: Value recovery and reputational enhancement (leftover handling). Leftover handling practices contribute to expected performance by enabling value recovery and strengthening reputation. Redistribution, resale, and recycling reduce disposal costs, create additional revenue streams, and signal social responsibility, thereby enhancing stakeholder trust and brand image.
Taken together, these mechanisms represent the underlying processes through which the Enlightened Self-Interest Model operates. In the context of fsQCA, they function as combinatory elements activated in different configurations to generate expected performance outcomes. Each mechanism corresponds to a distinct dimension of FWM and serves as a configurational ‘building block’, such that different combinations of mechanisms—activated through the presence or absence of specific practices—constitute alternative pathways to expected performance. In this way, the Enlightened Self-Interest Model not only explains why firms adopt FWM, but also elucidates how multiple, equifinal configurations generate both business, social, and environmental value.
Method
Data collection
This study focuses on hospitality businesses in Japan’s three major metropolitan areas: Tokyo (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Saitama, and Chiba prefectures), Osaka (Osaka, Kyoto, Hyogo, and Nara prefectures), and Nagoya (Aichi, Mie, and Gifu prefectures) (Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2023). These metropolitan areas account for over half of Japan’s population (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2022). The metropolitan focus was a deliberate design choice, as foodservice businesses in major urban centers and those in rural areas operate under different conditions, such as supply chain infrastructure, consumer environmental awareness, and competitive intensity, that are likely to shape FWM practices in distinct ways.
In Japan, food waste is a pressing policy issue. In 2019, the government introduced the Act on Promotion of Reduction of Food Waste (2019) and the Act on Promotion of Recycling and Related Activities for Treatment of Cyclical Food Resources (2019) to curb the country’s estimated 5.23 million tons of annual food waste, of which 2.79 million tons are business-related. Japan has set a national aim to cut food waste by 50% by 2030 (Cabinet of Japan, 2020), aligning with the United Nations (n.d.) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production). Of 167 countries in a global ranking of performance against the SDGs, Japan’s food waste management efforts have positioned the country in 18th place (Sachs et al., 2024).
Sample characteristics (N = 260).
aBusinesses operating in a municipality with a population of 100,000 or more are counted as urban, less than 100 000 are categorized as rural.
We highlight several characteristics of the restaurants in the sample. The sample is dominated by small and micro-establishments, with 42.7% of businesses operating with one or two full-time employees and 76.5% having a seating capacity of 50 seats or fewer. With respect to business type, 55.8% of establishments primarily serve food, 29.2% primarily serve alcoholic beverages, and 10.0% primarily serve non-alcoholic beverages; together, these dine-in formats account for 95.0% of the sample. The age of businesses varies widely, with 19.2% in operation for 10 years or less and 19.6% for 41 years or more, indicating that the sample spans both newer entrants and well-established firms.
Measures
To measure FWM practices, a validated structured instrument comprising 21 items was applied from Matsuoka et al. (2025). The instrument included four dimensions: (1) procurement, stock management, and storage; (2) menu and product design; (3) staff and customer engagement; and (4) leftover handling. These categories were informed by prior empirical research and industry standards (see Dhir et al., 2020; Filimonau et al., 2019; HOTREC, 2017; Principato et al., 2018; Appendix 1).
Procurement, stock management, and storage encompassed six ‘upstream’ (Dhir et al., 2020) FWM practices, including purchasing locally, forecasting demand, managing kitchen errors, and maintaining proper storage facilities. Menu and product design encompassed six FWM practices at the ‘pre-kitchen’ and ‘kitchen’ stages (Filimonau et al., 2019), such as using seasonal menus, offering smaller portions, adjusting prices, and applying menu engineering techniques. Staff and customer engagement encompassed six ‘post-kitchen’ (Filimonau et al., 2019) or ‘downstream’ (Dhir et al., 2020) FWM practices, including increasing customer awareness of food waste, encouraging customers to take leftovers home, and donating excess food to staff. Finally, leftover handling encompassed four FWM practices related to recycling, recovery, and disposal, including donating excess food to charity, separating and/or composting food waste, and using leftover stock as animal feed. Respondents reported the frequency of each practice using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Never to 7 = Very Often.
Expected future business performance was assessed using a six-item scale, capturing managers’ expectations of their firm’s outcomes over the next 12 months. While this approach is appropriate in SME contexts where objective financial data are often unavailable, it may introduce potential biases, including optimism bias and common method bias. These limitations are acknowledged and discussed further in the limitations section. Respondents rated anticipated changes in sales and revenues, market share, profitability, adoption of new technologies, number of full-time employees, and number of part-time/casual staff. Items were measured on a five-point scale (1 = Decrease significantly to 5 = Increase significantly, with 3 = Remain the same). This performance scale was adapted from established measures in Lee and Hallak (2020), Battisti and Deakins (2017), and O’Connor et al. (2021). The use of different scale formats and anchor points for the independent and dependent variables also served as a procedural strategy to reduce common method bias (CMB) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). All construct measures are presented in Appendix 1.
Analysis
Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) was used for data analysis. While fsQCA has been increasingly applied in hospitality and tourism to examine complex causal relationships (Pappas and Woodside, 2021), its use in studying sustainability practices—particularly FWM—remains limited. Prior research has primarily examined FWM practices individually, often assuming linear and additive effects on firm performance. However, traditional regression techniques focus on isolated net effects and are limited in capturing interactional and asymmetric relationships among variables (Sukhov et al., 2023). Such an approach fails to reflect the realities faced by hospitality firms—particularly SMEs—which operate under resource constraints and must adopt selective combinations of practices.
To capture this complexity, the study adopts a configurational approach well suited to foodservice SMEs, where performance emerges through varied, resource-dependent pathways rather than a universal model. Accordingly, this study applies fsQCA—grounded in Boolean algebra—that evaluates the presence or absence of conditions and their configurations in relation to an outcome (Ragin, 2009). A configuration is considered sufficient when all cases displaying that configuration also exhibit the outcome (Sukhov et al., 2023). By examining combinations of causal conditions, this approach reveals how interdependent practices interact to produce outcomes while explicitly accommodating equifinality (Pappas and Woodside, 2021; Ragin, 2009). In this study, configurations are conceptualised as FWM profiles—combinations of practices—linked to expected future business performance. Following established guidelines (Pappas and Woodside, 2021), the analysis proceeded in three stages: (1) data calibration, (2) truth table construction, and (3) assessment of consistency and coverage using intermediate solutions.
Results
Kock’s collinearity assessment.
Dependent variable: Respondent ID.
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between study variables.
Note. ** = p < 0.01, n.s. = not significant.
Next, the survey data needed to be calibrated to compute one value per construct as input in fsQCA. This allowed cases to be assigned membership in each causal condition and outcome set (Kallmuenzer et al., 2021). Due to the high internal reliability of each dimension (Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.7), a mean score of the items within each category was calculated to create the subscale scores (Pappas and Woodside, 2021). The survey data scores were then transformed into normalized scores (i.e., fuzzy sets) ranging from 0 to 1 using the following formula (Sukhov et al., 2023):
Calibration thresholds of the study.
Truth table.
Note. Cut-offs to determine configurations producing outcome = N >2 & Raw consistency >0.8 & PRI consistency >0.5.
Configurations for high expected future performance.
The coverage values indicate the empirical relevance of each configuration. Configurations 1 and 2 account for a larger proportion of expected high-performing cases (54% and 52%, respectively), suggesting that these pathways are more broadly applicable across the sample, whereas Configuration 3 (42%) represents a more specialized, though still meaningful, route to expected performance. The overall solution coverage of 0.731 indicates that the identified configurations explain a substantial share of cases exhibiting high expected future performance. At the same time, the overall consistency value of 0.777 demonstrates that these configurations are reliably associated with the outcome, thereby supporting their interpretive robustness.
Importantly, the configurations illustrate causal asymmetry, in that the presence and absence of conditions contribute differently across pathways. For instance, the absence of engagement practices in Configuration 3 is not detrimental; rather, it forms part of an efficiency-driven pathway. Expected performance outcomes are shaped by specific combinations of conditions rather than by the independent effect of any single practice.
Robustness checks.
Given that the configurations remained comparable and the initial analysis (using breakpoints of 0.95, 0.50, and 0.05) demonstrated higher coverage and consistency, we rely on the original results (see Table 7) as the final findings for the manuscript.
Discussion
The results identify three distinct configurations associated with expected high future performance, demonstrating the value of a configurational approach. Rather than pointing to a single optimal model, the findings indicate that multiple combinations of FWM practices—encompassing both the presence and absence of specific conditions—can lead to expected high performance. This highlights the principle of equifinality and underscores that expected performance outcomes arise from the way practices are combined, rather than from their isolated effects. Such interactional and asymmetric relationships would remain obscured under traditional linear regression approaches.
From a theoretical perspective, these findings extend the Enlightened Self-Interest Model by demonstrating that alignment between social value (waste reduction) and private value (firm performance) is not achieved through uniform adoption of practices, but through distinct configurations mechanisms activated across the value chain. Specifically, the presence and absence of practices across configurations activate different mechanisms—such as operational efficiency, demand–supply alignment, behavioral engagement, and value recovery—that collectively enable firms to realize both economic and environmental benefits. A key implication is that firms do not need to ‘do everything’ to achieve this alignment; rather, they can pursue enlightened self-interest through selective, resource-contingent combinations of practices aligned with their capabilities and operating contexts. This reframes FWM as a flexible, strategically configurable capability and shifts the focus from comprehensive adoption to mechanism-based prioritization, thereby offering a more precise explanation of how sustainability initiatives translate into expected firm performance.
Configuration 1: Demand–supply alignment and value recovery
Configuration 1 is characterized by the core presence of menu planning and design and leftover handling, indicating a synergistic pathway in which expected performance is driven by the combined activation of demand-supply alignment and value recovery/reputational mechanisms for 54% of cases. When menu complexity is reduced and portion design is optimized, restaurants can better align supply with demand, thereby minimizing waste and improving operational efficiency. At the same time, effective leftover handling enhances resource utilization while strengthening brand reputation. Empirical evidence supports these mechanisms. Simplified menu design and plating improve product appeal while reducing waste (Filimonau et al., 2024; Junkrachang et al., 2024). In parallel, the redistribution of surplus food—through platforms or donation—generates both financial returns and reputational benefits by signaling environmental responsibility (Magno and Cassia, 2024).
In this configuration, expected performance emerges from the interaction of operational and reputational mechanisms, demonstrating that sustainability practices can simultaneously enhance efficiency and customer-facing value. Taken together, streamlined menu strategies and deliberate leftover handling increase consumer confidence in both product quality and brand image, ultimately contributing to higher customer satisfaction and increased restaurant patronage.
The Japanese context further underscores the viability of this configuration. Domestic surplus-food distribution platforms, such as TABETE (n.d.), have expanded substantially across major metropolitan areas in Japan in recent years. TABETE’s partner network grew more than fourfold between late 2019 and late 2021, reaching approximately 1800 restaurants (Yoshida, 2021), and expanded further to about 2700 partner restaurants and 850,000 registered users by early 2024 (Yoshida, 2024). The Danish platform Too Good To Go—serving roughly 120 million users across 20 countries—announced its first entry into an Asian market through Japan in late 2025 (Nikkei, 2025). The increasing accessibility of such platforms provides foodservice SMEs—which dominate the Japanese sector, with 76.5% of establishments in our sample operating 50 seats or fewer—with a low-investment channel through which leftover-handling practices can be effectively operationalized.
Configuration 2: Behavioral–relational and reputational pathway
Configuration 2 is defined by the core presence of staff and customer engagement together with leftover handling, indicating that expected performance emerges through behavioral and relational mechanisms reinforced by reputational gains for 52% of cases. The fsQCA results show that engagement practices play a central role in shaping both employee behavior and customer responses, while leftover handling contributes to cost reduction and enhances brand image.
Notably, the fact that it did not matter whether procurement and menu-based practices in this configuration were present or absent demonstrates that firms can achieve expected high performance through people-centered strategies, even without substantial upstream efficiency investments. This highlights a distinct pathway in which expected performance is driven by relational value creation, including improved service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty.
This configuration is particularly salient in the Japanese context, where cultural norms and food safety concerns often discourage diners from taking leftovers home. In response, government initiatives have sought to shift these norms by promoting guidelines that encourage takeaway practices (Consumer Affairs Agency [Japan] and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [Japan], 2024; News On Japan, 2025). Under these conditions, proactive engagement strategies—such as offering takeaway packaging as a default—become critical for influencing customer behavior (Filimonau et al., 2022; Hamerman et al., 2018). Taken together, this configuration demonstrates that targeted engagement at the “people” and post-kitchen stages can compensate for weaker upstream practices, enabling firms to reduce waste while simultaneously strengthening customer relationships and overall operational performance.
Configuration 3: Efficiency driven pathways
Configuration 3 is characterized by the core presence of procurement, stock management, and storage practices, combined with the absence of engagement-related conditions, indicating a pathway driven primarily by the operational efficiency mechanism. The results show that, for 42% of cases, firms can achieve expected high performance by focusing on upstream efficiency gains, including improved demand forecasting, inventory control, and reduced spoilage.
This configuration directly addresses the most common sources of food waste—failures in ordering, forecasting, and stock rotation. Prior research demonstrates that automated ordering systems, web-enabled inventory technologies, and practices such as FIFO rotation, vacuum-sealing, and deep freezing are effective in aligning stock with expected demand and minimizing waste (Filimonau et al., 2023; Okumus et al., 2020). In this pathway, expected performance is achieved through cost reduction and resource optimization, with efficiency gains translating into improved profit margins.
Importantly, the absence of menu and engagement practices highlights a selective, resource-driven strategy. For many SMEs operating under financial constraints, investments in advanced procurement and storage systems represent a more direct and measurable return compared to resource-intensive customer engagement or menu redesign initiatives (Hallak and Lee, 2023). Therefore, this configuration illustrates how firms can achieve expected high performance through focused investment in high-impact practices, rather than comprehensive implementation of all FWM dimensions.
The absence of engagement practices is also consistent with the Japanese context, where customer participation in waste reduction remains limited. Under these conditions, the potential returns from engagement initiatives are constrained, making it strategically rational for resource-scarce businesses to prioritize internal efficiency. Overall, this pathway demonstrates that efficiency-driven configurations can independently generate strong expected performance outcomes, reinforcing the importance of strategic prioritization and context-sensitive decision-making in FWM implementation.
Implications for theory and practice
Theoretical implications
This study advances the theoretical understanding of FWM by addressing key limitations in prior research and offering a more integrative, mechanism-based, and configurational perspective on how sustainability practices influence expected foodservice firm performance.
First, the study introduces a configurational perspective into FWM research, moving beyond the dominant reliance on linear and additive models (Sukhov et al., 2023). Prior studies in hospitality have largely examined FWM through isolated lenses—such as consumer behavior (Hao et al., 2022; Principato et al., 2018), managerial attitudes (Filimonau et al., 2022), or institutional pressures (Ng and Sia, 2023)—thereby overlooking how practices interact across the value chain. In contrast, this study demonstrates that expected firm performance emerges from specific combinations of practices rather than from the independent influence of individual practices. Importantly, this departs from prior research that treats FWM practices as discrete or linear drivers of performance. Instead, performance is shown to emerge from combinations of practices, including their presence and absence, capturing interaction effects overlooked in traditional models.
The identification of multiple configurations associated with expected high performance provides clear evidence of equifinality, showing that distinct pathways can lead to similar outcomes. Importantly, the findings also reveal that the absence of certain practices can be as consequential as their presence, reinforcing a core yet often underemphasized insight of configurational theory. This shifts the theoretical focus from identifying universal ‘best practices’ to understanding how different combinations of practices generate value under varying organizational conditions.
Second, the study extends the Enlightened Self-Interest Model by clarifying the mechanisms through which FWM practices generate both private and social value. While prior applications of the model in tourism and hospitality contexts (e.g., Hallak et al., 2013) emphasize the alignment between social responsibility and firm performance, they provide limited insight into how this alignment is operationalized. This study addresses this gap by identifying four concrete mechanisms—operational efficiency, demand–supply alignment, behavioral and relational processes, and value recovery and reputational enhancement—and demonstrating how these mechanisms are activated across different configurations of practices. By explicitly linking mechanisms to configurations, the study advances a more precise and process-oriented explanation of how sustainability initiatives translate into competitive advantage.
Third, the study reconceptualizes FWM as a strategically configurable capability rather than a uniform set of practices. Existing hospitality research highlights the importance of sustainability practices but also points to persistent barriers to implementation, including resource constraints, managerial apathy, and institutional limitations (Filimonau et al., 2020, 2022). Rather than assuming that broader adoption necessarily leads to superior outcomes, the findings show that expected high performance can be achieved through selective, resource-contingent combinations of practices. This challenges the implicit ‘more is better’ assumption in sustainability research and highlights the importance of strategic prioritization. This insight is particularly important for SMEs, which dominate the hospitality sector and operate under constrained resources (Hallak and Lee, 2023), suggesting that firms can pursue sustainability objectives without implementing all practices simultaneously. In doing so, the study advances a more decision-oriented understanding of FWM, demonstrating how firms can align sustainability initiatives with expected performance goals through targeted configurations.
More broadly, the study contributes to the hospitality management literature by building on prior research that has identified the drivers and barriers of FWM (e.g., Filimonau et al., 2020; Ng and Sia, 2023) and extending it toward an explanation of expected performance outcomes. While earlier studies have shown that food waste is shaped by behavioral, operational, and institutional factors, they have provided limited insight into how these factors translate into expected firm-level performance. By conceptualizing FWM as a configurational and mechanism-driven capability, this study provides a more comprehensive explanation of how hospitality SMEs can leverage sustainability practices not only to reduce waste but also to enhance competitiveness and expected long-term performance.
These contributions strengthen the theoretical linkage between sustainability practices and expected firm performance in hospitality by moving beyond descriptive accounts toward an explanatory framework grounded in configurations and mechanisms. Consistent with the Enlightened Self-Interest Model (Wallich and McGowan, 1970), the findings reinforce the view that sustainability initiatives should be understood not as additional costs, but as strategic investments capable of delivering mutually reinforcing economic and societal value. Finally, the study also contributes to the emerging use of fsQCA in hospitality research by demonstrating its suitability for analyzing sustainability practices as interacting configurations rather than independent predictors.
Practical implications
The findings provide actionable guidance for foodservice managers by directly linking configurations of practices to distinct expected performance pathways. Across the identified configurations, leftover handling emerges as a critical condition, appearing in two of the three expected high-performance pathways. This indicates that redistribution, resale, and recycling practices offer an effective and accessible entry point for reducing waste while enhancing expected profitability and brand recognition, particularly where resources are limited.
Importantly, the results demonstrate that there is no single optimal strategy for implementing FWM. Instead, managers should adopt a configuration-based approach, aligning practices with their resource profile and strategic priorities. Efficiency-driven investments are most suitable where cost reduction is the primary objective, engagement-driven approaches are more effective where customer experience and loyalty are central, and hybrid strategies are appropriate where firms seek to balance operational and reputational gains. This enables managers to prioritize high-impact practices rather than attempting to implement all FWM initiatives simultaneously.
The appropriate configuration also varies by firm size. For resource-constrained SMEs—which dominate the sample—prioritizing efficiency-driven practices (Configuration 3) is likely to yield the most immediate expected financial returns. Practical entry points include FIFO rotation, vacuum sealing, and improved storage, with more advanced options such as automated ordering and inventory systems supporting further efficiency gains.
Mid-sized enterprises can adopt Configuration 1 by combining menu redesign and portion control with structured leftover handling channels. For example, surplus food can be monetized through digital platforms such as TABETE and Too Good To Go, while donations to local organizations can strengthen brand image and customer loyalty (Jang et al., 2024; Sathatip et al., 2025).
Larger establishments and chain-affiliated operators are better positioned to implement engagement-driven strategies (Configuration 2), leveraging scale to invest in staff training and customer-facing interventions such as menu prompts and informational cues. These practices are particularly relevant in the Japanese context, where recent policy initiatives aim to normalize leftover takeaway behavior. Experimental evidence indicates that informational and normative cues—such as menu inserts, posters, and table cards encouraging customers to consume their meals fully or to take any uneaten food home—not only reduce waste but also enhance service perceptions and customer relationships (Stöckli et al., 2018), consistent with the Enlightened Self-Interest Model.
Overall, the findings underscore the importance of strategic prioritization. Firms can achieve strong expected performance outcomes by focusing on specific combinations of practices aligned with their capabilities and context, rather than pursuing comprehensive adoption. Finally, the study has important policy implications. In Japan, where food waste represents a significant economic loss and reduction targets are increasingly ambitious, the findings provide evidence-based guidance on how different configurations of FWM practices can support both business performance and national sustainability goals. More broadly, the results highlight the potential for FWM to generate both economic and societal value, reinforcing its role as a strategic lever for sustainable competitiveness.
Limitations and directions for future research
The results, while rigorous, should be interpreted considering several limitations. First, the study is context-specific. As the sample was drawn exclusively from urban regions of Japan, the country’s institutional environment—including its active policy efforts to reduce food waste, such as the Act on Promotion of Reduction of Food Waste (2019) and the Act on Promotion of Recycling and Related Activities for Treatment of Cyclical Food Resources (2019)—may shape the FWM behaviors observed. In contrast, countries with weaker regulatory frameworks or lower prioritization of food waste may exhibit different FWM configurations. Furthermore, the focus on three major metropolitan areas limits the generalizability of the findings, as foodservice businesses in smaller cities and rural areas may operate under different constraints. Future research should therefore replicate this study across diverse national and non-metropolitan contexts, with cross-national comparisons offering particular value in understanding how institutional settings influence FWM practices and their expected performance implications.
Second, there is an inherent degree of subjectivity in the application of fsQCA. The calibration of variables into fuzzy sets requires the specification of thresholds for full membership, crossover, and full non-membership. Although these thresholds were informed by theory, prior research, and data characteristics, they involve researcher judgment and may influence results (Kumar et al., 2024). Future research could address this limitation by combining fsQCA with complementary methodological approaches, such as in-depth case studies or experimental designs, to provide richer insights into how FWM practices are implemented in practice.
Third, firm performance was measured using managers’ expectations of future outcomes rather than objective financial indicators. While perceptual measures are widely used in SME and tourism research, they may be subject to biases, including managerial optimism. In addition, the cross-sectional design does not allow for verification of whether these expected outcomes are realized over time. This also limits the ability to observe how configurations and underlying mechanisms evolve over time. Future research could address this limitation by employing longitudinal designs and incorporating objective performance data to validate the relationship between FWM practices and firm performance and to capture long-term effects.
Finally, future research could further extend this work by examining how FWM configurations evolve over time in response to regulatory changes and shifting consumer expectations. Comparative studies between SMEs and larger hospitality firms would also provide valuable insight into how resource availability shapes the effectiveness of different configurations. In addition, investigating consumer responses to FWM initiatives—particularly how they influence brand loyalty and purchasing behavior—would help clarify how internal operational strategies translate into external market outcomes.
Footnotes
Ethical considerations
The study was reviewed and approved by the Human Subject Research Review Committee at Tohoku Gakuin University. Approval number 2023-028.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author biographies
Construct measurement
Item
Procurement, stock management and storage
Purchasing supplies from local businesses
Forecasting customer demand to ensure we do not over purchase stock
Forecasting and planning ingredients required
Having proper storage facilities and processes
Managing kitchen errors, mishandlings, and lack of balance in ingredients
Ordering on daily basis
Menu and product design
We use seasonal ingredients in our menu items
Changing menu items to control the use of our stock
Including smaller portions on the menu
Changing the menu items to ensure stock can be utilised
Changing prices of menu items to help them to sell quickly
Implementing flexible daily menus
Staff and customer engagement
Donating any excess food to staff
Increasing staff awareness, commitment, and involvement in food waste management
Encouraging cooperation between staff and the customers about food waste
Encouraging customers to take leftovers home
Encouraging customers to finish their food- e.g., having signs on the restaurant walls about food waste
Leftover handling
Donating any excess food to charity
Separating food waste
Composting food waste
Using leftover stock to feed animals
Expected future business performance
Please estimate how you expect this business to perform in the next 12 months in:
Sales and revenue
Market share
Adoption of new technologies
Number of full-time staff
Number of part-time/casual staff