Journal of Foodservice Business Research

ISSN: 1537-8020 (Print) 1537-8039 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/wfbr20

A cross industry evaluation of food waste in

restaurants

Bruce McAdams, Mike von Massow, Monica Gallant & Mychal-Ann Hayhoe

To cite this article: Bruce McAdams, Mike von Massow, Monica Gallant & Mychal-Ann Hayhoe
(2019) A cross industry evaluation of food waste in restaurants, Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, 22:5, 449-466, DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2019.1637220

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2019.1637220

Published online: 27 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5308

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 52 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wfbr20
JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH
2019, VOL. 22, NO. 5, 449–466
https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2019.1637220

A cross industry evaluation of food waste in restaurants

Bruce McAdamsa, Mike von Massowb, Monica Gallantb and Mychal-Ann Hayhoea
a
School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada;
b
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study used a sequential explanatory approach to examine food Restaurant; food waste;
waste across four sectors of the restaurant industry. Researchers used plate waste
a Food Delivery System Framework, that was developed based on
extensive industry experience and exploratory interviews with partici-
pating restaurants, to measure the generation of food waste and
observe management efforts to mitigate it. Restaurants studied were
located in southwestern Ontario, Canada, and represented the quick-
service, limited-service, casual-dining, and fine-dining sectors of the
industry. Food waste was collected and measured for a 28-day period.
The research team also observed food preparation and production
during business operation and interviewed management personnel.
Results showed that all restaurants made substantial efforts to mitigate
waste. We found that controls and processes used to limit waste varied
depending on the many aspects of the operation’s food delivery system.
The most consistent factor affecting food waste across the participating
restaurants was the presence of quality assurance standards. The fine-
dining restaurant generated the most food waste due in part to its use
of ‘whole’ products and the associated waste generated in preparation.
The limited-service restaurant generated the least amount of waste
resulting from high volume and a lack of standardization and quality
assurance controls. The casual-dining restaurant had the highest
amount of plate waste resulting from a menu development strategy
to create value by having large portions. We suggest that while quality
assurance standards don’t allow for some food to be served to custo-
mers, this edible food should not be thrown out without first trying to
find a channel for human consumption.

Introduction
Food waste has an increasing profile in both the media and academic literature. While
research on food waste in the food-service sector exists, institutional settings such as
hospitals and school cafeterias are most often examined as data can more easily be
obtained. A good proportion of the research has focused on food waste from the
perspective of lost nutrition for school children or hospital patients, rather than under-
standing the waste stream more generally. Significant anecdotal evidence exists demon-
strating food waste throughout the supply chain, from primary producer through to
consumer (Bloom, 2011; Stuart, 2009; Sundt, 2012). However, there remains a need for

CONTACT Bruce McAdams [email protected] School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management,
University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wfbr.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
450 B. MCADAMS ET AL.

more academically rigorous research. Our present research interest is in understanding

where food is wasted in restaurants, how it becomes waste, and why it is wasted.
Global food waste data shows an estimated 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted
each year (Eindhoven, 2013; FAO, 2013). Despite some criticism of the size of these
estimates (Bellemare, Çakir, Peterson, Novak, & Rudi, 2017), there is no question that
a large volume of food waste is being generated. This estimated amount of food waste
alone is enough to feed a world population of 7 billion people. Given the world is poised
to reach 9 billion people by 2050 and a conservative estimate of peak human population of
greater than 10 billion is projected by 2100, food waste is a concern not only from an
environmental perspective, but also through a social, economic and food security lens
(Principato, Pratesi, & Secondi, 2018; UN, 2013).
The economic rationale for reducing food waste is of significant interest to restaurants as they
purchase food and then must pay to have waste hauled away. Therefore, highlighting the
economic impact of food waste can serve as an incentive for prevention in restaurants
(Heikkilä, Reinikainen, Katajajuuri, Silvennoinen, & Hartikainen, 2016). However, a certain
amount of waste has historically been incorporated into their costing models and is subsequently
passed on to consumers through higher menu prices. Given increasing industry competition,
rising costs of food and growing consumer awareness of how restaurants deal with environ-
mental issues, there is more pressure than ever before on restaurants to effectively manage their
food waste. As the amount of food prepared outside the home increases in Canada each year
(NPDGroup, 2014), the need for research in this field becomes more apparent.
Restaurants must manage food waste in all parts of their operations from front to back
of house. The back of house area in typical restaurants can be divided into preparation
stations, production stations, dishwashing stations and storage locations such as refrig-
erators, freezers, coolers and shelves. These key areas can be used to divide the restaurant
into obvious food waste zones. Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama (2004) identified five
types of food losses in foodservice: losses that occur as a result of storage; preparation
losses, such as peels and skins that are discarded during the production function; service
losses, including food that remains in service vessels after use; leftovers, or food that is
prepared but never served and finally; plate waste, or what the diner leaves on the plate.
Some research has been conducted to determine which station or area in restaurants
generates the most waste. An early study completed in 1985, indicated that several attributes
including portion and number of food items may be related to food waste in restaurants
(Collison & Colwill, 1986). In their report entitled “Estimating and Addressing America’s
Food Losses,” Kantor, Lipton, Manchester, and Oliveira (1997) noted plate waste from food-
service was a significant contributor to America’s overall food system loss. These findings
were echoed by Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama (2004) who found that plate waste
constituted 50% of total waste in the foodservice establishments studied. However, evidence
in this area is so far inconclusive. An SRA report found the majority of food waste (65%)
was accounted for in food preparation, while plate waste registered only 30% of the loss
(2010). Furthermore, a study of food waste in two non-commercial food-service establish-
ments in Switzerland found that the largest area of waste was from serving losses, with
starch and vegetable accompaniments constituting the bulk of waste in this area. These
findings are similar to a food waste study done by von Massow and McAdams (2015)
showing higher levels of waste in cheap, carbohydrate heavy side items such as fries.
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 451

Although understanding the volume and composition of food waste is important, it is

crucial to also consider the factors that contribute to food waste generation. In order to
address this previously identified research gap, several studies have developed holistic food
waste quantification frameworks that offer a schematic model for addressing food waste in
restaurants (Eriksson et al., 2018; Heikkilä et al., 2016; Papargyropoulou et al., 2016).
However, these studies have been conducted outside of the Canadian context and fail to
consider the many ways in which Canada’s food-service industry differs. The conflicting
nature of information regarding the composition of food waste as well as the lack of
Canadian-context specific food waste frameworks makes further investigations in this area
necessary.
Using a mixed methods approach involving first the collection and analysis of quanti-
tative data followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data, this sequential
explanatory study identifies areas of food waste based on the area of generation at the
food-service operation. Restaurants from all segments of the food-service industry were
sampled to allow for a comparison on where food waste is created and the different
management tools that are used to mitigate it across the industry. The restaurant industry
has a diverse make-up with varying preparation and production methods, as well as
service delivery systems. A general understanding of issues across sectors as well as
some food waste data will help focus both educational and managerial efforts leading to
more sustainable restaurant food systems.

Canadian restaurant industry overview

According to Restaurants Canada’s Food Service Facts 2018 report, there are currently
97,000 restaurants, bars and caterers in Canada (Restaurants Canada, 2018). Restaurants
in Canada vary significantly in style and operational practices based on their food
production method, pricing, physical design and service delivery method, among other
factors. It is therefore likely that food waste generation varies depending on the style of the
restaurant. In Canada, the four largest commercial restaurant sectors are quick-service,
limited-service, casual dining, and fine dining (GECapital, 2015). Each sector possesses
a different approach to food production, food delivery as well as value creation and will
therefore generate food waste accordingly. Research comparing food waste among sectors
could be valuable in educating industry and highlighting areas of opportunity for
improvement. Table 1 provides a brief overview of the different categories of restaurants
based on our review of the industry.

Methodology
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the following, in the context of various
commercial restaurant settings.

(1) To evaluate total food waste generated.

(2) To evaluate and compare sources of food waste generation.
(3) To establish and evaluate factors that contributed to food waste.
(4) To develop and test a Food Delivery Service Framework for the evaluation of food waste.
452 B. MCADAMS ET AL.

Table 1. Canadian restaurant sector segments.

Level of Average
Sector Food Preparation Food Quality Service Check Menu Size
Quick-Service Pre-or partially Cost driven, frozen, pre- Counter $5-$8 Few offerings,
Restaurants cooked prepared and portioned Service combo driven
(QSR)
Limited-Service Made to order Fresh and frozen, some pre- Limited table $8-$12 Large menu, create
Dining prepared service your own
Casual Dining Made to order Fresh and frozen, some pre- Full-Service $15-$30 Very large menu
prepared dining room with broad appeal
Fine Dining Scratch cooking, Highest quality items Full-Service $40 and Small menu,
Chef run kitchen dining room above changes regularly

In order to guide the research process, the Food Delivery System Framework (FDSF)
(Table 2) was developed prior to beginning formal quantitative and qualitative data
collection. The FDSF was developed based on extensive industry experience and explora-
tory interviews with participating restaurants. By using this framework as a guide,
researchers were able to provide structure for this project while also testing out and
refining a novel framework that will facilitate future research in this area.

Participating restaurants
In the fall of 2016, the authors enlisted the participation of restaurants representing each
of the four major categories of dining as described in section 2.0. Restaurants were
selected based on fitting the criteria in Table 1 and their willingness and ability to
participate in the study. Each restaurant was asked to commit to four weeks of food
waste data collection as well as permitting researchers to observe their operation and
interview management personnel. Given the strict study inclusion criteria and resource
intensive nature of participation, recruitment was limited to only one restaurant repre-
senting each of the four foodservice sectors.
All restaurants were located in southwestern Ontario within the same competitive
marketplace. The quick-service restaurant is a franchised unit of one of Canada’s largest
burger chains. The restaurant is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and serves
approximately 3200 dine-in, take-out and drive-thru customers per week. The limited-
service operation is a 105 seat, dine-in or take-out facility. It is located on a University
campus and serves close to 1000 meals a day during its busy season. It is independently
owned and operated by the University student union. The restaurant is open for breakfast,
lunch and dinner from Monday to Friday and serves an equal amount of dine-in and take-
out customers. The casual restaurant is a 240 seat dine-in restaurant open for lunch and
dinner seven days a week. The restaurant is one of four owned by a regional restaurant
brand. The restaurant serves approximately 3000 guests a week. The fine dining restaurant
is a small 50 seat independent restaurant. It is open for dinner five days a week and serves
between 300–500 customers per week depending on the time of year.

Observation of food delivery system

All restaurants have a system that manages the flow of food from the supplier to the
restaurant meals. These systems start with menu development and include; recipes, choice
Table 2. Restaurant food delivery system framework.
System
Component Sub-components Desired Outcome
Menu How often does it change? 1. To determine how menus are developed with regards to their components and
development Menu size and variety? portion sizes.
Are daily specials offered? 2. To determine how and why menu items are changed.
How is portion size determined when developing a menu item?
Recipes Are standard recipes used in preparation of food? If so, how are they determined? 1. To understand how portion sizes are determined.
How are recipes presented to employees (photos, ‘spec’ sheets, etc.) and how are they 2. To examine how closely recipes are followed and managed by staff.
trained on following them?
Choice of How many suppliers are used? 1. To determine how often perishables arrive in the restaurant.
supplier How often are deliveries? 2. To determine suppliers’ methods for managing the life cycle of products.
What products do you receive that are partially prepared or processed? 3. To examine the level of processing of perishables upon arrival.
Inventory Is food waste accounted for in the budgeted food cost? 1. To determine the impact of physical space on inventory.
Management Is there a cap on food inventory? 2. To examine how closely inventories are managed.
Are Actual vs. Theoretical inventories conducted?
Forecasting Is there guest count forecasting? 1. To understand how food preparation and production quantities are determined.
Is software used or is it done manually? 2. To understand the accuracy of guest and food forecasting.
How often is there excess food or else not enough of particular items during service?
Ordering Who does the ordering and when? 1. To understand the ordering system in place.
How is the ordering done (manually or through a software application)? 2. To examine how order levels are determined.
3. To understand who is responsible for ordering and how often ordering takes place.
Storage Where is food stored? 1. To examine whether physical limitations exist for food storage.
How is product ‘date marked’ both pre-and post-production? 2. To determine if a FIFO (First In, First Out) system is in place.
3.To examine the system used (if any) that ensures proper ‘rotation’ of product.
Preparation Who does food preparation? 1. To understand how food preparation levels are determined.
What system is used to manage levels of food preparation? 2.To examine the level of expertise of food prep staff and how closely the production
Are scales or other tools used to ensure portion control? area of the kitchen is monitored.
Production Who is doing the cooking at the restaurant? 1.To determine employees’ skill level.
What tools and equipment are used to ensure proper cooking and portion control? 2. To examine the processes and systems in place to ensure the proper cooking of
What products are thrown out at the end of a shift? food.
Quality What is the policy on throwing food out? 1.To determine whether employees feel empowered to make decisions regarding food
Assurance Who has the authority to throw food out? that is served or not.
2.To examine the policies that exist regarding when food is to be discarded and how
JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH

those policies are enforced.

453
454 B. MCADAMS ET AL.

of supplier, forecasting, inventory management, ordering, storage, cooking procedures,

portioning and plating instruction as well as quality assurance standards. Based on
researchers’ extensive industry experience and exploratory interviews, the research team
developed a Food Delivery System Framework (Table 2) to guide observation and docu-
ment analysis. The researchers then spent 4–6 hours studying each restaurant’s food
delivery system. As part of this procedure, documents, software, policy guidelines and
training materials were reviewed.
Researchers also spent two meal periods observing ‘service’ in each of the participating
restaurants. Researchers were positioned in the kitchen to observe preparation and production
practices while customers were being served in the dining area. Researchers were permitted to
ask staff questions throughout the observation period. In the full-service restaurants where
plate waste was measured, the kind of food being returned from the customers was observed
and noted.

Measurement of food waste

Participating restaurants agreed to collect food waste data for a period of four weeks. The
amount of data collection varied between establishments based on the number of days the
restaurant was open. Researchers spent the first few days of the study at each restaurant,
training staff and management on how to collect and measure food waste. Four garbage
cans were provided throughout the kitchens and were labelled and color-coded based on
the type of food waste that they were to be used for. Data collection and measurement
charts with waste categories were also provided for recording data. Staff were educated on
the different waste categories and the chef on duty was responsible for weighing, using the
industrial scale provided, and dumping the collected waste each night. Identifying signa-
tures were required by staff on duty in order to track compliance.
For the purposes of this research, food waste was defined as “any food that is not
consumed by humans and can be generated at any level within the food chain” (Okazaki,
Turn, & Flachsbart, 2008). Furthermore, waste was categorized in line with the types of
waste described by Engström and Carlsson-Kanyama (2004). In this research, preparation
and service loss were combined as production waste to facilitate data collection. The
categories used are defined as:

● Spoilage: food that is in the storage areas of the restaurant and was purchased with
the intention to serve to customers, but, for any reason, was disposed of and not
prepared for the customers;
● Preparation waste: all food that is lost while food is prepared for cooking or before plating;
● Production waste: all food that is lost between the time after it is prepared for service
but before it is served to the customer. This includes items that are over-cooked,
items that are dropped, items that are left stuck to the cooking dish, etc.;
● Plate waste: food that went out to the diner but, for any reason, was not consumed
and came back to the dish washing area and;
● Unidentifiable: Any food waste generated of which the origin was unclear or uncer-
tain. Given the fast-paced nature of the restaurant industry, it is possible that the
origin of some food waste will be difficult to determine and may fall into this fifth
category.
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 455

Given the service style of the various restaurants, plate waste data could not be collected
in all four establishments. In the QSR and the limited-service restaurant examined,
a significant portion of food purchased is served in takeout containers and is consumed
off-site. Therefore, any plate waste in these two establishments could not be calculated.

Semi-structured interviews (qualitative)

Modelling a participatory action research approach that requires the involvement of both
participants and a research group in addressing research questions, restaurant managers
and Chefs were available to answer questions about their restaurant’s food system as well
as food waste in general (Cornwall, 1995). The FDSF was used as a guideline for the
discussion. This allowed researchers to gain greater insight and ensured a thorough
analysis of all ten components of the framework as well as consistent evaluation to
facilitate between restaurant comparisons.

Results
Food waste generation was first observed from a quantitative perspective. Although
working with four commercial restaurants proved challenging and created some research
design limitations, good data on both quantities and sources of waste was still obtained.
Analysis and reflection based on this data collection enabled researchers to then focus
their efforts on the qualitative part of the research.

Food waste collection

Total food waste data
Since plate waste could not be measured in all four restaurants, total waste generated
(without plate waste) per customer was observed. Table 3 presents the data for the four
restaurants graphically. The fine dining restaurant had the highest per customer waste
(statistically significantly higher than all three p ≤ 0.01). Quick-service and casual had
similar average per customer waste (no difference statistically) while the limited-service
restaurant had the absolute lowest average waste per customer (lower than all three
p ≤ 0.01). This is likely due, in part, to the number of customers. The limited-service
restaurant served an average of 1,002 customers per day during the sample period whereas
the quick-service, casual and fine dining restaurants served an average of 381, 286 and 73
customers respectively.
Figure 1 presents several interesting observations. First, it can be noted that there is
often a tradeoff between preparation waste and production waste as you go from quick-
service restaurants through to casual and fine dining. It seems that the proportion of waste
categorized as preparation waste increases alongside level of service and complexity of the
menu. Furthermore, the weight of spoilage and production waste was statistically signifi-
cantly higher in the fine dining restaurant than for the other three. On the other hand, the
limited-service restaurant had the lowest level of food waste, a difference that was
statistically significant. It should be noted that the proportion of unidentifiable waste
was much higher in the limited-service restaurant. However, even if all of the unidentifi-
able waste is allocated to production waste, the previous statement still holds true.
456 B. MCADAMS ET AL.

Table 3. Analysis of food waste weight for each restaurant (Grams per Customer per Day).
Total
food
waste
Total (without
food plate
Spoilage Preparation Production Plate Unidentifiable waste waste)
Quick-Service 1.46 (2.4%) 27.35 (46.1%) 28.98 (48.9%) Unable to collect 1.5 (2.5%) n/a 59.28
Limited-Service 0.34 (2.1%) 2.96 (17.9%) 3.65 (22.1%) Unable to collect 9.58 (58%) n/a 16.53
Casual Dining 4.1 (11.7%) 28.44 (53.1%) 18.05 (34.0%) 46.23 2.47 (4.7%) 99.29 53.06
Fine Dining 23.03 (9.7%) 176.37 (74.6%) 36.92 (15.6%) 24.76 0 (0.0%) 261.09 236.33
Note. *values in parentheses represent percentages of total food waste without plate waste

Figure 1. Daily total food waste generation in grams per customer.

Plate waste data

Plate waste was only compared between the casual and fine dining restaurants. Figure 2
shows the per customer daily volumes of plate waste between the two. In this case, the fine
dining restaurant had a statistically significantly (p < .0001) lower plate waste per
customer (46 grams versus 25 grams). It is hypothesized that this has to do with both
portion size and cost however, this particular finding merits further attention.
The relationship between types of waste within restaurants was analyzed using the
Pearson correlation co-efficient. In the high volume limited-service and quick-service
restaurants, there was a significant (p ≤ 0.01) negative correlation between production
waste per person and the number of customers served. This makes intuitive sense given
production waste is food prepared and not served. If food is prepared in anticipation of
more customers dining than are actually served, waste is expected to be higher. In the fine
dining restaurant, there was a statistically significant (p = .021) negative correlation
between preparation waste per customer and the number of customers served. In this
restaurant style, there is significantly less preparation of complete meals ahead of time.
Instead, whole ingredients are prepared ahead of time, in anticipation of predicted
number of customers. Thus, if estimations are incorrect, greater production waste may
be generated. There were no other significant correlations.
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 457

Figure 2. Plate waste generated each day in grams per guest.

Observation and interviews

The Food Service Delivery System Framework (Table 2) was then used as a guideline
when conducting semi-structured interviews with restaurant management. This included
time spent with management at each operation reviewing both documents and software
used to manage the food delivery system. Great variance existed between restaurants as no
two systems were the same. While one operation had proprietary software to manage
almost every aspect of the process, another relied on management’s experience and their
“feel” for the market and operation. The remaining two operations used some combina-
tion of both.
The Food Service Delivery System Framework has also been used to guide the results
section examining each type of food-service operation. To simplify evaluation,
a condensed version of the framework is presented as a flowchart in Figure 3. This
flowchart highlights the three main areas of the framework upon which the results section
is based (Planning, Pre-Service and Service).

Quick-service restaurant (QSR)

Planning. As part of a national chain, menus are determined by the corporate office for
all locations and recipes are standardized. Menus are small and remain consistent, with
the exception of one promotional item that usually runs alongside the core menu. The
restaurant uses two suppliers, one for bread items and a national wholesale distributor for
all other products.

Pre-service. The restaurant relied on corporate software in all aspects of the food delivery
system. A budgeted food cost is set for the restaurant with a built-in percentage allocated
for food waste. The value of this waste allocation was not provided to the researchers.
Programs generated forecasted guest counts based on historical trends and maintained up
to the minute inventories of all products. Orders and production levels were generated by
the restaurant’s software and checked by management.
458 B. MCADAMS ET AL.

Figure 3. Restaurant food delivery system framework flowchart.

Service. Preparation methods for menu items are highly standardized and there are
specification sheets for all processes. Even with simplified and specific procedures, man-
agement believes that a young and low skilled workforce with high turnover contributes
greatly to any food waste they generate. Portion sizes and cooking times are also standar-
dized and adherence to these standards is monitored by management. Running out of any
food item at any time is considered a serious infraction of corporate policy.
Little food preparation was done in the restaurant with the exception of lettuce, onion,
and tomato that was used as a component of the various burgers and sandwiches.
Imperfect product was not allowed to be used as per corporate specifications, meaning
any blemished or under-ripe tomatoes as well as the outside leaves of head lettuce were
often discarded. Quality assurance played a significant role in food waste generation.
Holding times of 12 minutes for french fries, 15 minutes for onion rings, and 30 minutes
for par-cooked burgers was a major contributor to food waste.

Main observations. The major observation in the QSR was the degree to which the food
system was standardized. The process had a production mentality and food was viewed as
a commodity. Management believed they wasted a significant quantity of food, even
though the data suggests otherwise. This may be the result of a fixation on effective cost
management. When asked about how they feel when food is wasted, the response was “it
is a waste of money and leads to us not meeting our budgeted food cost for the period”.

Limited-service restaurant
Planning. The limited-service restaurant is an independent operation and creates its own
menu items. The General Manager determines new items based on her read of the market.
Most of the food items come from a regional wholesale distributor with orders being made
by the Kitchen Manager or the General Manager online. The majority of the menu items
are prepared and served without any cooking. The General Manager writes recipes for
new items and the Kitchen Manager is responsible for ensuring adherence by staff. The
restaurant works closely with its main supplier and pays a premium to order pre-prepared
items. An example of this is grilled chicken which comes to the restaurant pre-cooked and
pre-portioned. Management at the location has moved to this type of purchasing where
possible because of a low skilled team of employees that turns over annually.

Pre-service. Storage space is limited, and food volume is high, so deliveries are received
daily. Inventory levels are taken at the end of the day for products. Orders are formed on
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 459

forecasting made by the General Manager based on manual records of past guest count
numbers.

Service. All members of the management team are involved in helping prepare and
produce food items during busy periods. Food is prepared to order with sandwiches
and salads being the majority of items sold. This is the only restaurant studied where
employees were allowed to eat food that was prepared by mistake or was considered
leftover. Researchers observed this practice on every visit to the operation.

Main observations. Management’s major focus seemed to be the supervision of the food
production system. The management team took obvious pride in the fact that they have
little food waste. This food waste consciousness may be an important factor in reducing
waste. Parizeau, von Massow, and Martin (2015) found that households that thought
about food waste, generated less waste. Somewhat contrary, Russell, Young, Unsworth,
and Robinson (2017) found that negative feelings about wasting food in people resulted in
higher levels of food waste behavior, demonstrating the complex relationship between
attitudes and food waste behavior.

Casual dining restaurant

Planning. The casual dining restaurant examined in this study changed its menu quar-
terly. Menu items were determined by the company’s executive management team includ-
ing the corporate chef. Items had to align with the restaurant’s marketing proposition of
‘serving local food’ while showing the potential to have broad customer appeal. Portion
size was a key component of deciding how items were designed as more food on a plate
was equated with a better value proposition for the customer. Most menu items were
made from scratch and are prepared “a la minute”. Management estimates that 20% of the
food served at this restaurant is purchased in some form of pre-prepared manner.

Pre-service. The restaurant used approximately 12 food suppliers with the majority of
items being supplied by a regional distributor and produce supplier. Delivery for produce
was daily with other deliveries arriving as needed. The company used a software applica-
tion that managed their inventory, ordering, as well as calculating both food cost and an
actual versus theoretical (A vs. T) food waste percentage. Forecasting for guest count was
done manually based on point-of-sale record keeping but was entered into the software
application to generate orders and food production sheets. This operation has abundant
storage space and uses a system where dates are written on colored tape to indicate the day
a product was made.

Service. Recipes are available for all items and are located in the food production area.
Pre-service check lists are the extent of quality assurance. There is no holding time for
products as cooks are expected to use their judgement when deciding if food should be
thrown out. The exception to this was the many side dishes such as mashed potatoes, that
were cooked ahead of time and held warm for service. These items generated waste at the
end of meal periods and although staff were not allowed to eat this food at the restaurant,
they were able to take it home if they brought their own food containers. Finally, a trained
460 B. MCADAMS ET AL.

Chef runs the kitchen but there remains high turnover in other positions resulting in
varied skill level.

Main observations. Management felt they had a good control of food waste but that
there was room for improvement. They felt that the biggest opportunity for food waste
mitigation was in the preparation area, although the data collected showed that produc-
tion waste was roughly half of plate waste generated. While kitchen management at this
location is active in the preparation and production area, observation suggested that the
servers and dishwasher dealt largely with plate waste. When asked about which menu
items generated the most food waste, these two groups of employees had very accurate
impressions. Researchers observed generated plate waste and found it was composed
mostly of carbohydrates such as french fries and flatbread crusts. An interesting finding
was that many of the sauces served to accompany the main course, were returned and
thrown out un-used. An example of this is tartar sauce for fish and chips. This is
consistent with the findings of von Massow and McAdams (2015).
As a restaurant whose brand is about environmental sustainability, waste of any kind is
taken seriously. The restaurant had previously weighed all the food waste they generated
daily for an entire month. This restaurant stood out to researchers as the one whose
culture was partly defined by its “respect for food”.

Fine dining restaurant

Planning. The fine dining establishment’s menu is small and changes constantly. The
Chef and owner determines menu items and uses daily specials to trial new items. Recipes
are written down, passed on from cook to cook and kept in cooks’ journals. The menu is
seasonal with vegetable components determined by what is fresh and in season. The
restaurant uses many specialty suppliers including butchers, foragers, cheese and fish
mongers and other artisan producers. Larger staple items are purchased through
a regional distributor. The Chef is an experienced and classically trained Chef and has
a team of highly skilled and experienced cooks.

Pre-service. Forecasting, ordering and inventory are all done manually using clipboards,
pencils and calculators. Cooks use tape and markers to record production dates on
products. The Chef and General Manager counts on their own experience and under-
standing of the marketplace to predict business levels and manage products. The kitchen is
very small with limited storage space resulting in small and frequent deliveries.

Service. The Chef works side by side with cooks in the preparation of food every day.
Food waste is not recorded and there are no formal quality assurance procedures in place.
Everything in a quality aspect is determined by the Chef who works every shift and is ever
present in the kitchen.
The kitchen is very efficient and uses a stock pot advantageously for odds and ends of
food products that may have otherwise been thrown out. While the stock pot draws
flavors and nutrients from food to make stocks, the majority of the weight of food going
into it is not consumed by customers. It should be noted that stock pot waste was
measured as part of food preparation weights. Specials are also used on a daily basis,
often to use up excess product. The high level of skill resulted in little if any mistakes in
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 461

production during the researchers’ observations. Similar to the casual dining restaurant,
there was food waste generated at the end of the meal period. This was composed mostly
of vegetables and sauces that were made to accompany main entrée items and were
prepared ahead of time. For quality assurance reasons, they were not able to be used
a second day and thus were thrown out. It was observed that little food came back from
the dining room uneaten. The two main components of plate waste measured were bone
and oyster shells. Portion sizes of food at this restaurant were noticeably smaller in
comparison to the casual dining operation.

Main observations. The Chef of the restaurant felt they had very little, if any, food waste.
When asked about the large amount of leafy greens that were thrown out because of
quality assurance, the Chef responded, ‘That’s not food waste because we can’t serve it’.
Additionally, the restaurant butchers a lot of meat and seafood in-house resulting in
greater preparation waste.

Discussion
All participating restaurants had practices to mitigate food waste. Management in all four of
the restaurants was largely motivated by financial reasons, namely the relationship between
managing food cost and profitability. We found that controls and processes used to limit waste
varied depending on the many aspects of the operation’s food delivery system.
While Collison and Colwill (1986) found that menus with more items generated more food
waste, our findings suggest that a restaurant’s approach to menu development, preparation,
and production procedures, rather than the size of the menu, will dictate their potential for
generating food waste. French fries can be used to illustrate this point. At the quick-service
restaurant, french fries account for one quarter of the weight of all food ordered. The product
arrives pre-prepared (peeled and cut) and is stored frozen until cooked ahead of orders and
eventually held warm for a maximum of 15 minutes. French fries cooked at the casual
restaurant are brought in as potatoes, peeled and cut in-house, and then deep fried to order.
The majority of french fry food waste at the quick-service restaurant is from the production
area, as opposed to the casual restaurant where waste occurs during preparation.
Previous studies have shown that plate waste is a significant contributor to food waste
(Thyberg & Tonjes, 2016). Of the two restaurants in which plate waste could be examined,
our results show that the casual restaurant had a significantly higher volume of plate waste
than the fine dining restaurant. We observed that the portion size of menu items as well as
menu development played a contributing factor in the volume of plate waste generated.
Overall, the fine dining and the casual dining restaurant had considerably different
approaches to menu construction. The approach at the fine dining restaurant was all
about the quality of the product. Since higher quality products cost more, portion sizes
were smaller than at the casual restaurant. On the other hand, the casual restaurant
strategically designed menu items to fill the plate and thus impart a sense of value for
the customer. In order to achieve this, they used lower price carbohydrate items such as
potatoes, rice and bread to fill out plates. Management knew and accepted that a certain
percentage of food would be coming back to the kitchen uneaten. This decision was made
consciously to stay competitive in their marketplace. This highlights the tradeoffs inherent
in food waste reduction efforts.
462 B. MCADAMS ET AL.

The fine dining restaurant had the highest food waste per customer in our study.
Observations at the restaurant made it apparent that this restaurant was using the greatest
volume of ‘whole’ products compared to the other establishments. Romaine lettuce used to
make a salad came in whole as ‘heads’ of lettuce at the fine dining establishment. Outer leaves
that were blemished as well as the lettuce stem were removed and discarded as preparation
waste. The same lettuce served in a similar salad at the limited-service restaurant is supplied
pre-cut and washed, ready to use directly out of the bag. Food waste is therefore generated up
the supply chain, before it reaches the restaurant and it is determined by the efficiencies of
food processors versus practices used in the kitchen. Pre-prepared versus whole food products
is thus a considerable factor in the generation of waste in restaurants.
The type of food waste generated at the production stage brings up the concept of
avoidable versus unavoidable food waste. Generally, avoidable waste refers to food that
was at one point edible (i.e. a banana turned mushy) and unavoidable is a food that at no
point would be considered edible (i.e. a banana peel) (Papargyropoulou, Lozano,
Steinberger, Wright, & Bin Ujang, 2014). Restaurants receiving whole ingredients that
are processed and prepared in-house will generate more unavoidable food waste.
Although this practice may result in a greater total volume of food waste, it may not
accurately reflect the restaurant’s food waste practices and awareness. There was no
differentiation made between avoidable and unavoidable food waste in this particular
study, but it is a subject that merits further research in this context.
In regard to the pre-service component of the FDSF, individual restaurants used different
forecasting, ordering, and inventory systems. Record keeping and the ability to predict menu
items that will be sold play an important role in minimizing waste. Software used for
forecasting customer counts proved valuable in limiting food waste. In fact, a review of
surplus food management found that food surplus in restaurants was largely the result of
errors in demand forecasting (Garrone, Melacini, & Peregeo, 2014). Technology used in
ordering and inventory seemed only to save time as opposed to limiting waste. Three of the
four restaurants had incredibly small kitchens, with two of them requiring additional storage
outside their main building. These restaurants seemed to have advanced systems in dealing
with inventory due to the physical limitations of their kitchens.
During service, the most consistent factor affecting waste across all restaurants was the
presence of quality assurance practices and standards. We classify these practices and
standards into three categories; ‘whole’ food appearance and quality (based on how an
item looks in its original state), finished product appearance and quality (when something
has been prepared but cannot be served to customers) and finally, finished product
expiration times (holding times of prepared products).
Our data showed that the limited-service restaurant had the fewest quality control proce-
dures and the least standardized production process. Interestingly, they also generated the
lowest amount of food waste per customer. It was observed that a tomato slice that would not
be used at the quick-service restaurant due to under ripeness, was used at the limited-service
restaurant where such standards were not in place. Furthermore, it was observed to be
acceptable practice to run out of a menu item at the limited-service restaurant and the culture
was noticeably different than the other three operations in that the focus was on handling the
volume of business as opposed to adhering to standards.
The quick-service restaurant had a similar commitment to speed of service and a high
level of volume, but the food-delivery process was highly automated to help with
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 463

efficiencies and quality control. The casual dining restaurant had standards and ‘checks’ in
place as well as a food centric culture which worked as a strong quality assurance system.
Cooks felt that if food that was slightly overdone, the ‘right thing to do’ was to dispose of
it, rather than serve it to their customers. Although the fine dining restaurant had little in
the way of formal quality assurance standards, the Chef of the restaurant was constantly
tasting for quality and personally checked every order before it left his kitchen.
Skill level of employees was consistently mentioned as having a relation to food waste
in interviews with management. The quick-service restaurant had the simplest food to
prepare but also had the lowest employee skill level. Management stated that this was
often their employees’ first job and therefore they arrived with very limited work experi-
ence. With the restaurant paying minimum wage, it is difficult to attract and retain more
experienced full-time employees. Even in a highly automated environment, management
attributed a large part of production food waste to employee error. On the other hand, all
four cooks working at the fine dining restaurant were highly-experienced culinary school
graduates. According to their chef, their experience and training resulted in fewer mistakes
and overall less food waste. Bharucha (2018) suggests that in order to mitigate food waste,
kitchen staff should be properly trained in food production techniques. Although an
important consideration, this may not be a realistic approach for restaurants dealing
with high employee turnover and increasing training costs.
All of the participating restaurants exhibited a hands-on approach to the management
of food. All kitchen management took pride in their ability to control food waste and
considered it a key performance requirement of their role. Despite similar approaches,
food was viewed differently at each participating restaurant. While staff at the fine dining
and casual restaurant treated food as something to ‘respect’, the limited-service restaurant
and especially the QSR restaurant seemed to view food as a commodity. However,
a different mindset was exhibited by the limited-service restaurant in our study. Their
policy was that any food unable to be served to customers should not be thrown out
without first trying to find a channel for human consumption. Therefore, staff helped
themselves to any leftovers or mistakes made at the end of their shift. This thinking aligns
with the work of Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) who suggest that the second most effective
way to deal with food waste is to redistribute it to people affected by poverty.

Conclusions
While attention is paid to food waste and pride is taken in its mitigation, there remain
areas of opportunity for restaurants to improve and reconsider their approaches. Although
operators work well at maximizing the efficiency of their food-delivery systems to mitigate
waste, they have become accepting of some food waste generation because of consumer
demands and a reliance on speed of service.
Comments from management about portion size had interesting ties to food waste
generation. Although restaurants are fearful of consumer backlash to smaller portions,
restaurants need to think more creatively when designing their menu and pricing strate-
gies. It is worthwhile to investigate whether consumers really do “value” large portion sizes
in an era of increasing awareness of both health and sustainability issues. For example, in
a study examining food waste in seniors homes, serving overly large portions of food
resulting in food waste contributed to feelings of guilt and reduced quality of life
464 B. MCADAMS ET AL.

(Mcadams, von Massow, & Gallant, 2018). In some cases, it may simply require engaging
the consumer in a conversation. Regardless, restaurants will continue to need to balance
the desire to reduce waste (and the associated cost) and the reality (versus perception) of
the customer experience.
Quality assurance standards are another key contributor to food waste in the service
section of the food delivery system framework. High consumer demands serve to ratio-
nalize restaurants’ preoccupation with maintaining the perceived quality of their food.
While it may be hard to change consumers’ mindset in terms of what is acceptable,
approaching the potentially discarded item more conscientiously involves only a small
alteration to one’s thinking. In order to do this, some restaurants have looked to donate
leftovers to food banks however, logistics can make this challenging. A more obvious and
easier consideration is to allow staff to take home food that will be thrown out as was done
in the limited-service restaurant in this study. When restaurant managers and chefs are
asked why this is not permitted two responses are often provided; cost of take-out
containers and lack of trust in staff that they won’t start making mistakes purposely in-
order to take food home. Solutions for both these scenarios seem easily at hand and
should be considered by operators. Food-service workers in Canada are notoriously low
paid and the opportunity to supplement low wages with some form of ‘food allowance’
should be looked at as both an economic and environmental win.
It is worth acknowledging some selection bias in our sample. Restaurants with pre-
existing concerns about food waste are more likely to agree to participate in this type of
study. However, that would suggest that our results, if skewed, might be a conservative
estimate of the overall waste generated in the food-service sector. Our study also had
a relatively small sample size, observing a total of only four restaurants. It is therefore
difficult to make generalizations about differences between industry segments.
Additionally, given the fast-paced and competitive nature of the restaurant industry,
some research design limitations were in place and all the desired data (i.e. classifying
avoidable versus unavoidable waste) was difficult to collect. Rather, we intended the
research to be exploratory in nature and highlight key areas of similarity and differences
between individual restaurants and foodservice models. The key issues identified in this
study merit further investigation across all segments of the industry. Future work should
include both validation of the presented results within and across restaurant segments as
well as evaluation of efforts to reduce waste in restaurants.
An interesting resource resulting from this study is the Restaurant Food-Service
Delivery Framework that provides a Canadian context specific model for both academics
and industry evaluating food waste generation. This result provides a starting point for
facilitating better food waste management practices. By considering both the sources and
composition of food waste generation, restaurants can begin to understand this issue more
holistically. This is of particular interest to restaurants who are continuously looking for
ways to reduce operational costs and provide differential positioning in a highly compe-
titive marketplace. A reduction in food waste appears to provide an opportunity for some
restaurants to simultaneously achieve both of these goals. On the other hand, for aca-
demics a common framework improves the ability to compare and contrast different
results and learn from previous work. Further testing of this model is encouraged to
generate more information on this multifaceted issue.
 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH 465

References
Bellemare, M. F., Çakir, M., Peterson, H. H., Novak, L., & Rudi, J. (2017). On the measurement of
food waste. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99, 1148–1158. doi:10.1093/ajae/aax034
Bharucha, J. (2018). Tackling the challenges of reducing and managing food waste in Mumbai
restaurants. British Food Journal, 120(3), 639–649. doi:10.1108/BFJ-06-2017-0324
Bloom, J. (2011). American wasteland: How America throws away nearly half of its food (and what
we can do about it). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
Collison, R., & Colwill, J. (1986). The analysis of food waste results and related attributes of
restaurants and public houses. Foodservice Research International, 4(1), 17–30. doi:10.1111/
fri.1986.4.issue-1
Cornwall, A. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine, 41, 1667–1676.
doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-s
Eindhoven, T. U. (2013). New plastic electronics can greatly reduce food waste worldwide.
Eindhoven, Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology
Engström, R., & Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (2004). Food losses in food service institutions examples
from Sweden. Food Policy, 29(3), 203–213. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.03.004
Eriksson, M., Persson Osowski, C., Björkman, J., Hansson, E., Malefors, C., Eriksson, E., &
Ghosh, R. (2018). The tree structure — A general framework for food waste quantification in
food services. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 130(November2017), 140–151. doi:10.1016/
j.resconrec.2017.11.030
FAO. (2013). Food Wastage Footprint: Impacts on Natural Resources—Summary Report. Rome,
Italy: Author.
Garrone, P., Melacini, M., & Peregeo, A. (2014). Opening the black box of food waste reduction.
Food Policy, 46, 129–139. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.014
GECapital. (2015). Canadian chain restaurant industry review. Retrieved from http://www.restau
rantoperator.ca/site/restaurant_invest/assets/pdf/2015_canadian_chain_restaurant_industry_
review.pdf
Heikkilä, L., Reinikainen, A., Katajajuuri, J. M., Silvennoinen, K., & Hartikainen, H. (2016).
Elements affecting food waste in the food service sector. Waste Management, 56, 446–453.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.019
Kantor, L. S., Lipton, K., Manchester, A., & Oliveira, V. (1997). Estimating and addressing
America’s food losses. Food Review, 20(1), 2–12.
Mcadams, B., von Massow, M., & Gallant, M. (2018). Food waste and quality of life in elderly
populations living in retirement living communities. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 1–13.
doi:10.1080/02763893.2018.1451801
NPDGroup. (2014). Eating patterns in America. Chicago, USA: NPD Group.
Okazaki, W., Turn, S., & Flachsbart, P. (2008). Characterization of food waste generators: A Hawaii
case study. Waste Management, 28(12), 2483–2494. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.01.016
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & Bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food
waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020
Papargyropoulou, E., Wright, N., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J., Padfield, R., & Ujang, Z. (2016).
Conceptual framework for the study of food waste generation and prevention in the hospitality
sector. Waste Management, 49, 326–336. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.017
Parizeau, K., von Massow, M., & Martin, R. (2015). Household-level dynamics of food waste
production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste
Management, 35, 207–217. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.019
Principato, L., Pratesi, C. A., & Secondi, L. (2018). Towards zero waste: An exploratory study on
restaurant managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 74, 130–137. doi:10.1016/
j.ijhm.2018.02.022
Restaurants Canada. (2018). Foodservice facts 2018, mining for margins. Retrieved from: https://
www.restaurantscanada.org/resources/foodservice-facts/
466 B. MCADAMS ET AL.

Russell, S. V., Young, C. W., Unsworth, K. L., & Robinson, C. (2017). Bringing habits and emotions
into food waste behavior. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 125, 107–114. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2017.06.007
Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the global food scandal. New York City, USA: WW Norton &
Company.
Sundt, P. (2012). Prevention of food waste in restaurants, hotels, canteens and catering. Copenhagen,
Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Thyberg, K. L., & Tonjes, D. J. (2016). Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable
policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 106, 110–123. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2015.11.016
UN. (2013). World population prospects the 2012 revision. Retrieved from New York http://esa.un.
org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf
von Massow, M., & McAdams, B. (2015). Table scraps: An evaluation of plate waste in restaurants.
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 18(5), 437–453. doi:10.1080/15378020.2015.1093451