Content uploaded by Mark Anthony Camilleri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark Anthony Camilleri on Mar 24, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
Available online 23 March 2025
0278-4319/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Food sharing apps in the hospitality industry: Strategies to mitigate risks
and enhance benets for increased adoption
Meenakshi N.
a
, Amandeep Dhir
b,c
, Puneet Kaur
d
, Mark Anthony Camilleri
e,*
a
Indian Institute of Management Tiruchirappalli, India
b
Department of Management, School of Business & Law, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
c
Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
d
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway
e
Department of Corporate Communication, Faculty of Media and Knowledge Sciences,University of Malta, Malta
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Food-sharing app
Hospitality industry
Valence theory
Sharing economy
Perceived risk
Perceived benet
Qualitative research
ABSTRACT
This study seeks to develop a broad-based understanding of the non-adoption of food sharing apps (FSAs) by
hospitality businesses. This study answers three research questions: First, what are the perceived risks of FSAs
that prevent their adoption by hospitality organizations; second, what are the perceived benets of FSAs that are
likely to encourage their adoption by hospitality organizations; and third, what strategies can be adopted by FSAs
to mitigate the perceived risks and enhance the perceived benets of adoption of FSAs by hospitality businesses.
A multistage qualitative study involving three stages of data collection was undertaken. The ndings revealed
that perceived risks included business issues, management issues, regulatory concerns, business conditions, and
issues with app companies. Perceived benets included enhanced reputation, business gains, customer benets,
and doing good. Strategies to mitigate perceived risks and enhance perceived benets emphasized closer
communication and collaboration between FSAs and businesses.
1. Introduction
Food waste is a serious global concern that presents a paradox of
hunger and wastage while simultaneously posing serious environmental
concerns such as contributing to landll waste and the emission of
greenhouse gases (Mouysset, 2024; United Nations, 2024; Pearson et al.,
2025; Puram et al., 2024). Nearly 17 percent of global food waste is
generated by the hospitality industry (Juvan et al., 2023), and the food
waste in cruise ships may reach up to 30 percent (Fazal-e-Hasan et al.,
2023; Li and Wang, 2020). Food sharing applications (FSAs) have
emerged as an innovative technology-based strategy to tackle the food
waste issue (Apostolidis et al., 2021; Filimonau et al., 2024; Humbani
et al., 2024). FSAs allow businesses or individuals to donate food that
can be bought at a discount or given for free to other users (Puram et al.,
2023). Specically, FSAs have created digital platforms that allow the
surplus food to be redistributed effectively (Papargyropoulou et al.,
2022; Shankar et al., 2022), thus encouraging collaborative and sus-
tainable consumption (Pisoni et al., 2022). In a sense, FSAs encourage
the minimization of food waste by utilizing social innovation (Jansen
et al., 2019; Ng and Sia, 2023; Zhao et al., 2023).
Food sharing as a concept has emerged from the sharing economy
wherein the objective is to preserve and redistribute surplus food by
bridging the void between sources of food surplus and people in need
(Soloveva et al., 2024). Food redistribution is one of the most effective
ways to solve the problem of food waste (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014).
FSAs leverage digital technology to facilitate exchanges between two
parties, one with a food surplus and the other presenting a food shortage
(Davis, 2021; Michelini et al., 2018). FSAs can be characterized by three
types of sharing, namely, corporate, charity, or community sharing
(Davis, 2021; Michelini et al., 2018). Corporate sharing incorporates
monetary exchanges and typically involves an aggregator while charity
models involve a not-for-prot entity that is responsible for distributing
food for free to those who need it (Camilleri, 2025; Saginova et al.,
2021). In comparison, the community model involves the exchange of
food items among individuals in the localized community. Each model
has an underlying element of reciprocity implying interdependence
among various actors in the sharing economy (Privitera and Abushena,
2019). Some well-known FSAs include Too Good to Go, Olio, Food
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: meenakshi@iimtrichy.ac.in (M. N.), amandeep.dhir@uia.no (A. Dhir), puneet.kaur@uib.no (P. Kaur), mark.a.camilleri@um.edu.mt
(M.A. Camilleri).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hospitality Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2025.104175
Received 14 June 2024; Received in revised form 29 January 2025; Accepted 13 March 2025
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
2
Rescue, Copia, Flash Food, and BuffetGo (Davis, 2021; Jansen, 2019;
Mouysset, 2024). They operate in several countries and have been
instrumental in reducing food waste. For example, by sharing 159
million portions of food in the United Kingdom, Olio has saved 1.8
million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and 23 billion liters of water
since its inception in 2015 (Our Impact | Olio, 2023).
Literature pertaining to FSAs is nascent, and prior scholarly work
related to FSAs is patchy (Puram and Gurumurthy, 2023), revealing
several gaps. First, the extant literature has focused on several stake-
holders in the food sharing economy, including consumers, FSAs, and
individual communities, as well as environmental and sustainability
aspects, but it has largely neglected the study of how businesses engage
with FSAs. An in-depth literature review uncovered the following focal
areas of research. First, most of the prior literature has focused on the
sustainability aspects of FSAs, indicating that FSAs clearly contribute to
sustainable production and consumption (Apostolidis et al., 2021; Pisoni
et al., 2022; Puram et al., 2024; Rau and H¨
ogberg, 2021; Schanes and
Stagl, 2019). Second, prior studies have considered the perspectives of
FSA users by understanding what aspects drive or inhibit FSA usage
among those who consume food using FSAs (Davies, 2019; Tawk,
2024). Some studies have focused on investigating the adoption of FSAs
by end consumers (Hua et al., 2023; Saginova et al., 2021;
Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023). Third, another body of research has
focused on several aspects of FSA technologies that would make them a
success (Davies et al., 2017) and how well-designed FSAs can encourage
greater consumer involvement (Mazzucchelli et al., 2021). In contrast,
the focus on hospitality businesses and their engagement with FSAs is
lagging. For instance, prior research has focused on the technological
aspects of connecting hospitality businesses with FSAs (Davies et al.,
2017) or how these businesses perform as one of the players in the
ecosystem (Apostolidis et al., 2021; Puram and Gurumurthy, 2023)
rather than focusing exclusively on the perspective of hospitality busi-
nesses. Therefore, extant research has scarcely examined the exclusive
perspective of hospitality businesses that have linked up with FSAs.
Second, emerging literature in FSAs indicates that joining forces with
such sharing businesses results in several benets for hospitality orga-
nizations in managing their food waste (Hua et al., 2023; Wastutiningsih
and Aulia, 2021). Prior scholarly work acknowledges that FSAs have not
managed to attain much success in the sharing economy (Puram et al.,
2024), particularly in the context of the hospitality industry (Puram and
Gurumurthy, 2023). However, despite these clear directions, prior
literature has largely ignored the perspective of businesses that are
aware of or have considered linking up with FSAs but have not done so.
Some studies, such as Davies et al. (2017) and Jansen (2019), have
indicated that regulatory fears have prevented these businesses from
adopting FSAs. However, this suggestion seems rather simplistic and
unidirectional. The fact that many other businesses have adopted FSAs
indicates that the business decision to connect with FSAs must be
multi-faceted and more complex, warranting a clear explanation.
Therefore, it is imperative to understand the perspective of hospitality
organizations that are aware of FSAs but have not adopted them for
managing their food waste. A more comprehensive understanding of
perceived risks and perceived benets would foster the growth of the
food sharing ecosystem.
Finally, research demonstrates that the success of a digital platform
is premised on its value proposition, balancing the perspectives of
multiple stakeholders who seek different benets and maintain varying
levels of risk (de Almeida Oroski and da Silva, 2023). Therefore, we
contend that it is crucial to uncover the perceived risks and perceived
benets of FSAs among hospitality businesses to more fully understand
the FSA ecosystem. The development of this understanding can signi-
cantly enhance the value proposition design of FSAs for the hospitality
sector, enabling more participation from hospitality businesses (Tan
et al., 2025).
This study seeks a broad-based and holistic explanation of the varied
perspectives of hospitality businesses regarding the adoption of FSAs. In
this context, the valence theory can effectively explain the perceived
risks and benets, which helps us to comprehend the intention to adopt
a certain behavior, providing a better evaluation of such a decision
(Peter and Tarpey, 1975). We seek to understand why the adoption of
FSAs among hospitality businesses is relatively low by drawing upon a
comprehensive assessment of the risks and benets that businesses
perceive from FSAs. In addition, the current study seeks explanations
about various strategies that can be adopted by hospitality businesses to
mitigate the perceived risks and enhance the perceived benets of FSAs,
encouraging their adoption. Furthermore, exploring the employees’
perspectives would provide rich insights because of their experience
with organizational practices (Tahir et al., 2020) and intimate knowl-
edge of policies (Robertson et al., 2023), leading to a better under-
standing of the organizational adoption of FSAs. Such research is in line
with the call in extant research to investigate the perceptions of other
organizational stakeholders toward FSAs (Zhao et al., 2023).
We devised the following research questions to address the gaps
mentioned above: RQ1. What are the perceived risks of FSAs that pre-
vent their adoption by hospitality organizations? RQ2. What are the
perceived benets of FSAs that will likely encourage their adoption by
hospitality organizations? RQ3. What strategies can be adopted to
mitigate the perceived risks and enhance the perceived benets of FSAs
in hospitality organizations? The study adopts a multi-stage research
design encompassing ve different qualitative studies conducted over
eight months (March–October 2024). Study A comprised a screening
survey for participant selection, which resulted in a pool of qualied
participants for the successive studies (N =149). Studies B, C, and D
involved successive qualitative investigations with employees working
in hospitality organizations. These studies addressed the research
questions by focusing on different aspects of and strategies for
enhancing the perceived benets and mitigating the perceived risks
related to FSAs. Finally, Study E comprised a validation study that was
conducted eight months after Study D, where we sought further details
about the identied strategies. The study utilizes valence theory (Peter
and Tarpey, 1975) as a theoretical lens to obtain a comprehensive un-
derstanding of the different perceived risks and perceived benets
related to the use of FSAs by hospitality businesses.
The remaining manuscript is organized as follows: The following
section provides an overview of the background literature about food-
sharing applications and valence theory in hospitality. Section 3 out-
lines the methodology, encompassing details regarding data collection
and analysis. In Section 4, we delve into the results of our research.
Section 5 offers a comprehensive discussion, followed by a discussion of
our study’s theoretical and practical implications in Section 6. Lastly,
Section 7 outlines our research’s limitations and suggests potential
future directions.
2. Background literature
2.1. Food sharing apps
The extant literature on FSAs can be summarized into the following
categories: (a) the sharing economy and concept of FSAs, (b) drivers of
success of FSAs, (c) the development of different FSAs, (d) the perceived
benets of FSAs, and (e) the perceived risks of FSAs.
The concept of FSAs is a product of the sharing economy, which is
also called collaborative consumption or the peer-to-peer economy
(Sigala, 2021). The sharing economy reects ideas of reciprocity and
exchange primarily based on the circular economy (Camilleri, 2021;
Ranjbari et al., 2024). Many sectors of the hospitality industry have
witnessed disruptive forces stemming from the advent of the sharing
economy, such as Airbnb, Uber, and Uber Eats (Puram and Gurumurthy,
2023). Similarly, FSAs represent an important aspect of the sharing
economy in the hospitality sector that has offered sustainable digital
solutions to tackle the problem of food wastage (Apostolidis et al.,
2021). The sharing economy is a useful means of alleviating food waste
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
3
(Makov et al., 2020; Michelini et al., 2020; Ready, 2018). Prior scholarly
work has detailed different types of food-sharing initiatives, including
social dining marketplaces, peer-to-peer marketplaces, sharing produc-
tive assets, and selling food products (Privitera and Abushena, 2019).
Additionally, Sarti et al. (2017) outlined business models adopted in
food-sharing practices, including social eating and food alerting plat-
forms, depending on market orientation and market structure. However,
Yamamoto and Furuichi (2017) assert that while such business models
may apply to the food owner, food sharing may be a consequence of
strengthening social bonding.
Drivers of success of specic FSAs. Several drivers have been identied
in extant research, such as social support and perceived social re-
sponsibility (Mazzucchelli et al., 2021), environmental concerns, play-
fulness, and social norms (Hua et al., 2023). Soloveva et al. (2024) found
that various consumer values drive the adoption of FSAs, including
sustainability value, hedonic value, social value, and utilitarian value.
Scholars have examined the differences in the usage patterns among
consumers across different geographies and cultures, such as in the
context of German and Italian consumers, wherein younger people from
both cultures displayed a higher inclination to use FSAs despite cultural
variations (Pisoni et al., 2022). Another study by Yamabe-Ledoux et al.
(2023) revealed that Japanese consumers used FSAs mainly due to
convenience and price consciousness rather than due to sustainability
concerns.
Extant research has investigated the development of diverse FSAs by
identifying different design principles (He and Song, 2020), such as
following the principles of human-computer interaction (Varghese et al.,
2021). Other mechanisms for developing FSAs include enhancing their
features and functionalities through technological interventions to
improve various operational elements, such as delivering high-quality
food (Rashmi et al., 2023). Android-based FSAs have been developed
with features for food verication, location tracking, and reporting
problems (Pratama et al., 2023). Furthermore, other diverse models
include the use of machine learning to handle consumer complaints by
FSAs (Nica-Avram et al., 2022) and FSAs based on a charity model (Shah
et al., 2023). Research has also focused on identifying best practices
through a cross-country comparative analysis (Saginova et al., 2021).
Perceived benets of FSAs. The benets of FSAs include environmental
benets such as reducing food waste and greenhouse gas emissions
(Harvey et al., 2020; Makov et al., 2020; Michelini et al., 2018) and the
achievement of sustainability goals by managing the food waste hier-
archy (Sulis et al., 2021). According to Sulis et al. (2021), landlls are
the worst problem while food redistribution is the most sustainable
initiative of the life-cycle assessment and food waste hierarchy. Addi-
tionally, FSAs have contributed immensely to reducing the problem of
food waste that has resulted despite campaigns that emphasize changing
portion and plate sizes and provide nutritional guidelines (Michelini
et al., 2020; Reynolds et al., 2019). Moreover, through the process of
food redistribution, food has been made accessible to those in need
(Lorenz et al., 2019). Additionally, FSA usage has also been known to
contribute to forming and perpetuating novel social relations among
hospitality businesses and consumers (Harvey et al., 2020). FSAs also
engage in propagating greater awareness about food wastage (Fielke
et al., 2020). By engaging in all of these measures, FSAs decrease the
demand for food production, thus encouraging the attainment of more
sustainable production and consumption of food (McCarthy and Liu,
2017).
Perceived risks of FSAs. Prior scholarly work has captured only a
limited sphere of the perceived risks associated with FSAs as the pre-
dominant narrative focuses on the sustainability, social, and economic
benets of FSAs. Some studies, however, have identied the perceived
risks, which have been variously labeled as barriers, obstacles, or chal-
lenges in the adoption or usage of FSAs. These barriers include the lack
of nancial viability of food sharing wherein distrust towards the safety
of redistributed food and a reluctance to engage in a sharing community
were perceived to be the main concerns (Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023).
Specic food safety-related concerns included expiry dates, possible
contaminations, and possible allergy-causing ingredients (Soon and
Saguy, 2017). Furthermore, there are issues related to unveried users
who can pose a threat to FSAs by posting negative reviews that damage
their reputation (Bali´
nska, 2022). Safety issues are likely to pose regu-
latory barriers including problems related to the liability of hospitality
businesses, compliance with regulations, and the need for insurance
coverage (Domagała et al., 2022). Additionally, barriers such as product
risks, peer risks, and individual habits as well as sociocultural barriers
pose challenges to FSA adoption (Soloveva et al., 2024). These concerns
pertain to cultural norms, privacy concerns, and stigmas associated with
obtaining food that is leftover or otherwise being wasted (Azzurra et al.,
2019). Demographic factors such as age could also inhibit the usage of
FSAs. For instance, while the prevalence of food insecurity among col-
lege students is widely known globally, mobile-based FSAs have been
found to be the least used intervention to mitigate this challenge
(Hagedorn-Hateld et al., 2022).
Findings from prior studies can be classied into two categories (see
Table 1). The rst category involves the classication of micro, meso,
and macro variables. Micro variables include factors that were investi-
gated at the individual level; meso variables include factors that were
investigated at the level of social groups and organizations, and macro
variables refer to the factors that were examined at the level of larger
social structures and systems. The second categorization involves clas-
sication into perceived benets, perceived risks, and strategies to
enhance perceived benets and mitigate perceived risks. Based on these
two classications, we identied that prior scholarly work has focused
attention on limited aspects of perceived risks at the micro level,
including unveried users. Some strategies to enhance the use of FSAs,
such as the role of volunteers, were also identied at the micro level.
However, there is a paucity of literature overall in terms of under-
standing the factors at the micro level.
At the meso level, the understanding in prior literature of factors that
affect the use of FSAs is somewhat better. Perceived benets at this level
include forming new social relations, educating about food waste, and
decreasing food production. Perceived risks include the nancial
viability of food sharing, damage to reputation, and peer risks. Strategies
to enhance perceived benets and mitigate risks include designing
better apps and increasing food variety, service responsiveness, and
Table 1
An overview of prior literature on benets, risks, and strategies.
Perceived benets Perceived risks Strategies to enhance
perceived benets and
perceived risks
Micro - Unveried users Role of volunteers
Meso Forming new social
relations
Financial viability of
food sharing
Design better apps
Educating about
food waste
Damage to
reputation
Increase food variety
Decreased food
production
Peer risk Increase service
responsiveness
Increase knowledge-
enhancing activities
Macro Environmental
benet
Safety of
redistributed food
-
Food redistribution Privacy concern
Reducing food
waste
Stigma
Reducing
greenhouse gas
emissions
Regulatory fears
Achieving
sustainability goal
Risk of
contamination
Risk of allergen
Reducing landlls Cultural norms
Reluctance to
engage in sharing
community
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
4
knowledge-enhancing activities. However, even at the meso level, the
understanding of perceived risks, perceived benets, and the strategies
to enhance perceived benets and mitigate risks remains relatively
supercial.
At the macro level, the understanding of factors that affect the use of
FSAs has mostly focused on enumerating the perceived benets and
perceived risks. Strategies to enhance perceived benets and mitigate
risks have not been examined. Perceived benets at the macro level
include environmental benets, food redistribution, reducing food
waste, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, achieving sustainability
goals, and reducing landlls. Perceived risks include the safety of
redistributed food, privacy concerns, stigma, regulatory fears, risk of
contamination, risk of allergens, upsetting cultural norms, and reluc-
tance to engage in the sharing community.
2.2. Valence theory in the hospitality industry
Different theories and frameworks have been used in the hospitality
industry to explain various aspects of FSAs and their ecosystem. For
instance, the unied theory of acceptance and use of technology has
been used to describe the relationship between the intention to avoid
food waste and the adoption of FSAs (Tawk, 2024). Innovation in terms
of the adoption and diffusion of FSA platforms has also been used to
explain consumer usage of FSAs in specic cultural contexts (Pisoni
et al., 2022). Studies have further captured the role of technology in
managing FSAs, for instance, through the use of ICT-mediation frame-
works (Davies, 2019) or machine learning (Puram et al., 2024).
Other studies have explored various aspects of FSAs, such as drivers
of success (Mazzucchelli et al., 2021), their usage (Pisoni et al., 2022),
sustainability aspects (Apostolidis et al., 2021; Rau and H¨
ogberg, 2021),
and performance assessment, using socio-technical analysis to under-
stand the future potential of these sharing economy platforms (Davies
et al., 2017). However, due to the lack of a broad-based and compre-
hensive understanding of FSAs from the perspective of hospitality
businesses, there is an incomplete understanding of the FSA ecosystem.
While the perspectives of the FSAs (Davies, 2019; Tawk, 2024), sus-
tainability (Apostolidis et al., 2021; Pisoni et al., 2022; Puram et al.,
2024; Rau and H¨
ogberg, 2021; Schanes and Stagl, 2019) and consumers
(Hua et al., 2023; Saginova et al., 2021; Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023)
have been examined in some detail in the emerging body of literature,
the perspective of businesses that adopt FSAs has largely been ignored.
However, although it is well known that FSA adoption offers businesses
several advantages, it is not clear why the adoption of FSAs by busi-
nesses is lagging. Therefore, it is prudent to undertake a balanced view
of FSAs from the perspective of hospitality businesses by comprehen-
sively examining their perceived benets and risks instead of merely
trying to understand any of them separately. Valence theory offers a
unique opportunity to explore this balanced view of FSAs from the
perspective of businesses.
Valance theory views the decision to engage in a particular behavior
as the net valence of associated benets and risks (Peter and Tarpey,
1975). A decision is weighed in terms of minimizing perceived risks and
maximizing perceived returns, resulting in a net perceived return (Peter
and Tarpey, 1975). In this manner, a decision can lead to positive
valence (i.e., gains) or negative valence (i.e., losses), thus guiding the
judgment of the decision maker in either direction (Yamagishi, 1996;
Yamagishi and Miyamoto, 1996). Thus, valance theory offers a superior
means of arriving at a judgment regarding the adoption of a behavior
compared to judging only the benets or risks associated with a behavior
(Peter and Tarpey, 1975; Yamagishi, 1996).
Valance theory has been used in the hospitality industry to under-
stand a wide array of decisions. Several studies have used valance theory
to examine sustainable behaviors, such as how loyalty towards green
foods is triggered by environmental concerns, environmental knowl-
edge, and perceived benets (Suhartanto et al., 2024b). Prior research
focused on e-waste recycling has applied valence theory to identify
various factors that prompt engagement in sustainable recycling be-
haviors, including environmental concerns, subjective norms, social
media usage, and perceived convenience (Nadarajan et al., 2024). Other
factors that drive e-waste cycling intentions are public awareness and
openness to change (Dhir et al., 2021; Nyeko et al., 2022).
Valance theory has also been used to explain the perceived benets
and risks of other behaviors, including the use of online food apps during
the recent COVID-19 pandemic, by understanding the key drivers of FSA
adoption (Suhartanto et al., 2024a), factors driving the usage of mobile
grocery shopping (Hoh et al., 2023), mobile food purchasing
(Suhartanto et al., 2023), and mobile payment technology (Khalilzadeh
et al., 2017; Ozturk et al., 2017).
There are two main reasons for using the valance theory in the
current study.
First, valence theory presents the perceived benets as well as
perceived risks while assessing the reasons for engaging in specic be-
haviors. The predominant narrative for hospitality businesses to engage
with FSAs indicates positive aspects such as sustainability, associated
social and human concerns, and narratives about image enhancement.
However, there is little understanding of why and how FSA adoption has
not signicantly increased despite the presence of overwhelming argu-
ments about their benets. One-sided arguments do not sufciently
explain the lack of FSA adoption. Therefore, to understand the inherent
complexity of multi-sided arguments that likely prevent the engagement
of hospitality businesses with FSAs, valence theory provides an appro-
priate focus.
Second, valence theory has been used extensively to explain various
contexts and phenomena pertaining to sustainability issues, such as e-
waste disposal (Dhir et al., 2021; Hua and Dong, 2022; Nadarajan et al.,
2023), the adoption of e-scooters (Bhat and Verma, 2023), waste man-
agement (Adjei et al., 2023), and household waste separation (Ma et al.,
2020). Since the evolution of FSAs and the dominant arguments around
their perpetuation revolve around sustainability, using valance theory in
this context is appropriate.
3. Methodology
This study uses a multiple qualitative study research design to
develop an in-depth understanding of FSAs in the hospitality industry.
Specically, we explore the perceived risks of FSAs that prevent their
adoption, the perceived benets of FSAs that are likely to encourage
their adoption, and the strategies that FSAs can adopt to mitigate the
risks and enhance the perceived benets of using FSAs in the hospitality
industry. Extant literature about FSAs focuses on the mechanisms and
business models of FSAs and their role in managing food waste that leads
toward sustainability. However, it fails to capture the reasons for the
lack of the widespread adoption of FSAs despite the clear advantages
that they offer to hospitality businesses. Therefore, in this study, we
have used qualitative research to better understand the non-adoption of
FSAs in the hospitality industry.
3.1. Study design
In this study, data were collected using ve qualitative studies: A, B,
C, D, and E spread over eight months from March–October 2024 (see
Fig. 1). Study A constituted a screening study to identify appropriate
participants from a pool of individuals who were qualied to answer
detailed questions pertaining to the use of FSAs in their organizations.
Studies B, C, and D were conducted to examine the various perceived
risks and benets of FSAs and to identify strategies that are adopted by
hospitality businesses to mitigate the perceived risks and enhance
perceived benets, thus answering RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3. Study E was a
validation study that was conducted eight months after the earlier
studies to obtain conrmation of the longitudinal ndings of the qual-
itative study. Additionally, in Study E, participants were asked to sug-
gest strategies to mitigate the perceived risks and enhance perceived
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
5
benets to increase the adoption of FSAs.
The multiple qualitative study research design enabled us to probe
participants about various aspects of the non-adoption of FSAs in the
hospitality industry. Several prior studies in the hospitality industry
have employed multiple qualitative studies as it enhances the trust-
worthiness of the data while allowing the researchers to draw deep in-
sights about the phenomenon under investigation (Buckley et al., 2021;
Meenakshi et al., 2023; Meenakshi et al., 2024; Melvin et al., 2020;
Prayag et al., 2024; Tolkach and King, 2015; Zhang et al., 2015).
Study A involved the selection of appropriate participants from
different organizations in the hospitality industry. These participants
were employees in organizations that were aware of FSAs, but their
organizations had not yet considered the use of FSAs in their business
operations. These employees had experienced some form of food waste
in their daily operations and were likely to deal with it in their own ways
without the use of FSAs. They were involved in decision-making about
designing measures to reduce food waste and dispose of surplus food
generated from their operations. Employees were asked to provide
detailed narratives of their experiences with the decision of whether to
partner with FSAs in their organization. Prior methodological literature
has emphasized that responses should be sought from diverse partici-
pants to explain a phenomenon’s complete range (Flick, 2004). As a
result, in the present study, responses were obtained from employees
working in different types of hospitality organizations, including hos-
pitality chains, small restaurants, gourmet food joints, and proprietary
businesses.
Multiple qualitative study research designs offer two main advan-
tages over single studies. First, the data for each study is coded before
moving on to the next study (Meenakshi et al., 2023; Meenakshi et al.,
2024; Melvin et al., 2020). This allows the researchers to understand the
gaps in the data and design questions to probe the participants in the
next study, providing a more complete description of the phenomenon
under investigation (Meenakshi et al., 2024; Meenakshi et al., 2023; Yu
et al., 2014). Second, the codes generated from different studies during
data collection can be conrmed by participants, allowing for member
checks, thus increasing the validity and reliability of the data and
enhancing its overall trustworthiness (Ryu et al., 2015; Santos et al.,
2020).
We collected data across ve studies for several additional reasons.
First, FSAs are an emerging area of study. Not much research about FSAs
has been conducted in tourism and hospitality journals, thus presenting
a clear lacuna regarding the formal knowledge regarding such apps.
Second, there is no prior work on the non-adoption of FSAs in the hos-
pitality industry. While food waste is increasing, and it is acknowledged
that it presents challenges at multiple levels, FSAs, which are critical in
overcoming the phenomenon of food waste, have not been investigated.
Thus, understanding why the hospitality industry has been hesitant to
adopt these apps remains an open question. Third, the existence of
underexplored phenomena, such as the non-adoption of FSAs, makes it
necessary to probe participants (employees) to uncover deeper insights
from emergent data (Locke et al., 2022).
3.2. Data collection
Participants answered open-ended essay questions about FSAs in the
hospitality context and provided elaborate narratives based on their
experience and understanding of FSAs. Open-ended questions draw
detailed narratives from participants regarding the phenomenon under
study by asking them to recount their personal experiences. This form of
eliciting response is well accepted in management (Sharma et al., 2021)
and tourism and hospitality research (Giddy, 2020; Huang et al., 2022;
Kumar and Valeri, 2022; Meenakshi et al., 2023; Meenakshi et al., 2024;
Talwar et al., 2020; Talwar et al., 2023).
There are several advantages of open-ended essays in qualitative
research over the traditional interview method (Meenakshi et al., 2023;
Meenakshi et al., 2024). First, participants can answer the questions at a
time based on their convenience rather than agreeing to a face-to-face
interview at a mutually agreed time with the researcher. The ques-
tions are administered online, and participants can answer them later,
up to 2–3 days after the launch of the study. Second, participants do not
meet researchers personally, affording greater anonymity in participa-
tion. While some data about the basic demographic prole of partici-
pants is collected, their appearance is not revealed. Third, researchers
can reach out to the same participants repeatedly, if needed, to conduct
further stages of the study. The same participants can be contacted to
probe them about the phenomenon under study. Alternatively, the re-
searchers can select participants from a pool of interested respondents,
thus offering multiple options to the researchers to conduct their study.
Fig. 1. Overview of the data collection process.
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
6
Therefore, the same or a different set of participants can be contacted
again for follow-up studies or to conrm the codes generated from the
earlier studies.
We followed several ethical protocols before commencing the study.
We informed the participants in writing about the objectives of our
study. While communicating the purpose of the study, we informed
them that this was an academic study and that the data collected from
the study would be used only for academic understanding. Furthermore,
they were informed about participant anonymity and data condenti-
ality (Flick, 2004). Beyond these protocols, they were briefed about
open-ended questions, and the procedure for answering them was
explained.
3.2.1. Screening study
In study A, participants were recruited from Prolic Academic, a
crowdsourcing platform that connects participants with academic re-
searchers. This platform allows researchers to select appropriate par-
ticipants with the requisite prole who can answer open-ended essays.
Prolic Academic is a well-accepted source to collect data as indicated in
prior studies in tourism and hospitality research (Demeter et al., 2023;
Kapoor et al., 2022; MacInnes et al., 2022; Meenakshi et al., 2023;
Meenakshi et al., 2024). At this stage, several ltering criteria were used
to identify appropriate respondents for the study. Table 2 provides the
demographic details of participants.
The study employed several ltering criteria to identify appropriate
participants from the Prolic Academic database: (a) People who
participate in the study should be regular employees in the hospitality
industry in some capacity; (b) they should have knowledge about FSAs;
and (c) they should be part of an organization that had considered giving
away surplus food to FSAs but had not yet adopted FSAs due to various
reasons. The employees were selected based on a series of questions that
were asked to check these qualifying criteria. These questions ascer-
tained the nature of the organization in which they were employed, the
main business activities of the organization, their daily job re-
sponsibilities, the generation of food waste in their organization,
awareness about FSAs, and whether their organization currently uses
FSAs or not.
Based on the answers obtained, 149 participants qualied to answer
the open-ended questions in the qualitative studies. These employees
were invited to participate in the qualitative studies.
3.2.2. Qualitative study
The multiple qualitative study research design comprised data
collection across four qualitative studies—Study B, Study C, Study D,
and Study E—to understand the perceived risks and benets and the
strategies to mitigate the perceived risks and enhance the perceived
benets.
Study B explored questions about the awareness, perceptions, bar-
riers, and benets of FSAs. Further, we explored the relevance of FSAs in
attaining sustainability goals for the participant’s organization and
whether FSAs can be useful in managing food waste. After coding the
data from Study B, we uncovered a broad-based understanding of the
perceptions of FSAs and the perceived risks and benets those partici-
pants expected from the FSAs. We also obtained information about the
relevance of FSAs in the participants’ businesses and sustainability
goals. Forty participants answered the open-ended questions in Study B.
Study C involved a further detailed exploration of the perceived risks
and perceived benets of adopting FSAs by the participants’ organiza-
tions. Probing in the second stage was based on the answers to the
questions in Study B, wherein the participants provided a broad-based
description of the perceived risks and benets of FSAs. The re-
searchers coded the data obtained from Study B and obtained the initial,
broad-based understanding of the perceived risks and perceived benets
from the participants. In Study C, questions were asked to probe the
main reasons for the non-adoption of FSAs, the pitfalls of partnering
with FSAs, specic issues related to FSAs, resource allocation, effort
involved, and food safety when partnering with the FSAs. Furthermore,
there were questions about the likely perceived benets from FSAs and
how FSAs could enhance the company’s protability, brand image, and
sustainability initiatives. Participants were probed thoroughly on these
issues and were told to provide detailed answers with explanations from
their personal experiences in their organization. Forty-one participants
answered the open-ended essays in Study C.
Study D focused on understanding the participants’ perceptions of
the strategies that FSAs should pursue to mitigate the perceived risks
and enhance the perceived benets of adoption among their organiza-
tions. Questions for Study D were designed after coding the data ob-
tained in Study C. Questions in this stage of the study pertained to
understanding the strategies that can be designed by FSAs to mitigate
the perceived risks and enhance the perceived benets of FSA for busi-
nesses in the hospitality sector. Twenty-three participants answered the
open-ended essays in Study D.
Study E was carried out after eight months to validate the ndings of
the qualitative studies. In this study, we further examined the strategies
to mitigate the perceived risks and enhance the perceived benets to
encourage hospitality businesses to adopt FSAs. Twenty-two partici-
pants answered the open-ended essays in Study E.
3.3. Data analysis
The data obtained from the participants were coded and analyzed
using thematic coding (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Johnson and Buhalis,
2023; Wang et al., 2023). Thematic analysis is a robust and popular
method of data analysis in qualitative research (Clarke and Braun, 2013;
Kiger and Varpio, 2020). Furthermore, thematic analysis is well-used in
tourism and hospitality research due to its versatility and ability to
discover new themes that explain the phenomena being investigated
(Braun and Clarke, 2006; Czernek-Marszałek and McCabe, 2022). The-
matic analysis was found to be appropriate for the study because a
thorough understanding of experiences, thoughts, and behaviors per-
taining to the usage of FSAs could be established by using this method,
which follows a “stepwise procedure starting from familiarization with the
data, coding, generation of the themes, review of the themes, denitions of the
themes and their names, and writing the report” (Clarke and Braun, 2013).
The coding process involved identifying themes and patterns in the
data collected at different stages. The researchers reected on the codes
while performing the data analysis. This enabled them to understand the
nature of the data that was obtained in the current phase so that any
missing data could be obtained in the subsequent stages of the data
collection process.
The coding process comprised three stages: open coding, axial cod-
ing, and aggregate coding. In the open coding process, rst-order con-
structs were drawn from participant quotes extracted from their open-
ended essays. The rst-order constructs represented the initial codes
obtained from the participant voice data. The second stage was axial
coding, wherein the open coding was categorized to obtain coding
subcategories. In the third stage, the aggregate codes were formed by
categorizing the coding subcategories or the axial codes. As the coding
moved from the initial coding process to coding subcategories and then
to aggregate codes, the researchers moved from data toward
theorization.
Several steps were followed throughout the data collection and
analysis process to enhance the reliability and trustworthiness of the
data. First, two researchers independently coded the data to obtain the
initial codes. This ensured the objectivity in the data analysis process (Li
and Wang, 2020). The initial codes generated by the individual re-
searchers were then compared to identify the differences (Campbell
et al., 2013; Molina-Azorín and Font, 2016). The differences between the
researchers were resolved through discussion. Second, the multiple
stages of qualitative data collection ensured that participants were
adequately probed about the phenomena under investigation. Data from
each study was analyzed before moving on to the next stage, ensuring
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
7
Table 2
Demographic prole of participants.
IDs Study B Study C Study D Study E Country Current organization Role
P1 X UK Bakery CEO
P2 X X X UK Theater Manager
P3 X UK Hotel Owner/manager
P4 X XUK Restaurant Chef
P5 X UK Restaurant Manager
P6 X UK Catering business Caterer
P7 X USA Restaurant Supervisor and server
P8 X X X UK Pub Assistant manager
P9 X UK Pub and restaurant Purchasing head
P10 X X X UK Restaurant General manager
P11 X X XUK Pub and restaurant Bar associate
P12 X X X UK Hostel Manager
P13 X X UK Pub and restaurant Chef
P14 X X X US Pub and restaurant Bartender
P15 X XUK Pub and restaurant HR manager
P16 X X X X UK Bar Bartender
P17 X UK Hotel Manager
P18 X UK Hotels and resorts Manager
P19 X X UK Cafe Cafe manager
P20 X UK Restaurant Manager
P21 X UK Pub and restaurant Bartender
P22 X UK Bar and restaurant Bar supervisor
P23 X UK Restaurant Chef
P24 X X X UK Hotel Bartender
P25 X XUK Bakery Baker
P26 X XUK Restaurant Front manager
P27 X UK Restaurant Waitress
P28 X UK Bar Bar Associate
P29 X X X UK Hotel and pub Waitress
P30 X XUK Hotel Housekeeping and waitressing
P31 X UK Pub Waitress, hosting & taking orders
P32 X UK Restaurant Waitress/cashier
P33 X UK Pub Bar maid and waitressing
P34 X XUK Hotel Duty manager
P35 X XUK Hotel Housekeeping
P36 X X X UK Pub Manager
P37 X XUK Restaurant Business manager
P38 X XUK Pub and restaurant Manager
P39 X X XUK Restaurant Supervisor
P40 X XUK Bar Bar manager
P41 X UK Pub and restaurant Waitress
P42 X UK Restaurant Bartender
P43 X UK Events venue Accountant
P44 XXUK Restaurant and hotel Deputy manager
P45 X UK Restaurant Front house manager
P46 XXUS Owner Convention organizer
P47 X X X UK Bar Bar supervisor
P48 X UK Owner Owner/manager
P49 XXUK Restaurant Waitress
P50 X UK Restaurant Waitress
P51 X UK Hotel Project manager
P52 X X UK Food store Procurement and waiter
P53 X UK Hotel Manager
P54 X UK Hotel Waitress and bar staff
P55 X UK Hotel Chef de partie
P56 XXUK Aquarium Cleaner
P57 X UK Indoor arena Food & beverage assistant
P58 X UK Bar and restaurant Waitress & bartender
P59 XXUK Hotel Deputy hotel manager
P60 X UK Hotels Waiter
P61 X X US Hotel Hotel Supervisor
P62 X X X UK Owner Events coordinator
P63 X UK Manager Front house manager
P64 X X UK Accommodation Customer service advisor
P65 X UK Hotel Duty manager
P66 X UK Pub Administrator
P67 XXUK Bar Bar supervisor
P68 XXUK Owner Owner manager
P69 XXUK Restaurant Waitress
P70 XXUK Hotel Owner/manager
P71 XUK Coffee shop Shift leader
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
8
that emergent codes were adequately investigated (Locke et al., 2022).
Moreover, data analysis in each stage helped us to rene our codes.
Third, the codes that emerged from the analyses were checked against
the literature using the constant comparison method (Braun and Clarke,
2006; Buckley et al., 2021; Corbin, 2017).
4. Findings
Qualitative research has been used to explore the perceived risks and
perceived benets of using FSAs in this industry. While prior literature
has examined the mechanisms of FSAs, their business models, how FSAs
can be used to manage waste behaviors, and the potential of these apps
in enabling sustainability, it has not yet captured the reasons for the
apps’ inability to be widely adopted. Therefore, this study develops an
intricate understanding of the perceived risks and perceived benets of
adopting FSAs.
4.1. Perceived risk
Perceived risks refer to various factors that inhibit companies in the
hospitality industry from using FSAs. These factors may present nan-
cial loss, inherent dangers to the business or its reputation, or other
negative consequences that adversely inhibit the adoption of FSAs. In
this study, perceived risks included customer issues, business issues,
management issues, regulatory concerns, business conditions, and issues
with app companies (see Fig. 2). Participant quotes for perceived risks
are given in Table 3.
4.1.1. Customer issues
Customer issues included the likely adverse inuence on existing
customers when hospitality businesses collaborated with FSAs. Existing
customers of the hospitality businesses were likely to experience disso-
nance wherein it could be felt that the value proposition of the hospi-
tality businesses was no longer appealing enough and therefore, not
worth paying. Further, if the value proposition offered to FSAs was
attractive, regular customers could switch.
4.1.1.1. Adversely inuences paying customers. An issue narrated by
participants was that customers who were paying full prices would feel
cheated or deem it unfair that other customers could buy the food
offered by the restaurant or the hospitality chain at lower prices. This
was likely to lead to brand damage in some manner among existing
customers. This could manifest in the form of lost customers or customer
re-evaluation of the brand. Therefore, the organization would be wary of
losing or damaging its existing customer base by partnering with FSAs.
4.1.1.2. Customers switching to FSAs. Participants indicated that they
felt that FSAs would end up providing the same food as the hospitality
chain or the restaurant at a lower price. Some customers may avoid
buying food at regular prices and look for opportunities to buy cheaper
food from FSAs instead. Therefore, the organization may lose its
customer base and prots through such practices.
4.1.2. Business issues
Business issues include high resource utilization, resource diversion,
adverse inuence on brand image, and affecting prots. These business-
related problems adversely inuence the organization’s business, such
Fig. 2. Data structure for perceived risks.
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
9
Table 3
Participant quotes for perceived risks in using FSA.
Coding subcategory First level code Participant quote
Business issues High resource utilization “I think most places perceive donating food waste would be too much work. If there had to be a lot of paperwork, or licensing or
anything like that, it would discourage businesses from participating in it, especially small businesses, that always seem short
staffed. It has to be an easy thing to do, like recycling has become.” (P18)
“Extra time, money, resources which would need to be employed when partnering with food sharing apps.” (P53)
Resource diversion “The potential of losing prot, the additional training and instruction that staff would need to be provided with and the additional
effort of staff to engage with these apps, which could benet the employer in a different way/potential more staff would have to be
on shift to comply with app orders.” (P41)
“Another pitfall is that the business is already very busy—there are many duties to be completed and partnering with a food
sharing app just adds one more job. As it is not a necessity for the owner, he does not see the food sharing app as critical at this
moment.” (P 68)
Adverse inuence on brand
image
“I don’t think the hotel would see this as a viable option as not many locals would come at the end of the day to just buy a bag of
goodies. I think the organisation could perceive this as a non-classy approach.” (P15)
“As high-end restaurants I don’t think it would be particularly appealing for people to be collecting bags of leftover food whilst
people are paying high prices to eat so maybe some snobbery element.” (P20)
Adverse inuence on full pay
customers
“Then there was a risk of people (apps) booking food but not actually coming on time to pick it up which its pressure on our staff.
Then we heard of complaints from retailers where people (from apps) were actually demanding more or larger portions and this
was inuencing fully paying customers.” (P7)
Customer switch to FSA “I would also imagine some outlets wouldn’t want to be known as selling their goods cheaply as customers may hold off buying at
the full price in the hope they would get a bargain.” (P28)
“One more thing is the risk of customers not ordering food at normal prices and instead only waiting for the food to be released at
discounted prices on the app. The concern is that customers will only purchase food from the food sharing apps as it comes at a
discounted price.” (P53)
Affecting prots “Without sufcient demand generated through food sharing apps, organizations would struggle to sustain their operations and
cover the costs associated with partnership agreements, such as commission fees or marketing expenses. This nancial strain can
negatively inuence the organization’s protability and long-term viability.” (P62)
Management issues No altruistic motive “I don’t think there’s any need for them at my organization. Also, I don’t think my organization has any sustainability goals. The
management isn’t really aware of most sustainability issues.” (P21)
“The reality when it comes to my own organisation is that they do not use food sharing apps because there is nothing in it for them;
that is to say, no prospect of nancial gain. As much as it would benet the local community and would even do wonders for their
own image, if there is no nancial incentive, they do not want to know.” (P46)
Management inertia “Just that it does not work and/or is a waste of time and money. It is easier for the company to dispose of food waste using the
original and appropriate methods because this is what they are used to.” (P45)
“We are not as advanced technologically. The hotel has legacy of being very conservative and it is hard to implement changes. Too
many changes would be disadvantageous and negatively inuence customer service and as there is a lot to change as a
management, we need to concentrate on necessary changes rather than those which may be perceived as luxury.” (P68)
Not agreeable “The company says the better way to deal with food waste is proper food recycling procedures and works with homeless charities,
although I’m not sure of the details of this. They agree to look into food sharing apps but when the suggestions are discussed, they
are usually shot down by the higher ups in the company.” (P12)
“My organization doesn’t use these as they just haven’t initiated the process to begin using them. There is no ideological or cost
reason, just a case of not starting. Myself and my colleagues have previously mentioned using these apps, but we’ve always been
pushed back by the management.” (P43)
Little awareness “As an organization our perception and awareness are not that strong, we haven’t really investigated. Because we have very little
excess generally the apps don’t really seem to t our needs. We should want more information when we are well placed.” (P30)
“Lack of awareness and education on how the app really works and what it is really about is the main reason for not using these
apps.” (P59)
Alternate options available “We are a small arts center with a cafe and bar, we have a strong relationship going back years with a local refuge to whom we
send all leftover food. We run a tight ship and have developed excellent kitchen management skills so there is very rarely much
waste so for us the apps would not be feasible as we would rarely be in a position to offer anything and when we are it goes to our
local refuge.” (P70)
No perceived need “My company knows about food sharing apps but doesn’t feel that the food we produce would be suitable to give away on food
sharing apps as we tend to do most things to order and try not to order too much on deliveries.” (P26)
“Again, I don’t think they would! I feel having well organized kitchens that manage our supplies in a way that means very little
waste is in fact a better brand image. We give to the refuge but we don’t only give excess food, we actually provide meals etc. too.
At present we target our giving to the most in need, the apps don’t necessarily do that, particularly the ones that charge.” (P70)
Regulatory concerns Concerned about food safety “We would have to check the legal and liability issues as staff members would need be trained to use the right stock otherwise it
could be stock that should not be used again and can be high risk, quality control becomes essential. There is a risk of food borne
illness if proper hygiene and storage practice not followed.” (P48)
Quality management by FSA “Food safety incidents, such as foodborne illnesses or contamination, can have severe repercussions on a hospitality
organization’s brand reputation and customer trust. Partnering with food sharing apps raises concerns about maintaining quality
control and ensuring consistent food safety standards across all delivery orders.” (P56)
“Restaurants worry that their food might not stay safe and fresh while it’s being delivered to customers’ homes. They can’t control
how the delivery people handle the food, so there’s a risk it could get contaminated or spoiled along the way.” (P62)
Fear of legal battles “As far as I am aware, we don’t use the food sharing apps due to the risk outweighing the good. If for example there was cross
contamination of allergens or not properly heated, we could face a legal battle.” (P54)
Risks outweigh benets “This is due to the potential risks as previously mentioned of a customer potentially getting ill from the reheating of the food it was
decided that it wasn’t a risk that the organization was willing to take due to potential suing or loss of reputation damage. An
additional concern is around the provision of allergens, as this is very important for our company, and we don’t see how we would
be able to comply with allergen legislation alongside our own internal polices in regards to this. We feel that the risks outweigh the
benets currently.” (P14)
Business conditions Made to order “The organization is aware of them in a very loose sense. However, it hasn’t implemented a strategy of using them because we do
not tend to have a lot of pre prepared foods and cook from fresh. This limits food waste in itself. Traditionally staff take home any
leftover food items.” (P20)
(continued on next page)
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
10
as its overall resource pool, brand image, and prots. Business issues
indicate various perceived impediments in terms of the direct or indirect
utilization of current resources and capabilities of the business that are
likely to be diverted by linking up with FSAs. The diversion of these
resources and capabilities—to whatever extent they may be done—is
perceived to be undesirable. Therefore, businesses in the hospitality
sector do not want to partner with the FSAs because they do not want
such issues to negatively affect their business.
4.1.2.1. High resource utilization. Some participants felt that if their
organizations entered into partnerships with FSAs, they would need to
commit to several diverse resources, which would be a drain on their
business. These resources could involve several departments, including
human resources, planning, procurement, and nance. Therefore, the
organization would need to deploy resources specically for managing
the requirements of the FSAs, such as logistics, packing, storage, and
nance.
4.1.2.2. Resource diversion. Another reason is that resources utilized for
engaging with an FSA partner would need to be diverted from perceiv-
ably more important, core organizational activities. Participants re-
ected that since this was not the core activity for the business, it may
not be prudent for their organization to engage with FSAs.
4.1.2.3. Adverse inuence on brand image. Several participants
mentioned that their brand image would be hampered if they partnered
with FSAs and sold leftover food. They cited several reasons for this
concern, including the lower prices at which the food is sold, the
perception that leftovers were being sold by their organization, and also
the fact that their food would be made accessible to customers in the
mass market who otherwise were not the target customers for their or-
ganization. This was particularly true of hospitality organizations that
had a premium image.
4.1.2.4. Affecting prots. Participants expressed that several costs were
associated with the partnerships, including fees and marketing expenses.
Additionally, the food was sold at a lower price than normal. Therefore,
the combined effect indicated that the organization’s prots would be
affected.
4.1.3. Management issues
Management issues included the lack of an altruistic motive, man-
agement inertia, not being agreeable, little awareness, alternate options
available, and no perceived need. These issues highlighted aspects of
adopting FSAs that were deemed unnecessary by the management for
various reasons. Furthermore, the management was unaware of FSAs
and, therefore, could not partner with them. Management issues indi-
cate various perceived risks pertaining to the unwillingness or un-
awareness of the management that prevents a business from adopting
FSAs.
4.1.3.1. No altruistic motive. Some participants indicated that their or-
ganization’s management did not want to engage in altruistic behaviors
that benet the community or contribute to sustainability. They
believed that unless there was a clear case of enhancing prots from any
new practice, the top management in their organization was unlikely to
pursue the option. Since partnering with FSAs did not offer a clear prot-
enhancing alternative, the management was not keen on pursuing it.
4.1.3.2. Management inertia. Participants explained that an important
reason for not partnering with FSAs was management inertia, which
could arise due to two possible reasons. First, the management was
content with whatever practices of food waste disposal they were
engaged in and did not want to change them. Second, the management
was not tech-savvy and did not understand the nuances of the FSA
businesses. Moreover, they were conservative in their approach and did
not want to change their conventional practices for disposing of extra
food.
4.1.3.3. Not agreeable. Some participants mentioned that the top
management disagreed with partnering with FSAs, though no particular
reason was assigned. They explained that some individuals had sug-
gested that their organization engage with FSAs to manage food waste.
However, the management had shot down the idea of doing so without
explaining why they were not interested in the partnership.
4.1.3.4. Little awareness. Another reason for not partnering with the
FSAs was that the management was not aware of FSAs and their role in
managing food waste. Furthermore, the management did not seem to
understand how the FSAs functioned. Some participants felt that when
their business grew, the management might want to know more about
FSAs.
4.1.3.5. Alternate options available. Some participants mentioned that
even though their organization generates food waste, they manage it
differently. Some mentioned that they gave away extra food to homeless
Table 3 (continued )
Coding subcategory First level code Participant quote
Little food wastage “I think the biggest barrier is the fact that our restaurant is a ne dining restaurant, meaning all of the dishes are made from
scratch and perfected in the kitchen and if something in the stock room gets closer to out of date we just swiftly use in our dishes,
there is very small amount of food wastage at my place.” (P32)
Small/ standalone business “For large businesses yes, FSAs are benecial as they have the prot margins to accommodate the reduced price and the surplus of
stafng to address the extra work. for smaller enterprise, no, as the margins are smaller and stafng tighter and there is a greater
need to maintain a perceived price point in your customers eyes.” (P27)
Plan well to contain wastage “We pride ourselves on containing our wastage. We have great catering managers who analyze and review what foods we use,
quantities needed and accessibility to reduce our waste outside of silage.” (P23)
Issues with app
companies
Initial setup difcult “The initial process of organizing it seems to be the barrier for my organization. Working out the best system, knowing what goes
off when, knowing which company to use…” (P8)
Difcult to commit “We have looked into using apps such as Too Good to Go; however, we decided against it due to not having enough waste to be
able to make the packages up to the minimum required value. We would be at risk of producing more food to full the requests and
therefore losing money, rather than saving food from waste. It would also be very difcult to estimate how much waste we would
have the next day.” (P11)
Logistical issues “Integrating food-sharing apps into existing operations may require changes to workow, kitchen processes, and stafng.
Implementing these changes effectively can be daunting or impractical for businesses with complex operations or limited
resources.” (P56)
Awareness not created “Awareness surrounding such apps needs to be pushed much harder. Representatives from such apps should visit establishments to
inform potential users. Currently there is not sufcient information readily available.” (P6)
Operational issues “First of all is the relationship with the app team - it was never great. Then there was a risk of apps booking food but not actually
coming on time to pick it up which its pressure on our staff. Then we heard of complaints from retailers where people from apps
were actually demanding more or larger portions.” (P7)
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
11
shelters close by, while others mentioned that it was distributed in the
community that the business operated in. Such businesses felt that the
alternate options were functioning well, and therefore, switching to new
practices was unnecessary.
4.1.3.6. No perceived need. Some participants felt that management did
not need to partner with FSAs. The main reason for this was their ability
to limit food waste by planning their orders well. The participants felt
that the food waste in their organization was controlled very well, and
most of the time, there was no food waste. Therefore, to partner with
FSAs consistently was not needed.
4.1.4. Regulatory concerns
Regulatory concerns included concerns about food safety, quality
management by FSAs, fear of legal battles, and risks outweighing ben-
ets. Essentially, regulatory concerns reected the fears of the hospi-
tality businesses about the responsibility of food-related issues being
traced back to them when, in reality, they had no control once the food
was handed over to the FSAs. However, they feared repercussions
regarding quality, safety, and other related aspects and felt that it could
result in legal trouble.
4.1.4.1. Concerns about food safety. Several participants mentioned
serious concerns about food safety when partnering with FSAs. The main
concern here was the type of food that should be shared and what should
be thrown away. Another concern was storing and packing the extra
food before handing it over to the FSAs. It was felt that employees
needed to be trained in these aspects since, if it is not handled properly,
the food is likely to get contaminated. This was likely to invite severe
regulatory harm to the organization and a loss of reputation.
4.1.4.2. Quality management by FSAs. Another important concern
expressed by participants pertained to the management of food by the
FSAs after it was handed over to them. It was felt that mismanagement
by FSAs could severely compromise food quality, which would be
attributed to the hospitality organization, and they were likely to face
regulatory issues. Participants felt that hygiene, safety, and freshness
could be hampered, leading to food contamination and even the intro-
duction of allergens. Ultimately, their company would be held respon-
sible for the safety of customer health. Therefore, they did not want to
take any chances.
4.1.4.3. Fear of legal battles. All the aforementioned reasons led par-
ticipants to believe that they could be drawn into legal battles if they
partnered with FSAs. They felt that the quality of the food needed to be
managed well by the partners, though they did not have any control over
it. Therefore, there were serious risks of being sued by customers if the
food shared by their organizations resulted in harm.
4.1.4.4. Risks outweigh benets. All factors considered, several partici-
pants felt that the regulatory risks of engaging with the FSAs outweighed
the benets, and therefore, they would not partner with such apps. Since
the food was no longer heated or handled by the restaurant or the
hospitality chain, there were high contamination risks. Moreover, the
food of their organization could get mixed with food from other chains,
inducing further contamination. Therefore, it was better not to partner
with the FSAs now.
4.1.5. Business conditions
Business conditions included being made-to-order, having little food
wastage, being a small or standalone business, and planning well to
contain wastage. Business conditions also included factors specic to
certain businesses due to which they did not partner with FSAs. These
included the size of the business, the nature of the menu, the food served
by the business, or the nature of procurement planning done by the
organization.
4.1.5.1. Made to order. Several participants stated that their organiza-
tion made food to order; therefore, the food was cooked only after the
customer ordered it. In that sense, a great deal of fresh cooking
happened as they did not stock much pre-prepared food. Since they
prepared fresh and sold food on order only, this limited food waste.
4.1.5.2. Little food wastage. Participants stated that their businesses
were operated in a manner that not much food was wasted. Usually,
their businesses prepared fresh food and ensured that ingredients were
ordered only as needed. Moreover, some businesses stated that they
operated only a limited menu, thus ensuring that there was limited food
wastage. Others stated that they operated as a luxury brand and,
therefore, they prepared limited food, ensuring minimal wastage.
4.1.5.3. Small/ standalone business. Small businesses did not have
adequate resources to manage the complexities of partnerships with
FSAs. These small businesses felt that they needed to better maintain
their image by not offering food at lower prices or below standard.
Therefore, partnerships with FSAs were not desirable.
4.1.5.4. Plan well to contain wastage. Some participants mentioned that
their organization planned well to limit food wastage. They stated that
the planning is constantly improved to ensure that food wastage can be
minimized. Such organizations had trained managers who planned the
purchase process carefully to avoid wastage.
4.1.6. Issues with app companies
Issues with app companies include difculty setting up, difculty
committing, logistical issues, lack of awareness, and operational issues.
These involved several aspects of the FSAs that seemed complicated and
difcult to tackle. Moreover, lack of awareness made such issues even
more difcult to sort out.
4.1.6.1. Difcult to set up initially. In some cases, setting up the app was
difcult, and the participant’s organization could not manage it easily.
Different options and arrangements were available in the apps that had
to be understood, and the hospitality organization had to gure out the
best option for them. The complications involved in starting to use the
app by conguring the correct settings often discouraged companies
from using the FSAs.
4.1.6.2. Difcult to commit. Several participants explained that owing
to different reasons, including small size, brand image, and irregular
order sizes in their organization, it was difcult for them to commit to
the FSAs. FSAs require organizations to commit to a minimum daily
order size regarding the amount of food they serve. However, the
unpredictability of the orders ensured that if the organizations
committed to the FSAs, they would need to make additional food just to
serve them. This was not desirable or protable.
4.1.6.3. Logistical issues. Several intricacies of FSA arrangements were
daunting for organizations as they needed to integrate the apps with
existing organizational processes. Logistical arrangements of selecting,
packing, and providing the food to the FSAs as well as ensuring that the
process was smooth daily required heavy resource commitments.
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
12
4.1.6.4. Awareness not created. Several participants felt that not enough
had been done to create awareness about FSAs. Consequently, the hos-
pitality industry harbored several concerns about the FSAs, but no one
claried or offered solutions for such concerns.
4.1.6.5. Operational issues. Participants felt there were several in-
stances when the FSAs failed to keep their commitment to pick up or
otherwise mismanaged the inventory they were given. Moreover, such
mismanagement by the FSAs put unnecessary pressure on the hospitality
industry staff, leading them to nd other ways of managing wastage.
4.2. Perceived benets
Perceived benets refer to various gains that the organization ex-
pects to make by partnering with FSAs. Such gains could be nancial or
non-nancial gains that accrued immediately or over time. Perceived
benets included enhanced reputation, business gains, benets for
customers, and doing good (see Fig. 3). These perceived benets pro-
vided reasons for organizations in the hospitality industry to partner
with FSAs. Participant quotes for perceived benets are given in Table 4.
4.2.1. Enhance reputation
Enhancing reputation included earning sustainability credentials,
building a positive business reputation, enhancing customer support,
and building community support. Participants overwhelmingly stated
that enhancing reputation would be one of the most important reasons
for their organization to partner with FSAs. The increasing concern
about food wastage will likely prompt organizations to partner with
FSAs to demonstrate that they are managing surplus food well.
4.2.1.1. Earning sustainability credentials. Participants felt that part-
nering with FSAs would help their organizations to meet their sustain-
ability goals. Sharing food with FSAs would help them in reducing food
wastage. Moreover, allowing others to eat the food even though they
may not be regular customers is likely to reduce the organization’s
carbon footprint.
4.2.1.2. Building a positive business reputation. Participants felt that
partnering with FSAs contributed to building a positive reputation for
their business. They felt that it contributes to enhancing their organi-
zation’s reputation holistically as they are seen as reducing food waste,
being environmentally responsible, offering food at lower prices to
customers, and being responsible toward the community.
4.2.1.3. Building community support. Another way of enhancing repu-
tation occurred as participants mentioned that businesses that partnered
with the FSAs were likely to build community support. When surplus
food is distributed by an organization continually instead of being
wasted, it is likely to build support from the community where the
business is located.
4.2.2. Business gains
By partnering with FSAs, organizations in the hospitality industry are
likely to have long-term gains. They are likely to reap diverse benets
from the existing and potential customer base, make their business more
efcient, and earn higher revenues. Business gains include trials that
encourage future purchases, earning instead of throwing, attracting
more customers, enhanced operational efciency, and enhanced
customer engagement.
4.2.2.1. Earn, not throw. One important business gain suggested by
participants was that their organization was likely to earn revenue from
the surplus food instead of throwing it away, which would have resulted
in zero revenue. While the revenue may not be substantially high,
obtaining some from surplus food is attractive for organizations.
4.2.2.2. Enhanced operational efciency. Some participants stated that
the operational efciency of their business was likely to be enhanced by
engagement with the FSAs, as the food-sharing companies would enable
them to better plan their resources and procurement policies over time.
They were likely to experience better order management as well.
4.2.3. Benets for customers
Partnerships with FSAs would likely result in several benets for
hospitality organizations’ customers. These benets would accrue only
to the new customers acquired from the FSAs, not to the existing ones.
These benets for customers included high-quality food, low prices, a
novel customer experience, and a surprise element.
4.2.3.1. High-quality food, lower price. New customers gained a lot as
they got high-quality food from the restaurants or hospitality businesses
at a lower-than-normal price. Therefore, the perceived value of the food
for these customers would be high. Furthermore, organizations were
very careful in giving away food by ensuring that food handed over to
FSAs was hygienic, fresh, and good.
4.2.3.2. Novel customer experience. Customers had a novel experience
when they engaged with FSAs. They could discover different types of
food from different hospitality organizations, allowing them to have
different experiences via the FSAs. For many of them, using the FSAs
itself was a novel experience.
4.2.3.3. Surprise element. The factors above had a built-in element of
surprise, which new customers were likely to enjoy. Participants stated
that the surprise element came from several factors, including food
quality, variety, and the amount of food given away by hospitality or-
ganizations. Even the same organization did not give away the same
food daily, adding to the surprise element. Moreover, FSAs mix and
combine food at their end, adding to the surprise element for the
customer.
4.2.3.4. Enhanced customer support. As they partnered with the app,
new customers could be introduced to their company. These customers
were likely to develop positive perceptions about the business, which
would be considered responsible and environmentally friendly.
4.2.3.5. Attract more customers. FSA partnerships are likely to result in
more customers for organizations. Participants felt that more customers
who were not reached by their organization’s marketing campaigns
were likely to discover their organization via the app. Therefore, the
number of customers is likely to increase for hospitality organizations in
the future due to their partnership with FSAs.
4.2.3.6. Enhanced customer engagement. Participants expressed the view
that partnering with the FSAs was likely to yield rich data about cus-
tomers, as the FSAs would share customer data with their organization.
Their organization could use the data from the FSAs to create custom-
ized digital customer engagement strategies. Data-driven customer
management could be very protable in the long run.
4.2.3.7. Trial encouraging future purchase. Participants suggested that
partnering with FSAs would help their organization attract more cus-
tomers in the future. Food given away to the FSAs will likely attract new
customers who have not previously tried food from the organization.
Moreover, food shared with the FSAs was sold at lower prices, resulting
in a better opportunity for a wider audience to try it out.
4.2.4. Doing good
Doing good included reducing food waste and beneting the envi-
ronment. The main difference between enhancing reputation and doing
good was that the “doing good” element did not involve any specic
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
13
material or non-material gain for the organization. Rather, the hospi-
tality organization partnered with FSAs as they wanted to be good
Samaritans.
4.2.4.1. Reduce food waste. Partnering with FSAs reduces food waste.
Participants reported that their organizations felt good because they did
not discard or waste the surplus food. Instead, it was being used for a
good purpose.
4.2.4.2. Environmental benets. Participants stated that by partnering
with FSAs, their organization reduced its negative environmental foot-
print by giving away surplus food. Some organizations with an unrea-
sonable demand often had a lot of surplus food, and giving away the
good leftover food ensured that the materials and fuel used for cooking
were well-spent. Moreover, their overall carbon footprint from cooking
and wastage was reduced.
4.3. Strategies to mitigate the perceived risks and enhance the perceived
benets of FSAs
Participants offered several strategies to mitigate the perceived risks
(see Table 5). Business issues can be mitigated by differentiating be-
tween the regular business and the partnership with FSAs, managing
resources by planning, and monitoring brand image. Management issues
can be mitigated by better dialogue between the FSAs and the businesses
to overcome gaps in communication and management inertia. Regula-
tory concerns can be mitigated by formulating internal policies and
guidelines, strictly adhering to them, obtaining quality certications,
conducting training, and ensuring clear documentation. Business con-
ditions can be mitigated by urging FSAs to design exible plans and
seeking personalized support for managing food waste. Issues with app
companies can be mitigated by urging FSAs to engage more effectively
with businesses, making setup simpler and transparent, and offering
ongoing support for any issues that may arise during the course of the
partnership.
Similarly, participants offered several strategies that can enhance the
perceived benets of FSAs. Enhancing reputation can be emphasized by
win-win partnerships, rewards, and advertisements to disseminate ac-
tions contributing to sustainability and preventing food wastage. Busi-
ness gains can be enhanced by offering customer trials, getting a clear
picture of the long-term benets of collaborating with FSAs for the
business, and obtaining real-time data about customers. Benets for
customers can be enhanced by encouraging them to share their positive
stories about FSAs on social media and personalizing offerings. Doing
good can be enhanced by combining the efforts of many companies and
charities, providing evidence of food waste management, and building
favorable opinions about businesses.
4.4. Validation of ndings and strategies to encourage the use of FSAs
In Study E, participants conrmed the ndings from studies B, C, and
D in terms of the perceived risks of adopting FSAs. Participants further
stated several strategies that can mitigate these perceived risks and thus
encourage hospitality businesses to adopt FSAs to tackle food waste (see
Table 6). Mitigating perceived risks can encourage hospitality busi-
nesses to use FSAs to tackle food waste generated by their businesses.
5. Discussion
Prior research on FSAs is nascent and emerging. Furthermore, extant
research has focused on the perspective of the consumers using such
apps (Hua et al., 2023; Pisoni et al., 2022; Saginova et al., 2021;
Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023), mechanisms of FSAs, business models
(Michelini et al., 2018), and how FSAs can be used to manage waste
behaviors and foster sustainability (Mazzucchelli et al., 2021). More-
over, the focus of extant literature is on presenting the perspectives of
users of FSAs rather than understanding the lack of wider adoption of
these apps among hospitality businesses. Therefore, this study seeks to
provide a broad-based and holistic explanation of the varied perspec-
tives of the hospitality businesses that have not adopted FSAs.
This study aims to ll this gap by examining the reasons for the non-
adoption of FSAs in this sector. We answer three research questions in
this study. RQ1: What are the perceived risks of FSAs that prevent their
adoption by hospitality organizations? RQ2: What are the perceived
Fig. 3. Data structure for perceived benets.
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
14
benets of FSAs that are likely to encourage their adoption by hospi-
tality organizations? RQ3: What strategies can be adopted to mitigate
the perceived risks and enhance the perceived benets of FSAs in hos-
pitality organizations? The valence theory proposed by Peter and Tarpey
(1975) has been used to understand the non-adoption of FSAs because
organizations consider both perceived risks and perceived benets to
achieve net valence while considering partnerships with FSAs. The
valence theory has been previously used to understand how organiza-
tions weigh positive and negative valence, particularly in the context of
technology (Ghasemaghaei, 2020). Furthermore, we have examined the
strategies that can be adopted by hospitality businesses that can mitigate
these perceived risks and enhance perceived benets in order to enhance
the likelihood of adopting FSAs.
RQ1 explored the perceived risks of FSAs that prevent their adoption
and involved six aspects: customer issues, business issues, management
issues, regulatory concerns, business conditions, and issues with app
companies. Customer issues included adverse inuence on full-paying
customers and customers switching to FSAs. Business issues included
high resource utilization, resource diversion, adverse inuence on brand
image, and affecting prots. Management issues included a lack of
altruistic motive, management inertia, not agreeable, lack of awareness,
alternate options available, and no perceived need.
Regulatory concerns included concern about food safety, quality
Table 4
Participant quotes for perceived benets of using FSA.
Coding
subcategory
First level code Participant quote
Enhance
reputation
Earn sustainability
credential
“You are saving some food from going in
the bin while showing your sustainability
credentials, allowing people to eat at a
discounted price and possibly even doing
some publicity for your business. I think
they are absolutely worthwhile.” (P21)
Build positive
business reputation
“We can benet by having a reputation for
helping prevent the waste of food, for
offering a chance for customers to get
cheaper food and to show that we care
about customers. If customers can see you
can offer cheaper products and also that
you don’t just throw waste in the bin, you
will get a reputation as a company that is
much more careful.” (P43)
“I think that it would increase the
community reputation as the business is
seen as doing something to try to help the
environment. This would be positive
publicity for the business.” (P53)
Enhanced customer
support
“It provides more exposure to the company
for consumers that are introduced to the
company and its products via these apps. It
may also encourage consumers to support
the organisation due to its perceived
sustainability/stances on food waste.”
(P41)
Builds community
support
“It would also benet because this looks
good for the business and also helps the
community if targeted most towards those
who have nancial issues and use food
banks.” (P45)
Business gains Trial encourages
future purchase
“It may encourage consumers to try the
reduced priced items from the company,
and if they like this, they may be more
inclined to repurchase or buy full priced
items from the company on different
occasions, which they may have otherwise
not have.” (P 41)
Earn, not throw “For some companies it would be, they sell
products for more overall, so it’s better to
regain as much as possible, even if at some
point you have to sell it reduced. They have
to cook/stock those items anyway and
rather than just throw them away for a
total loss, at least they get a little something
back instead.” (P19)
“Right now, not using food sharing apps
means that we are missing out on that extra
income, so utilizing these companies will
benet us socially and economically.”
(P43)
Attract more
customers
“This could boost business as there are a
lack of companies in the rural area that we
are situated that use food sharing apps, so
more people may know about our
restaurant, and visit upon curiosity of what
we offer, as opposed to establishments such
as Gregg’s, Starbucks, and other chains.”
(P52)
“These apps provide access to a broader
customer base beyond your immediate
geographic location allowing you to reach
potential customers who may not have
otherwise discovered your establishment.
Example: Your organization operates a
boutique hotel with an attached cafe. By
partnering with apps, you can attract
travelers staying in nearby
accommodations who are searching for
convenient dining options. This expanded
reach enables you to capture additional
Table 4 (continued )
Coding
subcategory
First level code Participant quote
revenue from tourists and visitors in the
area.” (P56)
Enhanced
operational
efciency
“Food sharing apps streamline the ordering
and delivery process, enhancing
operational efciency and reducing
administrative overhead for your
organization. Automated order
management and integration with your
existing systems can streamline workows
and optimize resource allocation.” (P56)
Enhanced customer
engagement
“Food sharing apps provide valuable data
insights and analytics that can inform
marketing strategies, menu optimization,
and customer engagement initiatives. By
leveraging these insights, your organization
can make data-driven decisions to attract
and retain customers.” (P56)
Benets for
customers
High quality food,
lower prices
“Yes, I believe that such apps benet both
the establishment and consumers. The
establishment can make further prots
while reducing their waste while customers
receive high quality food at a reduced
price. It is a win-win situation.” (P6)
Novel customer
experience
“In my opinion the benet is worth the
extra effort. I think customers would enjoy
the novelty of the experience of using a
food sharing app and a greater customer
experience is always worth the time and
effort.” (P12)
Surprise element “We don’t use them, but as a customer, I
can’t imagine it costs the company much to
use, and the bags are well worth the effort
and cost. I love Too Good to Go, it’s a treat
for my children who love the surprise
element.” (P25)
Doing good Reduce food waste “The benets are no food waste, sometimes
we are given small amounts of money on
one site, and the fact that we don’t have to
throw anything out unless it is no good
makes the company feel good that we can
help to do this.” (P50)
Benet environment “My organization runs many events and
therefore has a high amount of leftover
food and produce. It would therefore be
benecial for the environment and other
organizations to share food.” (P72)
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
15
Table 5
Strategies to mitigate perceived risks and enhance perceived benets.
Perceived risks
Types of perceived risks in each category Strategies to mitigate perceived risks
Business issues High resource utilization * Trial runs to understand resources utilization
* Hiring new manpower
Resource diversion * Train to reduce shift in resources
* Seek institutional or government support
Adverse inuence on brand image * Will remain a concern, cannot be mitigated
* Take feedback to keep track of brand image
Adverse inuence on full-pay customers * Differentiate offerings for FSA
* Exclusive incentives for full pay customers
Customer switch to FSA * Offer loyalty programs to regular customers
* Tracking and monitoring for shifts
Affecting prots * Think about doing societal good
* Reduce food waste
Management issues No altruistic motive * Initiatives by FSAs to encourage altruism
* Training sessions with social groups to not be left behind
Management inertia * Employ change management strategies
* FSAs can incentivize adoption
Not agreeable * Communicate enhancement of green credentials
* Display nancial benets
Little awareness * Management should receive training about FSAs
* Meet with FSA representatives to learn and teach their managers
Alternate options available * Demonstrate long-term benets
* Target higher management to look at big picture about reducing food waste
No perceived need * Highlight unique FSA advantages
* Make it “cool” to partner with FSAs
Regulatory concerns Concerned about food safety * Form internal guidelines about food standards
* Monitor food safety and ensure following laid down guidelines
Quality management by FSA * Issue disclaimers about food handling by FSAs
* Obtain quality certications
Fear of legal battles * Follow rules and guidelines strictly
* Conduct risk assessments periodically
Risks outweigh benets * Put systems in place, conduct training, and ensure documentation
* Formal procedures for recording everything daily
Business conditions Made to order * FSAs not needed, should search for alternate businesses
* Give clear tangible examples of where the apps have worked well
Little food wastage * Explain how partnership with FSA can potentially drive prots
* Can ask businesses to engage in volunteer “what-you-have” model
Small/ standalone business * Waste reduction strategies
* Flexible partnership models
Plan well to contain wastage * Tailored planning tools
* Provide personalized support and exible models
Issues with app companies Initial setup difcult * Make process for listing simpler
* Comprehensive setup assistance
Difcult to commit * Offer exibility
* Understanding the tourism and hospitality business better by FSAs
Logistical issues * Offer constant support to manage logistics
* Addressing issues proactively
Awareness not created * Create awareness through targeted marketing campaigns
* Open feedback mechanism and be willing to listen to the businesses, not be preachy
Operational issues * Ensure app compatibility with existing systems
* Offering ongoing support
Perceived benets
Types of perceived benets in each category Strategies to enhance perceived benets
Enhance reputation Earning sustainability credentials * Emphasize win-win situation that addresses multiple issues and solves them
* Corroborate with external data that correlates sustainable companies with positivity from the public
Building positive business reputation * FSAs reward consistent businesses that make biggest improvement in food wastage prevention and efciency
* Increasing advertising budget to portray advantages of partnering with FSAs
Enhanced customer support * Fostering positive customer experiences
* Offer customer discounts for eco-friendly businesses
Building community support * Collaborate with local initiatives and businesses
* Help businesses advertise in the app to display community support
Business gains Trial encourages future purchase * Offer referral programs, discounts for customers
* Offer trial incentives leading to future purchases
Earn, not throw * Make benets clear to the decision makers
* Show future inuence due to engagement in sustainability by managing food waste
Attract more customers * Publicly recognize and reward businesses for efciency and consistency
* Award points to customers for app usage
Enhanced operational efciency * Keep a secure site with tightly knit operations
* Easy implementation requiring minimum adaptation with existing business practices
Enhanced customer engagement * Provide real time data in an easy format
* Provide granular customer information to understand their preferences
Benets for customers High quality food, lower price * Design mutually benecial experiences
(continued on next page)
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
16
management by FSAs, fear of legal battles, and risks outweighing ben-
ets. Some of the issues pertaining to food safety and its consequences
have been identied in prior literature, and this study conrms earlier
ndings (Domagała et al., 2022; Soon and Saguy, 2017). Business con-
ditions included being made-to-order, having little food wastage, being
a small or standalone business, and planning well to contain wastage.
Finally, the issues with app companies included difculty setting up
initially, difculty committing, logistical issues, lack of awareness, and
operational issues. A recent study has identied some issues related to
FSAs that increase the perceived risk for hospitality businesses in
adopting them, including app design and responsiveness, lending sup-
port to our ndings (Puram et al., 2024). The ndings of our study are
consistent with the proposition of the valence theory that perceived risks
are associated with decision-making (Peter and Tarpey, 1975). These
perceived risks will likely make decisions difcult for businesses in the
hospitality sector, particularly in the context of new technology adop-
tion (Soares et al., 2021; Spencer et al., 2012).
RQ2 explored the perceived benets of FSAs that likely encourage
their adoption and involved four aspects: enhanced reputation, gaining
business, increased benets for customers, and doing good. Enhancing
reputation included earning sustainability credentials, building a posi-
tive business reputation, enhancing customer support, and building
community support. Business gains included trials encouraging future
purchases, earning instead of throwing, attracting more customers,
enhanced operational efciency, and enhanced customer engagement.
Benets for customers included high-quality food, low prices, novel
customer experience, and the element of surprise. Finally, doing good
included reducing food waste and beneting the environment. The
ndings of our study indicate that FSAs offer several benets for orga-
nizations that adopt them consistent with prior hospitality literature
(Davis, 2021; Michelini et al., 2018; Soloveva et al., 2024). However, as
prior literature indicates, the mere presence of benets may not result in
adopting new partnerships in the context of hospitality businesses.
Rather, as indicated by the valence theory, the net valence, wherein the
perceived risks may outweigh the perceived benets, tends to lead to the
decision about the adoption (Ozturk et al., 2017).
RQ3 explored the strategies that can be adopted to mitigate the
perceived risks and enhance the perceived benets of FSAs in hospitality
organizations. The mitigation of perceived risks and enhancing
perceived benets involved a closer collaboration between the busi-
nesses and FSAs. Moreover, businesses felt that data about their work
with the FSAs ought to be shared by the apps and customers so that they
can build a positive image.
Figs. 4 and 5 present an integrated framework of the strategies to
mitigate perceived risks and enhance the perceived benets of adopting
FSAs by businesses in the hospitality industry. They highlight that the
perceived risks and perceived benets can be tackled by developing
various strategies whereby such perceived risks can be mitigated, and
the perceived benets can be enhanced. Our ndings indicate that there
are twenty-ve different types of perceived risks that can be classied as
customer issues, business issues, management issues, regulatory con-
cerns, business conditions, and issues with app companies. Fourteen
different types of perceived benets can be categorized as benets for
customers, enhanced reputation, business gains, and doing good. There
are corresponding strategies for each perceived risk and perceived
benet. The strategies corresponding to perceived risks enable hospi-
tality businesses to mitigate such risks to increase the possibility of
adoption of FSAs. Similarly, the strategies corresponding to perceived
benets enhance such benets to enable hospitality businesses to adopt
FSAs.
We have classied the perceived risks and perceived benets into
three levels—the micro, meso, and macro levels. Micro-level factors
focus on individuals and small groups, meso-level factors focus on in-
termediate social groups and organizational structures, and macro fac-
tors focus on large-scale social structures, systems, and processes. In our
study, perceived risks concerning customer issues (PR 1–2) have been
classied at the micro level, business issues (PR 3–6), management is-
sues (PR 7–12), business conditions (PR 13–16), and issues with app
companies (PR 17–21) have been classied at the meso level, and reg-
ulatory concerns (PR 22–25) have been classied at the macro level (see
Fig. 4). All of the perceived risks have been labeled as PR1 to PR 25, and
strategies that can be designed to mitigate each perceived risk are
depicted in Fig. 4. These strategies have been mapped for corresponding
perceived risks. Strategies to mitigate perceived risks at the micro level
are customer issues (SM 1–2); strategies to mitigate perceived risks at
the meso level include business issues (SM 3–6), management issues (SM
7–12), business conditions (SM 13–16), and issues with app companies
(SM 17–21); and strategies to mitigate perceived risks at the macro level
involve regulatory concerns (SM 22–25).
Perceived benets have been classied into benets that can be
derived at various levels including those at the micro level such as
benets for customers (PB 1–7), those at the meso level such as enhance
reputation (PB 8–10) and business gains (PB 11–12), and those at the
macro level such as regulatory concerns (PB 13–14; see Fig. 4). These
have been labeled as PB 1 to PB 14, and strategies that can be designed to
enhance each perceived benet are depicted in Fig. 5. These strategies
have been mapped for corresponding perceived benets and include
strategies to enhance perceived benets at the micro level such as
benets for customers (SE 1–7), strategies to enhance perceived benets
at the meso level such as enhance reputation (SE 8–10) and business
gains (SE 11–12), and strategies to enhance perceived benets at the
macro level such as regulatory concerns (SE 13–14).
We observe from the ndings of our study that there are several
perceived factors of adopting FSAs for hospitality businesses. These
factors include business issues, management issues, regulatory concerns,
business conditions, and issues with app companies, all of which have
played an important role in preventing hospitality organizations from
partnering with FSAs despite the existence of perceived benets,
including enhanced reputation, business gains, benets for customers,
and doing good. These ndings synchronize with the tenets of the
valence theory, which suggests that when making decisions, the
perceived risks are weighed simultaneously with the perceived benets.
Furthermore, we found in our study that participants were able to sug-
gest several strategies for triggering the wider adoption of FSAs and for
better collaboration between the FSAs and their businesses. The un-
derlying emphasis of the strategies was that there needs to be closer
Table 5 (continued )
Perceived benets
Types of perceived benets in each category Strategies to enhance perceived benets
* Decide the offer carefully
Novel customer experience * Design quantity, quality and variety of food carefully to build good customer experience
* Personalize experience (with handwritten notes) and encourage referrals
Surprise element * Encourage customers to share pictures of food
* Offers including discounts, coupons, surprise invites to attend events
Doing good Reduce food waste * Combine efforts of several companies and local charities to achieve better results
* Evidential support about food waste management
Benet environment * Leverage PR to promote good work being done by businesses
* Build favorable opinions about businesses
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
17
Table 6
Validation of ndings and strategies to encourage usage of FSAs.
Coding subcategory First level code Participant quote
Strategies for business
issues
Incentivizing businesses “My rst thought would be perhaps for governments or local authorities to offer nancial incentives to businesses to get them to
commit to using food sharing apps.” (P46)
Demonstrating benets “Businesses should be given historical data where appropriate to prove the benets of using FSAs.
They should be meeting representatives of the FSAs to understand better the business and ethical benets of using FSAs as part of
their business.” (P69)
Enhancing image “It could give potential cost savings from reducing disposal fees and possibly earning from selling surplus also it should be
encouraged that it will hold business in a better social position within the community and portray a better public image also an
incentive encouragement to employees will also help with getting them onboard.” (P4)
Forming partnerships “In order for businesses to be encouraged to commit existing resources to start using FSAs, there need to be establishing of
partnerships, forming local partnerships, providing training, creating user-friendly technology, recognizing efforts, supporting
helpful policies.” (P40)
Earn customer respect “Customers also appreciate getting quality food at a discount and often become more loyal to brands that make eco-friendly
choices. This can make FSAs a win-win for all sides.” (P56)
“Companies would be encouraged to use FSAs by being more respected by customers who will then probably want to use their
services more if they think that the company is trying to be more generous and therefore will bring more customers in which then
means more money for the company.” (P38)
Clear segregation of
customers
“I think the danger is, if you have a high-end restaurant, where people are dining, and there is a nice atmosphere, there is a risk
that suddenly at a certain time several people will turn up, who aren’t the usual clientele and ruin the ambiance. Strict instructions
of where to collect from and how, and maybe staggered arrival times could help this.” (P25)
Strategies for
management issues
Demonstrate success “Get top managers to visit or meet with other businesses using FSAs successfully, seeing it work elsewhere often builds support.
Recognizing and rewarding teams for hitting waste reduction targets also helps keep middle managers motivated.” (P5)
Encourage
experimentation
“Allocating a station or worker particularly to the FSA makes a tonne of difference as it makes the experience more seamless and
therefore more respected. Advertising openly that you partake in such apps as you would with delivery services can also help as it
means that managers can see how many people enter for this particular service, prompting them to take it more seriously and
allocate more time and thought to it.” (P39)
Incentivizing top
management
“Bonuses or better incentives for top and middle management to get involved. Maybe enroll them in a course in poverty and hunger
to gain empathy from them. If they see how important food is to people in need then they will be invested and care more to help.”
(P8)
Education and training “FSAs require extra work and implementation and often there is resistance from staff members at the shop oor level since this is
extra work to undertake and this feedback to managers. Educating employees on the benets of FSAs and training them to
implement waste reduction practices during their shifts could create grassroots support, which can encourage management to take
notice.” (P32)
Different forms of
promotion
“To raise awareness of food-sharing apps (FSAs) among hospitality organizations, conduct educational workshops, share success
stories, and integrate FSAs into sustainability goals.” (P40)
Share success stories “To raise awareness of FSAs, show hospitality businesses how they work and share real examples of success, like restaurants
reducing waste and saving money. FSAs can be the rst choice by highlighting their ease of use and the immediate impact on food
waste, compared to more complicated alternatives.” (P34)
Strategies for regulatory
concerns
Have clear guidelines “Offering clear guidelines on safe food handling, provide staff training, and partner with reliable FSAs. For example, Toast has
implemented standards that ensure quality and compliance, helping to build condence in using FSAs.” (P40)
Have disclaimers “Possibly having a disclaimer on the food sharing app might help prevent this or having clear labelling advising customers on how
to store and reheat food correctly could be another solution.” (P40)
Third party inspections “Some FSAs also work with food banks or other organizations experienced in safely handling and redistributing food. Pret a
Manger, for instance, collaborates with charities that inspect donated food to ensure it meets food and health standards.” (P17)
Business self-
responsibility
“Being aware of how the product is stored and if it would still be safe to consume is important. The business I worked in that used
TGTG, implemented that they would have a set number of orders allocated daily and that they would be compiled of leftover stock
at the end of shift. They would then be stored correctly until a customer would come to purchase a bag.” (P11)
Strategies for business
conditions
Made to order not need
FSA
“If a business focuses on made-to-order meals it helps minimize food waste signicantly. Orders can be taken through a
straightforward process, often using an online system or phone calls to get real-time customer requests. This allows us to gauge
demand accurately, avoiding food wastage.” (P34)
Not all made to order “Most of our food is made to order but there are some items that are cooked off in advance. We also have food and
ingredients that have to be used by a certain time, i.e., 2 days once defrosted. Our stock and sales are looked at on a daily basis so
we change things as and when needed to prevent as much food wastage as we can. But no two days are the same so it’s not always
easy to gauge.” (P16)
Small size, less food
waste
“In my organization, being a small-sized business that makes food to order really helps us minimize food waste. We take orders
directly from customers, either in person or online, which allows us to prepare only what is needed for each meal. This way, we
don’t end up with leftover food at the end of the day. We also manage our supplies carefully by keeping track of what ingredients
we use most and adjusting our orders based on customer demand.” (P56)
FSA as last resort “This at the moment does apply to us, any food left is rst used to feed staff, then the animals and then if anything else is left it used
for composting. If for any reason we have a large surplus of any product we then advertise on a FSA.” (P25)
Strategies for FSA issues Lower cost for higher
usage
“But when rst using an FSA, they will want to ensure that your business would continue to use their services. So, after a few
months there could be the option to lower the costs for continued business. That would be the way to encourage most businesses to
stick with the FSAs. start off at a normal rate and then reduce it slightly with continued use.” (p11)
Varied pricing models “To reduce setup costs for food-sharing apps (FSAs), they can offer tiered pricing models for smaller hospitality organizations and
provide comprehensive onboarding support.” (P23)
Facilitate integration “FSAs can reduce setup costs by offering free initial trials or discounted onboarding services. They can simplify the integration
process with user-friendly technology and provide training for staff.” (P62)
Facilitate setup “The FSA should provide any equipment needed to setup. The business is already supporting the FSA and doesn’t stand to gain
from using it, therefore there should be no initial outlay. If there are set up fees, these should be on a voluntary donation basis. If a
machine is needed to accept orders, this should be provided and any set up costs minimal.” (P25)
Trial runs “Maybe offering businesses the opportunity to take part at low or no cost for a trial period so they have the opportunity to test out
whether it works for their business.” (P40)
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
18
communication and collaboration between the FSAs and the businesses
to achieve mutual gains for both partners in the long run. Furthermore,
businesses consistently felt that external communication about the
achievements related to sustainability and food waste management
goals was extremely critical to attaining success in the partnership.
5.1. Theoretical contributions
Our study contributes to the prior extended literature on the hospi-
tality industry in three ways. First, we offer a broad-based and inte-
grated explanation of the net valence that leads to businesses’ non-
adoption of FSAs in this sector. We have applied the valence theory to
present a clear understanding of why organizations in the hospitality
industry have not adopted FSAs to tackle food waste that is generated as
a part of their business. We have presented twenty-ve perceived risks
that prevent the adoption of FSAs. Furthermore, we have identied
fourteen perceived benets that are not strong enough to result in the
adoption of FSAs, as despite the presence or acknowledgment of these
perceived benets, hospitality businesses have not adopted FSAs. As
stated in the valence theory, businesses weigh perceived risks against
perceived benets while arriving at the decision to adopt or not adopt
FSAs as partners in their business operations to tackle food waste. The
presence of several perceived risks and the lack of substantial perceived
benets prevent hospitality businesses from adopting FSAs. Our study
has focused on the perspective of hospitality businesses in the hospitality
industry to understand the reasons that prevent them from partnering
with FSAs to manage food waste despite several known benets of
adopting FSAs that have been elucidated in extant literature (Davis,
2021; Michelini et al., 2018; Soloveva et al., 2024).
Second, we have presented several strategies that can be adopted by
businesses to mitigate the perceived risks and enhance the perceived
benets of adopting FSAs. A critical contribution of our study has been
to individually map the perceived risks and perceived benets with
strategies that can be adopted to increase the likelihood of adoption of
FSAs. Mapping the strategies can enable hospitality businesses, FSAs,
regulators, and customers to work together towards reducing food
waste. Prior scholarly work on FSAs has focused on presenting the
adoption of FSAs by consumers (Hua et al., 2023; Saginova et al., 2021;
Yamabe-Ledoux et al., 2023) and emphasized that FSAs afford an
element of surprise for customers (Pisoni et al., 2022) and change the
value proposition for them (Michelini et al., 2018) while ignoring the
role of businesses in furthering the adoption of FSAs. Moreover, adopt-
ing multiple strategies simultaneously can enable hospitality businesses
to work together with FSAs, customers, and regulators to tackle food
waste.
Third, our study has focused on the perspective of organizational
insiders—the employees—who have provided a detailed and intimate
understanding of the reasons that prevent the adoption of FSAs. The
perspective of employees is pertinent in this context as they are involved
in decision-making about adopting FSAs and have provided detailed
information and knowledge about why their organizations have not
adopted FSAs to manage food waste. Therefore, we present the insider
perspective of why these organizations in the hospitality industry did
not adopt FSAs. To understand the organizational adoption of FSAs, we
contend that employees’ perspectives would provide rich insights
because of their experience with their organizations’ practices (Tahir
Fig. 4. Framework for strategies to mitigate perceived risks of FSAs for hospitality businesses.
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
19
et al., 2020) and intimate knowledge of their decision-making and
policies (Robertson et al., 2023). We have furthered the research in the
realm of FSAs by taking the arguments for the wider adoption of FSAs
forward by obtaining the perspective of other organizational stake-
holders (Zhao et al., 2023).
5.2. Managerial implications
Our study offers three managerial implications based on the ndings.
First, the study offers invaluable insights for FSAs to comprehend the
reasons for the non-adoption of their apps by organizations in the hos-
pitality industry. Specically, they can understand all the perceived
risks inhibiting their apps’ adoption. Furthermore, despite having
several perceived benets, they may not be strong enough to allow or-
ganizations to overcome the perceived risks. Therefore, FSAs must
design strategies to simultaneously tackle perceived risks while
enhancing perceived benets so that organizations in the hospitality
industry will choose to partner with the FSAs.
Second, FSAs need to understand that the organizations in the hos-
pitality industry have several perceived risks in adopting FSAs, which
can be classied into those that can be managed by the FSAs themselves
and those that are beyond the scope of the app or service providers.
Some perceived risks, such as issues with service providers, need to be
managed to allay the fears of their prospective hospitality partners.
Some issues, such as regulatory concerns involving quality of food
management and food safety, fall into the realm of the FSAs as they are
responsible for preserving food quality. Some issues about the internal
decisions of hospitality organizations, such as resource utilization, brand
image, and prots, can be considered while framing arguments in
reaching out to the businesses.
Third, FSAs can learn about the perceived benets as understood by
organizations in the hospitality industry to design appropriate strategies
for targeting businesses in the industry. They can, for instance, increase
their promotional investments to create greater awareness, encourage
trial periods for businesses, build arguments to emphasize how busi-
nesses stand to gain from partnering with FSAs and provide evidence
about how businesses can build their sustainability credentials by
partnering with FSAs.
6. Limitations and directions for future research
This study has built a broad-based and comprehensive understanding
Fig. 5. Framework for strategies to enhance perceived benets of FSAs for hospitality businesses.
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
20
of the non-adoption of FSAs among organizations in the hospitality in-
dustry. This study provides an impetus and direction to future research
in the emerging important area of FSA businesses that can play a pivotal
role in managing food wastage. The study poses some limitations as
well, which can be tackled in future research in this area. First, in this
research, we have undertaken a qualitative study to understand the
perceived risks and perceived benets pertaining to FSAs along with an
understanding of the strategies that can be used to increase their
adoption. However, among these perceived risks and perceived benets,
we need to examine the relative importance of these factors in driving
the decision for non-adoption of FSAs. Therefore, quantitative research
can be undertaken in the future to understand the extent of inuence of
each of the perceived risks and perceived benets on non-adoption.
Quantitative research can be undertaken to ascertain effective stra-
tegies for promoting the adoption of FSAs as well. FSAs can act upon
these factors to more effectively partner with organizations in the hos-
pitality industry.
Second, the hospitality sector comprises several different types of
businesses ranging from hotels, restaurants, airlines, travel agencies,
amusement parks, and cruise lines to other recreational services, each of
which generates different levels of food waste and manages food waste
in different ways. Recognizing the distinct characteristics and re-
quirements of individual industries within the hospitality sector is
essential. Given the diverse nature of businesses within the sector, each
of them has its unique attributes, challenges, and operational models.
Therefore, it is likely that diverse businesses have variations in the
adoption and usage of FSAs. While this research gave an overall direc-
tion in understanding FSAs in the hospitality industry, future studies can
capture the nuances of FSA usage in different types of hospitality busi-
nesses to understand similarities and differences in their FSA adoption
and usage. Future research endeavors could explore separate studies or
comparative analyses to delve deeper into the nuances of specic in-
dustries within the hospitality sector.
Third, the research seeks to explore the phenomenon of the non-
adoption of FSAs in the hospitality industry without distinguishing be-
tween different types of hospitality businesses. Our results suggest that
small businesses and businesses with strong and premium brand images
may not benet from tie-ups with FSAs. However, hospitality chains and
businesses with higher unpredictability, such as catering businesses,
may benet much more from such tie-ups. Therefore, future research
can focus on different subsets of hospitality businesses to understand
their adoption of FSAs.
Fourth, different stakeholders including investors, policymakers, and
consumers differ in their perceptions and usage of FSAs. While this
research has focused attention on businesses that have not adopted
FSAs, further studies can utilize the collective lens to capture the
divergent perspectives of all stakeholders in the FSA ecosystem to un-
derstand the overall functioning of different players. This will help in
developing new insights about the drivers of FSA adoption and success.
And lastly, this study has not examined the interplay between the
FSAs and organizations in the hospitality industry. Therefore, the stra-
tegies adopted by the FSAs to attract organizations in the hospitality
industry can be examined while simultaneously examining the response
to such strategies to determine which ones are effective and which ones
are not.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
N. Meenakshi: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Dhir Amandeep: Writing –
review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Methodology,
Conceptualization. Kaur Puneet: Writing – original draft, Methodology,
Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Camilleri Mark An-
thony: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
All authors declare that they do not have any competing interests to
declare.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Adjei, M., Song, H., Nketiah, E., Obuobi, B., Adu-Gyam, G., 2023. Waste management:
Forecasting residents’ plastic waste recycling intention and behavior in Ghana. Curr.
Psychol. 42 (35), 30987–31003.
de Almeida Oroski, F., da Silva, J.M., 2023. Understanding food waste-reducing
platforms: a mini-review. Waste Manag. Res. 41 (4), 816–827. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0734242X221135248.
Apostolidis, C., Brown, D., Wijetunga, D., Kathriarachchi, E., 2021. Sustainable value co-
creation at the bottom of the pyramid: using mobile applications to reduce food
waste and improve food security. J. Mark. Manag. 37 (9–10), 856–886. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1863448.
Azzurra, A., Massimiliano, A., Angela, M., 2019. Measuring sustainable food
consumption: a case study on organic food. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 17, 95–107.
Bali´
nska, A., 2022. Food-Sharing Economy: Analysis of Selected Solutions in the Warsaw
Agglomeration. In Sustainable Logistics. Productivity Press, pp. 303–326.
Bhat, F.A., Verma, A., 2023. Consumer intention to accept electric two-wheelers in India:
a valence theory approach to unveil the role of identity and utility (September).
Transportation 22, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-023-10430-z.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3
(2), 77–101.
Buckley, R., Zhong, L., Martin, S., 2021. Mental health key to tourism infrastructure in
China’s new megapark. Tour. Manag. 82, 104169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2020.104169.
Camilleri, M.A., 2021. Sustainable production and consumption of food. Mise-en-place
circular economy policies and waste management practices in tourism cities.
Sustainability 13 (17), 9986.
Camilleri, M.A., 2025. Sustainability accounting and disclosures of responsible
restaurant practices in environmental, social and governance (ESG) reports. Int. J.
Hosp. Manag. 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104051.
Campbell, J.L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., Pedersen, O.K., 2013. Coding in-depth
semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and
agreement. Sociol. Methods Res. 42 (3), 294–320.
Clarke, V., Braun, V., 2013. Teaching thematic analysis: overcoming challenges and
developing strategies for effective learning. psychologist 26 (2), 120–123.
Corbin, J., 2017. Grounded theory. J. Posit. Psychol. 12 (3), 301–302.
Czernek-Marszałek, K., McCabe, S., 2022. Why qualitative papers get rejected by Annals
of Tourism Research. Ann. Tour. Res. 92.
Davies, A., 2019. Tools: Socio-technologies of urban food sharing. In Urban Food Sharing.
Policy Press, pp. 49–68.
Davies, A.R., Edwards, F., Marovelli, B., Morrow, O., Rut, M., Weymes, M., 2017. Making
visible: interrogating the performance of food sharing across 100 urban areas.
Geoforum 86, 136–149.
Davis, R.M. (2021, May 18). Food-sharing apps aim to reduce food waste, but can they
really make a difference? Medium. 〈https://scopeweb.mit.edu/food-sharing-apps-
aim-to-reduce-food-waste-but-can-they-really-make-a-difference-fad9676f141e〉.
Demeter, C., MacInnes, S., Dolnicar, S., 2023. Dening and operationalizing eight forms
of eudaimonia and hedonia and assessing tourism-specic context-dependency.
J. Travel Res. 62 (7), 1448–1459.
Dhir, A., Malodia, S., Awan, U., Sakashita, M., Kaur, P., 2021. Extended valence theory
perspective on consumers’ e-waste recycling intentions in Japan. J. Clean. Prod. 312,
127443.
Fazal-e-Hasan, S.M., Mortimer, G., Ahmadi, H., Abid, M., Farooque, O., Amrollahi, A.,
2023. How tourists’ negative and positive emotions motivate their intentions to
reduce food waste. J. Sustain. Tour. 1–21.
Fielke, S., Taylor, B., Jakku, E., 2020. Digitalisation in agricultural knowledge and
innovation systems: The role of innovation intermediaries. Agric. Syst. 183, 102855.
Filimonau, V., Sezerel, H., Ashton, M., Kubal-Czerwi´
nska, M., Bhaskara, G.I.,
Ermolaev, V.A., 2024. How chefs develop the practice to manage food waste in
professional kitchens. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2024.103712.
Flick, U., 2004. Triangulation in qualitative research. A Companion Qual. Res. 3,
178–183.
Ghasemaghaei, M., 2020. The role of positive and negative valence factors on the impact
of bigness of data on big data analytics usage. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 50, 395–404.
Giddy, J.K., 2020. Insight into adventure tourism employment in South Africa. Sustain.
Hum. Resour. Manag. Tour. Afr. Perspect. 189–204.
Hagedorn-Hateld, R.L., Richards, R., Qamar, Z., Hood, L.B., Landry, M.J., Savoie-
Roskos, M.R., Vogelzang, J.L., Machado, S.S., OoNorasak, K., Cuite, C.L., Heying, E.,
Patton-L´
opez, M.M., Snelling, A.M., 2022. Campus-based programmes to address
food insecurity vary in leadership, funding and evaluation strategies. Nutr. Bull. 47
(3), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12570.
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
21
Harvey, J., Smith, A., Goulding, J., Illodo, I.B., 2020. Food sharing, redistribution, and
waste reduction via mobile applications: a social network analysis. Ind. Mark.
Manag. 88, 437–448.
He, X., Song, X., 2020. Service design under the form of “micro public benet” taking the
surplus food sharing app as an example. In: Kantola, In.J.I., Nazir, S., Salminen, V.
(Eds.), Advances in human factors, business management and leadership, 1209.
Springer International Publishing, pp. 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-50791-6_37.
Hoh, P.Y., Loo, S.J., Tan, G.W.H., Lee, V.H., Aw, E.C.X., Cham, T.H., Ooi, K.B., 2023.
Understanding valences in mobile grocery shopping: do consumers’ characteristics
matter? J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 63 (4), 767–780.
Hua, Y., Dong, F., 2022. Can environmental responsibility bridge the intention-behavior
gap? Conditional process model based on valence theory and the theory of planned
behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 376, 134166.
Hua, N., Shannon, R., Haider, M., Moschis, G.P., 2023. Factors inuencing purchase
intention of food surplus through a food-sharing platform. Sustainability 15 (17),
13000. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713000.
Huang, Y., Ma, E., Yen, T.H., 2022. Generation Z diners’ moral judgements of restaurant
food waste in the United States: a qualitative inquiry. J. Sustain. Tour. 24 ember.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2150861.
Humbani, M., Higueras-Castillo, E., Li´
ebana-Cabanillas, F., 2024. Satisfaction with
mobile food delivery app (MFDA) usage and the moderating role of perceived COVID
19 risk. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103807.
Jansen, T.R. (2019, July 2). Food sharing apps won’t solve our massive food waste
problem. Undark Magazine. 〈https://undark.org/2019/07/02/food-waste-apps/〉.
Johnson, A.G., Buhalis, D., 2023. Legitimacy in co-creating tourism value through
customer-to-customer (C2C) online travel communities. Tour. Recreat. Res. 1–17.
Juvan, E., Grün, B., Dolnicar, S., 2023. Waste production patterns in hotels and
restaurants: an intra-sectoral segmentation approach. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir.
Insights 4 (1), 100090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annale.2023.100090.
Kapoor, P.S., Balaji, M.S., Jiang, Y., Jebarajakirthy, C., 2022. Effectiveness of travel
social media inuencers: a case of eco-friendly hotels. J. Travel Res. 61 (5),
1138–1155.
Khalilzadeh, J., Ozturk, A.B., Bilgihan, A., 2017. Security-related factors in extended
UTAUT model for NFC based mobile payment in the restaurant industry. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 70, 460–474.
Kiger, M.E., Varpio, L., 2020. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No.
131. Med. Teach. 42 (8), 846–854.
Kumar, S., Valeri, M., 2022. Understanding the relationship among factors inuencing
rural tourism: a hierarchical approach. J. Organ. Change Manag. 35 (2), 385–407.
Li, N., Wang, J., 2020. Food waste of Chinese cruise passengers. J. Sustain. Tour. 28 (11),
1825–1840. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1762621.
Locke, K., Feldman, M., Golden-Biddle, K., 2022. Coding practices and iterativity:
Beyond templates for analyzing qualitative data. Organ. Res. Methods 25 (2),
262–284.
Lorenz, B.A., Hartmann, M., Simons, J., 2019. Impacts from food waste reduction
through consumer acceptance of suboptimal food in Germany. Food Qual. Prefer. 75,
113–123.
Ma, Y., Wang, H., Kong, R., 2020. The effect of policy instruments on rural households’
solid waste separation behavior and the mediation of perceived value using SEM.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 19398–19409.
MacInnes, S., Grün, B., Dolnicar, S., 2022. Habit drives sustainable tourist behaviour.
Ann. Tour. Res. 92, 103329.
Makov, T., Shepon, A., Krones, J., Gupta, C., Chertow, M., 2020. Social and
environmental analysis of food waste abatement via the peer-to-peer sharing
economy. Nat. Commun. 11 (1), 1156. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14899-
5.
Mazzucchelli, A., Gurioli, M., Graziano, D., Quacquarelli, B., Aouina-Mejri, C., 2021.
How to ght against food waste in the digital era: Key factors for a successful food
sharing platform. J. Bus. Res. 124, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.11.055.
McCarthy, B., Liu, H.B., 2017. Food waste and the sharing economy. J. Consum. Behav.
16 (4), 359–369.
Meenakshi, N., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Mahto, R.V., Nicolau, J.L., 2024. Is travel resurgence in
the post-global health emergency a form of revenge travel? A multi-phase qualitative
study. J. Travel Res. 63 (6). https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875231193596.
Meenakshi, N., Dhir, A., Mahto, R.V., Nicolau, J.N., Kaur, P., 2023. Travelers’ coping
strategies in the backdrop of revenge tourism. J. Travel Res., 00472875231193596
https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875231193596.
Melvin, J., Winklhofer, H., McCabe, S., 2020. Creating joint experiences—Families
engaging with a heritage site. Tour. Manag. 78, 104038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2019.104038.
Michelini, L., Grieco, C., Ciulli, F., Di Leo, A., 2020. Uncovering the impact of food
sharing platform business models: a theory of change approach. Br. Food J. 122 (5),
1437–1462. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2019-0422.
Michelini, L., Principato, L., Iasevoli, G., 2018. Understanding food sharing models to
tackle sustainability challenges. Ecol. Econ. 145, 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2017.09.009.
Molina-Azorín, J.F., Font, X., 2016. Mixed methods in sustainable tourism research: an
analysis of prevalence, designs and application in JOST (2005–2014). J. Sustain.
Tour. 24 (4), 549–573.
Mouysset, C. (2024, March 19). 15 emerging technologies Helping reduce food waste.
Lightspeed. 〈https://www.lightspeedhq.com/blog/food-waste-emerging-technolog
ies/〉.
Nadarajan, P., Vafaei-Zadeh, A., Hanifah, H., Thurasamay, R., 2024. Sustaining the
environment through e-waste recycling: an extended valence theory perspective.
Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 76 (6), 1059–1087.
Ng, P.Y., Sia, J.K.M., 2023. Managers’ perspectives on restaurant food waste separation
intention: the roles of institutional pressures and internal forces. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103362.
Nica-Avram, G., Ljevar, V., Harvey, J., Branco-Illodo, I., Gallage, S., Goulding, J., 2022.
Ill-fated interactions: modeling complaints on a food waste ghting platform. 2022
IEEE Int. Conf. Big Data 4105–4109. https://doi.org/10.1109/
BigData55660.2022.10020517.
Nyeko, S.J., Among, J., Abima, B., Ogen, C., 2022. Assessing electronic waste recycling
and disposal intentions based on an extended valence theory in a developing country
context. ORSEA J. 12 (1).
Our Impact | Olio. (2023). Olio | At Home. 〈https://olioapp.com/en/our-impact/〉.
Ozturk, A.B., Bilgihan, A., Salehi-Esfahani, S., Hua, N., 2017. Understanding the mobile
payment technology acceptance based on valence theory: a case of restaurant
transactions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 29 (8), 2027–2049. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJCHM-04-2016-0192.
Papargyropoulou, E., Fearnyough, K., Spring, C., Antal, L., 2022. The future of surplus
food redistribution in the UK: reimagining a ‘win-win’ scenario. Food Policy 108,
102230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102230.
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., K. Steinberger, J., Wright, N., Ujang, Z.B., 2014. The
food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food
waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020.
Pearson, N., Davies, I., Nuttall, P., Yalabik, B., 2025. Inuencing others to prevent
hospitality food waste: the reception of food waste messages by hospitality
employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104042.
Peter, J.P., Tarpey, L.X., Sr, 1975. A comparative analysis of three consumer decision
strategies. J. Consum. Res. 2 (1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/208613.
Pisoni, A., Canavesi, C., Michelini, L., 2022. Food sharing platforms: emerging evidence
from Italian and German users. Transp. Res. Procedia 67, 137–146. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trpro.2022.12.044.
Pratama, R.P., Humaira, S., Fauzi, D.N., Gunawan, E., Yossy, E.H., 2023. Analysis and
design of Android-based food sharing applications. IEEE 9th Int. Conf. Comput., Eng.
Des. ICCED 2023, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCED60214.2023.10425590.
Prayag, G., Jiang, Y., Chowdhury, M., Hossain, M.I., Akter, N., 2024. Building dynamic
capabilities and organizational resilience in tourism rms during COVID-19: a staged
approach. J. Travel Res. 63 (3), 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00472875231164976.
Privitera, D., Abushena, R., 2019. The home as a consumption space. In: Byrom, J.,
Medway, D. (Eds.), Case studies in food retailing and distribution. Elsevier,
pp. 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102037-1.00006-2.
Puram, P., Gurumurthy, A., 2023. Sharing economy in the food sector: a systematic
literature review and future research agenda. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 56, 229–244.
Puram, P., Roy, S., Gurumurthy, A., 2024. Understanding the challenges affecting food-
sharing apps’ usage: insights using a text-mining and interpretable machine learning
approach. Ann. Oper. Res. 1–23.
Ranjbari, M., Shams Esfandabadi, Z., Siebers, P.-O., Pisano, P., Quatraro, F., 2024.
Digitally enabled food sharing platforms towards effective waste management in a
circular economy: a system dynamics simulation model. Technovation 130, 102939.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102939.
Rashmi, Navyashree, V.A., Sai Geetha, S., Pavan, B.K., Deepti, C., 2023. An IOTML based
food freshness detection system. 2nd Int. Conf. Innov. Technol. INOCON 2023, 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1109/INOCON57975.2023.10101203.
Rau, J., & H¨
ogberg, J. (2021). Sharing as an Antidote to Food Waste: Understanding
Food Rescuing Apps and Their Users.
Ready, E., 2018. Sharing-based social capital associated with harvest production and
wealth in the Canadian arctic. PLOS ONE 13 (3), e0193759. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0193759.
Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V.K., Evans, D.,
Koh, L., Carlsson Kanyama, A., Katzeff, C., Svenfelt, Å., Jackson, P., 2019. Review:
consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions – What works and how to
design better interventions. Food Policy 83, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodpol.2019.01.009.
Robertson, J.L., Montgomery, A.W., Ozbilir, T., 2023. Employees’ response to corporate
greenwashing. Bus. Strategy Environ. 32 (7), 4015–4027. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.3351.
Ryu, E., Hyun, S.S., Shim, C., 2015. Creating new relationships through tourism: a
qualitative analysis of tourist motivations of older individuals in Japan. J. Travel
Tour. Mark. 32 (4), 325–338.
Saginova, O., Zavyalov, D., Kireeva, N., Zavyalova, N., Saginov, Y., 2021. Food-sharing
in the distributed use economy. E3S Web Conf. 247, 01016. https://doi.org/
10.1051/e3sconf/202124701016.
Santos, K.D.S., Ribeiro, M.C., Queiroga, D.E.U.D., Silva, I.A.P.D., Ferreira, S.M.S., 2020.
The use of multiple triangulations as a validation strategy in a qualitative study.
Cienc. Saude coletiva 25, 655–664.
Sarti, S., Corsini, F., Gusmerotti, N.M., Frey, M., 2017. Food sharing: making sense
between new business models and responsible social initiatives for food waste
prevention. Econ. Policy Energy Environ. (1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.3280/
EFE2017-001007.
Schanes, K., Stagl, S., 2019. Food waste ghters: what motivates people to engage in food
sharing? J. Clean. Prod. 211, 1491–1501.
Shah, P., Dhir, A., Joshi, R., Tripathy, N., 2023. Opportunities and challenges in food
entrepreneurship: in-depth qualitative investigation of millet entrepreneurs. J. Bus.
Res. 155, 113372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113372.
M. N. et al.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 129 (2025) 104175
22
Shankar, A., Jebarajakirthy, C., Nayal, P., Maseeh, H.I., Kumar, A., Sivapalan, A., 2022.
Online food delivery: a systematic synthesis of literature and a framework
development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2022.103240.
Sharma, R., Dhir, A., Talwar, S., Kaur, P., 2021. Over-ordering and food waste: the use of
food delivery apps during a pandemic. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 96. https://www.scienc
edirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278431921001201.
Sigala, M., 2021. Sharing and platform economy in tourism: an ecosystem review of
actors and future research agenda. J.: Handb. e-Tour. 1–23.
Soares, A.L.V., Mendes-Filho, L., Gretzel, U., 2021. Technology adoption in hotels:
applying institutional theory to tourism. Tour. Rev. 76 (3), 669–680.
Soloveva, D., Skippari, M., Karjaluoto, H., 2024. To share or not: Drivers and barriers of
sustainable peer-to-peer food sharing platform adoption. In: Vrontis, In.D.,
Thrassou, A., Efthymiou, L., Weber, Y., Shams, S.M.R., Tsoukatos, E. (Eds.), Business
for sustainability, II. Springer International Publishing, pp. 117–141. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-031-37365-7_6.
Soon, J.M., Saguy, S., 2017. Crowdsourcing: a new conceptual view for food safety and
quality. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 66, 63–72. ISSN 0924-2244.
Spencer, A.J., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., 2012. A hierarchical model of technology adoption
for small owner-managed travel rms: an organizational decision-making and
leadership perspective. Tour. Manag. 33 (5), 1195–1208.
Suhartanto, D., Dean, D., Arsawan, I.W.E., Anggraeni, T., Putri, I.S.S., 2024b. Forming
loyalty toward green food: food or environmental issue? Evidence from plant-based
food. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15378020.2024.2341197.
Suhartanto, D., Dean, D., Leo, G., Triyuni, N.N., 2024a. Gaining young customer trust in
online food service during the COVID-19 pandemic incorporating valence theory and
the quality-based behavior model. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 27 (4), 419–441.
Suhartanto, D., Djatnika, T., Suhaeni, T., Setiawati, L., 2023. Halal trust during the
COVID-19 outbreak: The role of quality, perceived benet and health risk evidence
from mobile food purchasing. J. Islam. Account. Bus. Res. 14 (5), 767–781.
Sulis, F., Agostinho, F., Almeida, C.M.V.B., Giannetti, B.F., 2021. Recognizing the wealth
of non-marketable food in distribution centres: the environmental benets of
donation. J. Clean. Prod. 318, 128482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.128482.
Tahir, R., Athar, M.R., Afzal, A., 2020. The impact of greenwashing practices on green
employee behaviour: mediating role of employee value orientation and green
psychological climate. Cogent Bus. Manag. 7 (1), 1781996. https://doi.org/
10.1080/23311975.2020.1781996.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., M¨
antym¨
aki, M., 2020. Why do people purchase from online
travel agencies (OTAs)? A consumption values perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 88,
102534.
Talwar, S., Kaur, P., Yadav, R., Sharma, R., Dhir, A., 2023. Food waste and out-of-home-
dining: Antecedents and consequents of the decision to take away leftovers after
dining at restaurants. J. Sustain. Tour. 31 (1), 47–72.
Tan, J., Zhao, Z., Ma, W., Liu, Y., Zhao, H., 2025. Price fairness perception on online food
service platforms: a data-driven approach using fsQCA and machine learning. Int. J.
Hosp. Manag. 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104014.
Tawk, H., 2024. Extending (UTAUT2) to examine the utilization of mobile food-sharing
apps and online platforms for the reduction of household food waste. Technol.
Sustain.
Tolkach, D., King, B., 2015. Strengthening community-based tourism in a new resource-
based island nation: why and how? Tour. Manag. 48, 386–398. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2014.12.013.
United Nations (2024). Food loss and waste reduction. United Nations. 〈https://www.un.
org/en/observances/end-food-waste-day〉.
Varghese, C., Pathak, D., Varde, A.S., 2021. SeVa: a food donation app for smart living.
IEEE 11th Annu. Comput. Commun. Workshop Conf. CCWC 2021, 0408–0413.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCWC51732.2021.9375945.
Wang, Y.C., Chen, H., Ryan, B., Troxtel, Cvar, M., 2023. “Hotel general managers’ brand
love: a thematic analysis with general managers in the U.S.,”. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.
54 (2023), 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.12.016.
Wastutiningsih, S.P., Aulia, D., 2021. Food sharing through ICT (information and
communication technology) or better food accessibility and preventing food waste as
basic for drafting food sovereignty’s strategy. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 803
(1), 012059. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/803/1/012059.
Yamabe-Ledoux, A.M., Saito, O., Hori, K., 2023. Exploring the opportunities and
challenges of ICT-mediated food sharing in Japan. Sustainability 15 (5), 4584.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054584.
Yamagishi, K., 1996. Strength of preference and effects of valence in the domains of gains
and losses. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 66 (3), 290–306.
Yamagishi, K., Miyamoto, J.M., 1996. Asymmetries in strength of preference: a focus
shift model of valence effects in difference judgments. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn., Mem.,
Cogn. 22 (2), 493.
Yamamoto, S., Furuichi, T., 2017. Courtesy food sharing characterized by begging for
social bonds in wild bonobos. In: Hare, In.B., Yamamoto, S. (Eds.), Bonobos, 1st ed.
Oxford University Press, pp. 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/
9780198728511.003.0009.
Yu, H., Abdullah, A., Saat, R.M., 2014. Overcoming time and ethical constraints in the
qualitative data collection process: A case of information literacy research.
J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 46 (3), 243–257.
Zhang, C.X., L’Espoir Decosta, P., McKercher, B., 2015. Politics and tourism promotion:
Hong Kong’s myth making. Ann. Tour. Res. 54, 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2015.07.003.
Zhao, G., Liu, S., Wang, Y., Lopez, C., Ong, A., Chen, X., 2023. Reducing food waste from
social innovation perspective: a review of measures, research gaps and future
directions. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 26 (2), 199–223. https://doi.org/
10.22434/IFAMR2022.0006.
M. N. et al.
