Next Article in Journal
Energy and Sustainability Impacts of U.S. Buildings Under Future Climate Scenarios
Previous Article in Journal
The Hidden Cost of Global Trade: Evidence from Plastic Waste Trade and Its Ecological Ramifications Across Major Waste-Trading Nations
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Chinese Heritage, Cultural Protection, and Green Innovation on Tourism Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 13
10.3390/su17136185
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainability and Innovation in Hospitality Management: Green Practices in Northeastern Hungary

by
Tamás Misik
1,* and
Zoltán Nagy
2
1
Institute of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Eszterhazy Karoly Catholic University, 3300 Eger, Hungary
2
Institute of Economic Sciences, Eszterhazy Karoly Catholic University, 3300 Eger, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(13), 6185; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136185
Submission received: 18 May 2025 / Revised: 28 June 2025 / Accepted: 30 June 2025 / Published: 5 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heritage Preservation and Tourism Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Sustainability has also become an increasingly important issue as an international trend for the hospitality industry in recent times, with a positive message for both restaurant operators and consumers. Restaurants can become more sustainable in three main areas: (1) water and energy efficiency, (2) waste management, and (3) employees—social topics. This study examines the role of green practices and innovation in hospitality using three methods in parallel. In connection with a current tourism project, this paper describes some of the green practices for hospitality management in Hungary. Based on the survey, the most common sustainable practices are sourcing from local producers and using seasonal menus. The most popular food waste reduction strategies are Munch, nose-to-tail, and other food utilization options, totaling 65.0%. A total of 72.0% of consumers prefer the green restaurants. Our data show that sustainable operation is not just an environmental issue, but also increasingly a strategic business advantage. The findings are supported by the everyday practices of two of Dining Guide’s member restaurants, Iszkor and Sulyom in the Northeastern Hungary region. Both restaurants focus on locally sourced food and drink ingredients. Some dairy products, domestic fruit, and vegetables come from sustainable farming. For restaurants, adopting sustainable solutions can provide a long-term competitive advantage.

1. Introduction

Sustainability in the hospitality industry is defined as development and management that meets the needs of guests, owners, and stakeholders without compromising the ability of future stakeholders to enjoy the benefits from the same services, products, and experiences [1]. Within this, green practices in hospitality management are defined as environmentally friendly and value-added business strategies that reduce food waste, save energy, and use sustainable materials and resources [2,3,4]. Green practices have become one of the most interesting research topics in the hospitality literature [5,6,7]. Over the past decade, the hospitality industry has undergone important changes, driven partly by evolving consumer expectations and partly by increasingly pressing issues of environmental and social sustainability [8]. The scientific literature has identified three key thematic areas for implementing green practices: financial benefits [9,10], consumer demand [11,12], and stakeholder relations [13,14]. More and more research focuses on the possible influence of sustainable hospitality on business benefits and environmentally sustainable consumer behavior [15,16,17,18].
The GreenTEA international project is co-funded by the European Union with Croatian, Finnish, Portuguese, and Hungarian partners from 2023 to 2026. Partners will each select and analyze green national restaurant practices in their own country at the small and medium-sized level enterprises (SME). One of the goals of this project—which made up a small part of our paper—is to investigate the role of sustainability and innovation in the hospitality industry, with a particular focus on two selected restaurants. Moreover, in connection with the GreenTEA project, this paper describes some of the green practices for restaurant management in Hungary. For this, one of the paper’s objectives is to develop a questionnaire to describe restaurants’ endowments, green practices, and sustainability plans.
The aim of this paper is (1) to evaluate what are the most commonly used sustainable practices of catering establishments, (2) to detect the popular treatment food waste reduction, (3) to investigate consumers’ decision of selecting a restaurant, and finally (4) to identify the most common challenges for restaurant operators.

2. Literature Review

Reducing environmental, social, and economic impacts is the prime goal of sustainable hospitality operations, such as supporting local communities and using resources responsibly [18]. The sustainability strategies of the restaurants include local ingredients used, energy-saving technologies, waste reduction methods, and consumer awareness [19]. Restaurants generate significant amounts of food waste, plastic waste, and emissions; they consume huge amounts of energy and water for everyday operations at the same time [20]. Restaurants have a significant environmental impact like the generation of food waste [21,22,23], and wasteful practices leading to the inefficient use of water and energy, among others [21]. The restaurant market is characterized by high utility costs for day-to-day operations [24]. Food that is not sold but can still be used (leftover daily menus, bakery products, good quality fruit and vegetables that are not perfect looking) can be donated to charity, thus reducing the amount of food waste [25]. Studied restaurants have also recently started to adopt green practices in many countries all over the world and have enjoyed many benefits, including a green image [18,26]. Green practices in the analyzed restaurants have an indirect impact on company benchmarking through green capability [27]. Some of these sustainable best practices include better demand forecasting [28], decreasing leftover management [23], and reusable or biodegradable cutlery [29]. Environmentally responsible consumption has been increasing among restaurant consumers in recent decades, with patronage increasing at restaurants that implement green practices according to the observations [30,31,32]. All of these trends and consequences have generated more attention worldwide toward understanding how and why restaurants are environmentally unsustainable and how this issue can be remedied. Alternatively, how can restaurants be transformed into green restaurants? Here, a green restaurant could be defined as a way of setting up and operating a restaurant in an environmentally friendly and highly energy-efficient way [33]. Where possible, green restaurants should also offer green food on their menus. A narrow definition of green food in restaurants is the organic–local–sustainable triple [34].
Sustainable restaurants strive to keep at a minimum or reduce the industry’s ecological footprint [35]. Green aims include sourcing food ingredients from local producers, having a strong focus on seasonality, including an increased rate of vegetarian or vegan food on the current and dynamically changing menu, or using environmentally friendly packaging for delivery. International trends predict that sustainability has gained importance in the hospitality sector, as it is increasingly included in the evaluation criteria of a growing number of competitions [35,36]. Gastronomic tourists’ interest in local and traditional cuisine as a reflection of gastronomic identity in tourism has influenced the sustainable gastronomic strategy. This concept is based on the implementation of eco-friendly practices, the protection and improvement of consumers’ health, sociocultural quality, the economic aspects of business behavior, and its intergenerational transfer [37]. For the sustainable management of green restaurants, among others, the international literature demonstrates the following:
  • Focus has shifted toward local foods and obtaining locally produced and sourced ingredients—having a lower ecological footprint, reducing air pollution associated with shorter transport, and supporting national producers [38,39];
  • Vary the menu with the seasons, months, or at specified intervals and the restaurants will probably be more environmentally friendly. After all, if you use seasonal ingredients for food, you are putting less strain on our planet with control of the global environmental footprint [40,41];
  • Decrease animal-sourced products and increase the variety of plant-sourced foods on the menu. More restaurants are offering plant-based alternatives [40,42];
  • Using primarily reusable and washable plates, cutlery, and napkins for serving has a much lower environmental effect and provides smaller portion sizes to suit the different needs of consumers, thus reducing food waste generation [43,44];
  • Use of environmentally friendly packaging materials: using recyclable or biodegradable packaging instead of disposable plastics reduces the ecological footprint [21];
  • Reduce the amount of food waste through the effective and well-known method of nose-to-tail [33].

3. Materials and Methods

The use of mixed methods was considered essential to triangulate data from different sources and to deepen the understanding of green practices in hospitality. The quantitative survey provided insights into general trends, while qualitative interviews enabled a more nuanced understanding of the implementation challenges and success factors of sustainable practices. Three different methods—both qualitative and quantitative—were applied to collect data in 2024:
(1)
Literature review (January–February): a review of relevant academic publications and professional sources on sustainability strategies in the hospitality industry, with a focus on minimizing food waste, sourcing local ingredients, and improving energy efficiency.
(2)
Online survey (March): the questionnaire was designed, pilot-tested, and distributed via professional networks and direct invitations. The online survey reached 100 hospitality professionals, including representatives of restaurants, cafés, pastry shops, and catering businesses in Heves, Nógrád, and Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén counties in Northeastern Hungary, all of which were completed and returned. The survey covered purchasing habits, waste management, energy-saving measures, and environmentally conscious guest communication. A special version of the GreenTEA questionnaire was also sent to two renowned restaurants known for their green practices.
(3)
Case studies and interviews (April–May): Exemplary restaurants with established sustainable practices were selected for semi-structured interviews, field visits, and follow-up inquiries. These restaurants were identified through industry recommendations and national rankings. The case studies aimed to highlight best practices and contextualize the survey findings. Qualitative data from the interviews and case studies were analyzed using thematic coding, which helped identify key sustainable green practices.
Participation in the research was voluntary; therefore, the sample is not statistically representative of the entire Hungarian hospitality sector. However, efforts were made to ensure diversity in terms of location and type of establishment (e.g., 38% restaurants, 33% cafés, 29% pastry shops and others; 47% from Heves, 29% from BAZ, 24% from Nógrád counties).
Before the full launch of the survey, a pilot test was conducted with five hospitality managers to validate the clarity and relevance of the questions. Their feedback led to minor modifications in wording and question order to reduce measurement bias and improve response accuracy. The studied restaurants were Sulyom and Iszkor, which are presented as green examples and both located in popular tourist destinations in our country. The location of the studied counties and selected restaurants are shown in Figure 1. Sulyom Landscape Restaurant operates from 2021 in Sarud, a small village in Heves County. It is a special Slow Food bistro, with a kitchen based on local products, on the banks of Lake Tisza [45]. Slow Food, which brings together food and temporality, no hurry life philosophy, is unusual for many people when they first encounter the movement, even if fast food is ubiquitous. It has grown and varied in recent decades [46]. They work primarily with ingredients from local producers, even using freshly picked, quality ingredients from their show gardens, and strive for simplicity and harmony in both the look of the plates and the flavors of the food served [45].
Iszkor opened in 2021 in the Bükk Mountains in Mályinka village in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén (BAZ) County, under the guidance of internationally renowned chef Ádám Pohner (12th place in the Bocuse d’Or 2019 World Final, Dining Guide Young Chef of the Year 2024) and his partner [47]. The menu changes frequently according to seasonality, but what all dishes have in common is high quality and a perfect blend of flavors and textures. There are so many things available in the Bükk Mountains at the ingredient level. Not everything is always available; the flexible menu adapts to this [48].
The present study is based on features that were collected from an online survey undertaken in the spring of 2024. First, we asked for some basic information and a brief history of the restaurants and their beliefs. We also focused on the average distance traveled and the travel mode used by employees between home and work. More questions concern the energy efficiency of buildings and the existing modern equipment and heating. The largest part of the online survey is related to the daily operation of the restaurant. Figure 2 shows the short version of the questionnaire.

4. Results

The results show that 68.0% of the catering establishments surveyed have some kind of sustainability goals. The most common practices on sustainability are the following (Figure 3): (1) sourcing from local producers: 52.0%; (2) using seasonal menus: 47.0%; (3) developing food waste reduction strategies: 39.0%. The majority of responding restaurants recognized that a commitment to sustainability has not only led to reductions in environmental impacts but can also pay off economically. 41.0% of the surveyed catering operators in everyday life use food waste management methods (Figure 4). The most popular strategies are: (1) Munch and other food rescue programs: 35.0% and (2) various efficient food utilization options: 30.0%. Restaurants that have implemented these practices have reduced the amount of food waste by an average of 25.0% in the last year, resulting in significant economic and environmental benefits.
In the opinion of restaurant operators, the consumers are increasingly looking for sustainable restaurants because 72.0% of respondents prefer environmentally friendly stakeholders. A total of 59.0% of restaurants believe that sustainability increases their competitive advantage. The results show that sustainable operation is not just an environmental issue, but also increasingly a strategic business advantage. The detailed features are shown in Figure 5. Although sustainable solutions are becoming increasingly popular, there are many challenges to catering operators (Figure 6): (1) higher procurement costs: 54.0%, (2) logistics difficulties in working with local producers: 43.0%. These barriers are particularly problematic for smaller restaurants, which may initially face additional costs to introduce sustainable solutions. The last factor can be an important challenge in the restaurant supply chain.
In the course of the research, we identified two outstanding examples that successfully apply the principles of sustainable hospitality. Both are located in Heves County, one a café-bakery and the other a local authentic restaurant. They work with 100.0% local producers, offer a seasonal menu, and have implemented a food waste reduction program. In the past year, they have reduced food waste by 30.0% and increased guest numbers. The local restaurant uses alternative packaging solutions, has its composting system, and sells daily leftovers through the Munch platform. It has reduced its operating costs by about 20.0% over the past year through sustainable measures.
Based on the characteristics of Sulyom restaurant, as provided by the staff, two co-workers use bicycles to get to work, and ten use cars to get around in teams. The restaurant’s building has some thermally insulated infrastructural elements with low U values (thermal transmittance in W/m2K). It does not have an energy performance certificate (EPC). Biofilter Ltd. (Limerick, Ireland) collected and transported the restaurant’s food waste for further recycling treatment each year. The restaurant practices a sustainable waste management policy; only food that is not consumed becomes waste. Any biodegradable materials that can be composted are recycled. The green waste is donated to a nearby animal shelter. The majority of food ingredients are locally sourced. A significant proportion of the fruits and vegetables used are produced locally, so their supply is essentially carbon neutral. Only a few vegetables, fruits, and cheeses are sourced from more than 50 km away. Artisanal cheese and grey beef are also sourced locally, and they are very proud to finally be able to put local fish from the Tisza on the menu.
Based on features from Iszkor restaurant, seven employees use separate cars to get to work and two people use cars to get around, in teams. The restaurant’s building has a few thermally insulated infrastructural elements, but it does not have an energy performance certificate. This certificate shows the overall energy performance of the building and the value of CO2 emissions. Similarly to Sulyom, Biofilter Ltd. (Limerick, Ireland), the restaurant collects and transports food waste for further recycling treatment. A high rate of vegetables and various meat products, such as chicken, beef, guinea fowl, and goose, come from within a 10 km radius of the municipality. Vegetables are all organic, but a large proportion are not certified. Dairy products are typically sourced from a greater distance. Only a few spices, vanilla, and chocolate come from a longer distance; the fresh bakery products are sourced from Salgótarján city, which is about 80 km by road from the restaurant.
A few detailed features of selected restaurants are shown in Table 1. Both restaurants aim to reduce their overhead costs shortly by installing solar photovoltaic panels on building roofs using renewable energy sources. Plans of Sulyom management also include producing locally purified water and installing water-saving toilets.
The table below (Table 2) summarizes the main themes identified from the thematic coding of interviews conducted with two green restaurants (Sulyom and Iszkor) in Northeastern Hungary. Each theme includes a description and a representative quotation from the interviews.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Another study [49] divided 300 restaurants into groups according to the level of employee training in sustainable practices, food waste management, and to contrast the differences in the degree of sustainability-oriented service innovation and brand equity. Classifying catering facilities according to specific criteria can help restaurants to identify the green practices of competitors and become more successful in the future. Two groups were identified in Ecuador: (1) restaurants with only a little training in green practices, more food waste amount, lower level of sustainability-oriented service innovation, and higher brand equity; (2) restaurants with more training in green practices, lower level of food waste, higher level of sustainability-oriented service innovation, and lower brand equity. According to this classification, our selected restaurants belong to the second group; 68.0% of the catering establishments surveyed have some kind of sustainability strategy. In addition to the survey results, thematic coding of the qualitative interviews with Sulyom and Iszkor restaurants provided further insight into the application and challenges of sustainable hospitality in practice. Six core themes support the quantitative findings and highlight the restaurants’ commitment to eco-friendly practices (Table 2). Moreover, they reveal the practical limitations and barriers restaurant operators face, especially regarding costs and supplier availability. These qualitative insights enrich our understanding of sustainability implementation in the sector and demonstrate that green practices are deeply embedded in daily operations and decision-making processes at the local level.
Another scientific paper [50] observed that the respondents have expressed the highest degree of agreement with the claims that tourists are willing to spend more money on local and authentic food. The strengthening of the local gastronomic identity contributes to the economic prosperity of everyone involved in its creation and presentation. Moreover, a scientific paper from the USA [51] findings showed that more than 50.0% of consumers were willing to pay more for consumption in green restaurants. Participants ranked their decision to eat in a sustainable restaurant in the following order of priority: fresh ingredients, healthy aspects, better things for the environment, good value, and easy access. We agree with these statements because our research shows that nearly half of consumers are willing to pay more for local foods. Further research [52] described that consumer willingness to choose a green restaurant depends upon four interconnected factors: the demographic characteristics of the consumer, environmental concerns, ecological behaviors, and knowledge of green restaurants. These authors found that if consumers are aware of the essence of a green restaurant, this knowledge may influence their intention to patronize a green restaurant indirectly by the consumers’ environmental concerns and their ecological behaviors. In agreement with this, our data show that 72.0% of respondents prefer environmentally friendly restaurants according to their operators, and almost 60.0% of restaurants believe that sustainability increases their competitive advantage.
Another study [53] used a sample of 1200 adult respondents, including 600 Polish and 600 Lithuanian consumers to identify and analyze consumer choices and evaluate among others the sustainability practices in restaurants in Warsaw and Kaunas. Participants were randomly selected for recruitment by trained interviewers in shopping centers and supermarkets. For the Polish consumers, the most important was using local ingredients and reusable cutlery with 59.0%, followed by the use of seasonal ingredients and alternative protein sources with a rate of 32.2%. In Lithuania for respondents, a sustainable approach used in restaurants was more taken into account when choosing restaurants. The most important element was the use of reusable cutlery (86.0%), as well as seasonal and local ingredients (59.0%). Our results have indicated that the most commonly used sustainable practices are sourcing from local producers: 52.0% and using seasonal menus.
Another scientific paper focused on reducing food waste [54]. It identified 17 applied interventions that claim to have reduced the amount of food waste. Among others, plate size interventions resulted in up to 57% food waste reduction; this intervention proved to be the most effective. In educational institutions, changing nutritional guidelines reduced vegetable waste by up to 28%. The effective information campaigns had up to a 28% decrease in food waste. Other types of intervention had little or no reliable evidence provided. We found similar results to those in the previous manuscript; Munch, nose-to-tail, and stem-to-root are widespread food waste reduction methods among 65% of respondents in our country. Another study [55] focused on the website content analysis of 355 Michelin Green Star Restaurants (MGSRs). This research aims to identify the extent to which sustainability is promoted by these restaurants. The results suggest that most MGSR websites highlight the services they offer local and organic food but place less emphasis on sustainable food preparation practices. Most Green Star restaurants publish their food procurement strategy on their website and highlight locally sourced food (87.9%).
Another investigation in Berkeley, USA, [56] found that 65.0% of restaurant stakeholders are continuously monitoring food waste generation, and 84.0% use compost bins to dispose of biodegradable waste. The results of the study also show that the most common method employed to dispose of food waste was giving edible leftovers to restaurant employees (72.0%). However, three-quarters of the restaurants avoided food donation as an aid for fear of legal liability and complications. Finally, only 14.0% of analyzed restaurants collected their food waste in conventional landfill bins. The final conclusion of this review paper is that attitudes and behaviors toward food waste in restaurants play an important role in the amount of food thrown away in catering establishments. In one part of our study, two of the green examples of restaurants put a particular emphasis on reducing food waste and ensuring that it is collected and treated as professionally as possible.
The main goal of the following research [57] was to examine the consumers’ attitude choice of a restaurant in the Plovdid region of Bulgaria and which factors played the main role in this. According to the respondents, determining which restaurant will be visited, the quality of the food, the origin of raw materials, which are used for the preparation of the dishes, and food safety and cleanliness are the most significant factors (91.0%, 90.0%, and 82.0%, respectively) that determine their personal choices in the visiting of the restaurant. Other research [58] concluded that a part of hospitality management has concerns about the costs and challenges of implementing green practices. First, they worried about cost-efficiency and price increases during operation and maintenance. However, considering the business, the average size of the restaurant is relatively small and the cost and price increase that is related to green practices because of environmentally friendly products are generally more expensive. Otherwise, environmental education and training for employees is critical to the successful implementation of environmentally friendly practices. Nevertheless, a few sections of hospitality operators believe that motivating employees is not feasible. The potential higher price is in line with one of the findings of our research, in which the surveyed catering establishments identified as one of the biggest challenges to the green transition the higher purchasing cost of 54.0%.
The following suggestions can be made to help restaurants further develop sustainable operations:
-
Strengthening cooperation with local producers is important and necessary for the future. Restaurants can benefit from building direct relationships with local producers, which not only reduces their environmental impact but also promotes the use of fresh and seasonal ingredients.
-
Adopt innovative food waste management strategies in day-to-day operations. Composting, food rescue programs such as Munch and creative use methods (nose-to-tail, stem-to-root) can reduce waste in the long period.
-
Adopt environmentally friendly packaging solutions. Switch from single-use plastic to degradable or reusable packaging materials and encourage guests to use their food carrier.
-
Increase energy efficiency for the operation of buildings. Measures to reduce energy consumption, lighting equipment, and water consumption cannot only increase sustainability but also cost-effectiveness.
-
Restaurants should highlight their sustainable practices in marketing communications to increase guest awareness and engagement.
-
Professional collaboration and leveraging support for more efficient operation. To develop sustainable hospitality, it is advisable to engage in industry collaborations, seek funding opportunities, and use government support.
The conclusions to be derived from this study are as follows: (1) purchasing from local producers was detected as the most commonly used sustainable practice in the catering sector, (2) Munch and other programs are recorded as the most frequently used treatment food waste reduction, (3) the consumers were increasingly looking for sustainable restaurants (4) identified the higher purchasing cost as the most common challenge for restaurant operators.
The research has shown that sustainability is not only an ethical and environmental issue, but it is increasingly essential for business in hospitality management. For restaurants, adopting sustainable solutions can provide a long-term competitive advantage, while contributing to reducing environmental pressures and to the development of the local economy. It is key for market participants to respond proactively to consumer expectations and growing demands for sustainability. Our results show that there is still a lot of potential to improve the energy efficiency of the restaurants’ main buildings in particular. Both restaurants have indicated that they plan to install solar power on their roofs, which could significantly reduce heating bills and increase energy efficiency. This study aims to provide restaurant operators with guidance and guidelines to develop effective sustainability strategies that take into account environmentally friendly consumer expectations. In the context of the restaurants’ sustainable practices, future research should examine and measure how much food waste can be decreased with the currently used green practices per year. Developing the used environmental management standards for catering establishments and how much energy can be saved by green practices in hospitality management for the future, and finally, the extent to which the restaurant can reduce its ecological footprint through green practices in its daily operations and in parallel maximize the benefits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.M. and Z.N.; methodology, T.M. and Z.N.; software, Z.N.; validation, Z.N.; formal analysis, T.M.; investigation, T.M. and Z.N.; resources, Z.N. and T.M.; writing—original draft preparation, T.M. and Z.N.; writing—review and editing, T.M.; visualization, T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study by Institution Committee due to Legal Regulations (REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

GreenTea international project—improving the educational background of Green Tourism in higher education by developing alternative educational materials and learning opportunities with 2023-1-HU01-KA220-HED-000156471 ID number is co-funded by the European Union.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D. Sustainability in the hospitality industry: Some personal reflections on corporate challenges and research agendas. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 36–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kim, S.-H.; Lee, K.; Fairhurst, A. The review of “green” research in hospitality, 2000–2014. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 226–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rahman, I.; Reynolds, D.; Svaren, S. How “green” are North American hotels? An exploration of low-cost adoption practices. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 720–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Myung, E.; McClaren, A.; Li, L. Environmentally related research in scholarly hospitality journals. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 1264–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mensah, I. Environmental management practices among hotels in the greater Accra region. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2006, 25, 414–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Buckley, R.C. Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 528–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nicholls, S.; Kang, S. Going green: The adoption of environmental initiatives in Michigan’s lodging sector. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 953–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gössling, S.; Garrod, B.; Aall, C.; Hille, J.; Peeters, P. Sustainable tourism futures: Perspectives on systems, restructuring, and innovations. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 501–517. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tzschentke, N.A.; Kirk, D.; Lynch, P.A. Reasons for going green in serviced accommodation establishments. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2004, 16, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singal, M. The link between firm financial performance and investment in sustainability initiatives. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2013, 55, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kwok, L.; Huang, Y.K.; Hu, L. Green attributes of restaurants: What really matters to consumers. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 55, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Martínez, P.; Bosque, I.R. CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 35, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chan, E.S.; Hawkins, R. Attitude towards EMSs in an international hotel: An exploratory case study. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 641–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Raub, S.; Blunschi, S. The power of meaningful work: How awareness of CSR initiatives fosters task significance and positive work outcomes in service employees. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Han, H.; Hsu, L.-T.; Lee, J.-S. Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kang, K.H.; Stein, L.; Heo, C.Y.; Lee, S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, Y.J.; Njite, D.; Hancer, M. Anticipated emotion in consumers’ intentions to select eco-friendly restaurants: Augmenting the theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ham, S.; Lee, S. US restaurant companies’ green marketing via company websites: Impact on financial performance. Tour. Econ. 2011, 17, 1055–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Namkung, Y.; Soocheong, S.J. Effects of restaurant green practices on brand equity formation: Do green practices really matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 33, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, Y.F.; Chen, S.P.; Lee, Y.C.; Tsai, C.T. Developing green management standards for restaurants: An application of green supply chain management. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kasim, A.; Ismail, A. Environmentally friendly practices among restaurants: Drivers and barriers to change. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 551–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hatjiathanassiadou, M.; de Souza, S.R.G.; Nogueira, J.P.; de Medeiros Oliveira, L.; Strasburg, V.J.; Rolim, P.M.; Seabra, L.M.A.J. Environmental impacts of university restaurant menus: A case study in Brazil. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chiang, C.I.; Sheu, R.S. How the sustainability of your recipes? Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2020, 22, 100244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alonso, A.D.; Krajsic, V. Cost management and small restaurant businesses: A complex balance and the role of management. Int. J. Revenue Manag. 2015, 8, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hwang, J.; Kim, H.; Choe, J.Y. The role of eco-friendly edible insect restaurants in the field of sustainable tourism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Filimonau, V.; De Coteau, D.A. Food waste management in hospitality operations: A critical review. Tour Manag. 2019, 71, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chiu, J.Z.; Hsieh, C.C. The impact of restaurants’ green supply chain practices on firm performance. Sustainability 2016, 8, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mu, W.; Spaargaren, G.; Lansink, A.O. Mobile apps for green food practices and the role for consumers: A case study on dining out practices with Chinese and Dutch young consumers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Su, C.H.; Tsai, C.H.; Bias, S.R. Proactive Waste Management Solutions: Implementing reusable and biodegradable food packaging at food festivals. J. Hosp. Tour Cases 2020, 8, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jang, S.Y.; Chung, J.Y.; Kim, Y.G. Effects of environmentally friendly perceptions on customers’ intentions to visit environmentally friendly restaurants: An extended theory of planned behavior. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 20, 599–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bacig, M.; Young, C.A. The halo effect created for restaurants that source food locally. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2019, 22, 209–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moon, S.J. Investigating beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding green restaurant patronage: An application of the extended theory of planned behavior with moderating effects of gender and age. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nitzko, S.; Spiller, A. Comparing “Leaf-to-Root”, “Nose-to-Tail” and other efficient food utilization options from a consumer perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. LaVecchia, G. Green: The new gold-Restaurants are facing public pressure to be more environmentally responsible. Some forward-thinking operators are responding with creative solutions. Rest Hosp. 2008, 92, 36–47. [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnson, B. Zero Waste Home: The Ultimate Guide to Simplifying Your Life; Scribner: Penguin, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  36. Khatter, A. Challenges and Solutions for Environmental Sustainability in the Hospitality Sector. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Arslan, E.; Kendir, H.; Akmeşe, H.; Özçelik, B.H.; Akyollu, K.; Taner, H.C. Investigation of Tokat Bez Sucuk, a geographically indicated local food, within the scope of sustainable gastronomy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Karagiannis, D.; Andrinos, M. The role of sustainable restaurant practices in city branding: The case of Athens. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lang, M.; Lemmerer, A. How and why restaurant patrons value locally sourced foods and ingredients. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Clark, M.; Hill, J.; Tilman, D. Multiple global crises require food system solutions. Science 2019, 365, 530–532. [Google Scholar]
  41. Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tzschentke, N.A.; Kirk, D.; Lynch, P.A. Going green: Decisional factors in small hospitality operations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2008, 27, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Talwar, S.; Kaur, P.; Okumus, B.; Ahmed, U.; Dhir, A. Food waste reduction and taking away leftovers: Interplay of food-ordering routine, planning routine, and motives. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 98, 103033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Talwar, S.; Kaur, P.; Yadav, R.; Sharma, R.; Dhir, A. Food waste and out-of-home-dining: Antecedents and consequents of the decision to take away leftovers after dining at restaurants. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 31, 47–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sulyom. Available online: https://www.diningcity.hu/restaurant/52043-sulyom_tajetterem (accessed on 1 May 2025).
  46. Parkins, W.; Craig, G. Slow Living; Berg: Oxford, UK, 2006; p. 180. [Google Scholar]
  47. Misik, T.; Nagy, Z.; Domjánné Nyizsalovszki, R. Sustainability restaurants and good practices in north-eastern Hungary. In Proceedings of the 3th International Food Research Congress (ICONFOOD’24), Sivas, Turkiye, 16–18 October 2024; pp. 519–524. [Google Scholar]
  48. Francisck, R.A. Boldogság a “Mordori út” Végén–Interjú Pohner Ádámmal. (Happiness at the End of the “Mordor Road”–Interview with Ádám Pohner). Available online: https://hellohungary.hu/gasztronomia (accessed on 17 December 2024). (In Hungarian).
  49. Montesdeoca-Calderón, M.-G.; Gil-Saura, I.; Ruiz-Molina, M.-E.; Martin-Rios, C. Does Employee Training in Sustainable Practices and Food Waste Influence a Restaurant’s Level of Sustainability-Oriented Service Innovation (SOSI) and Brand Equity? Evidence-Based Research into the Ecuadorian Catering Industry. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rinaldi, C. Food and gastronomy for sustainable place development: A multidisciplinary analysis of different theoretical approaches. Sustainability 2017, 10, 1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dewald, B.; Bruin, B.J.; Jang, Y.J. US consumer attitudes towards “green” restaurants. Anatolia 2014, 25, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hu, H.H.; Parsa, H.G.; Self, J. The dynamics of green restaurant patronage. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2010, 51, 344–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Trafialek, J.; Czarniecka-Skubina, E.; Kulaitiené, J.; Vaitkevičienè, N. Restaurant’s multidimensional evaluation concerning food quality, service, and sustainable practices: A cross-national case study of Poland and Lithuania. Sustainability 2020, 12, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Reynolds, C.; Goucher, L.; Quested, T.; Bromley, S.; Gillick, S.; Wells, V.K.; Evans, D.; Koh, L.; Kanyama, A.C.; Katzeff, C.; et al. Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions–What works and how to design better interventions. Food Policy 2019, 83, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Huang, Y.; Hall, M.C.; Chen, N.C. The sustainability characteristics of Michelin Green Star Restaurants. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2025, 28, 219–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sakaguchi, L.; Pak, N.; Potts, M.D. Tackling the issue of food waste in restaurants: Options for measurement method, reduction and behavioral change. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 430–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fidan, H.; Teneva, A.; Stankov, S.; Dimitrova, E. Consumers’ behavior of restaurant selection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on High Technology for Sustainable Development (HiTech), Sofia, Bulgaria, 11–14 June 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  58. Jo, J.; Choi, E.K.; Taylor, J. Challenges and benefits of implementing green practices at a restaurant. J. Hosp. Tour. Cases 2020, 8, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06185 g001
Figure 1. Location of studied counties and green restaurants in Hungary (GoogleEarth 2025 self-edited).
Figure 1. Location of studied counties and green restaurants in Hungary (GoogleEarth 2025 self-edited).
Sustainability 17 06185 g001
Sustainability 17 06185 g002
Figure 2. GreenTEA questionnaire for the national best practices of green restaurants in Hungary with pre-selected questions.
Figure 2. GreenTEA questionnaire for the national best practices of green restaurants in Hungary with pre-selected questions.
Sustainability 17 06185 g002
Sustainability 17 06185 g003
Figure 3. Most common sustainable practices of catering establishments (%) in Hungary in 2024.
Figure 3. Most common sustainable practices of catering establishments (%) in Hungary in 2024.
Sustainability 17 06185 g003
Sustainability 17 06185 g004
Figure 4. Most popular treatment for decreasing amount of food waste (%) in Hungary in 2024.
Figure 4. Most popular treatment for decreasing amount of food waste (%) in Hungary in 2024.
Sustainability 17 06185 g004
Sustainability 17 06185 g005
Figure 5. Most common consumer behavior in the restaurant selection (%) in Hungary in 2024.
Figure 5. Most common consumer behavior in the restaurant selection (%) in Hungary in 2024.
Sustainability 17 06185 g005
Sustainability 17 06185 g006
Figure 6. Most common challenges for restaurant operators (%) in Hungary in 2024.
Figure 6. Most common challenges for restaurant operators (%) in Hungary in 2024.
Sustainability 17 06185 g006
Table 1. Important features of Sulyom and Iszkor restaurants for measuring sustainability in Hungary (modified in this paper) [47].
Table 1. Important features of Sulyom and Iszkor restaurants for measuring sustainability in Hungary (modified in this paper) [47].
Restaurant (Ranking in Dining Guide)How Colleagues Travel to WorkDistance to the Domestic Food or Drink SupplyName of the
Company for Food Waste Collection		Practice in Food Waste
Reduction
Sulyom
(92)		bicycle: 2
car: 10		0 km = vegetables and fruits
>50 km = a small part of vegetables and fruits; significant part of cheese		Biofilter Ltd. (Limerick, Ireland)Composting, and green waste go to the nearby zoo
Iszkor
(40)		car alone: 7
car together: 2		0 km = some vegetables
<10 km = chicken, beef, guinea fowl, goose
11–30 km = vegetables, duck, trout, cheese, milk
31–50 km = mangalica pig, dairy products (cream, sour cream, yogurt), mushrooms
>50 km = some vegetables		Biofilter Ltd. (Limerick, Ireland)Nose-to-tail method
Table 2. Thematic coding of qualitative interviews for two studied restaurants.
Table 2. Thematic coding of qualitative interviews for two studied restaurants.
Main ThemeDescriptionRepresentative Example
Local SourcingUse of nearby suppliers and self-grown produce to minimize environmental impactWe work primarily with ingredients from local producers and even use vegetables from our garden.
Seasonal Menu PlanningFlexible menus that change with the seasons to reflect available ingredientsNot everything is always available; the flexible menu adapts to this.
Food Waste ManagementInnovative practices such as composting, nose-to-tail, and cooperation with MunchWe compost biodegradable waste and donate leftovers through Munch.
Sustainable InfrastructureEnvironmentally conscious building features, transport, and energy efficiencyWe plan to install solar panels and use thermally insulated materials.
Consumer AwarenessEmphasis on guest education and eco-conscious brandingGuests appreciate the transparency of our sustainable sourcing and daily changing menu.
Operational ChallengesLogistical, cost-related, or supplier-side difficultiesWorking with local producers is great, but sometimes difficult to coordinate due to the limited availability of ingredients.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Misik, T.; Nagy, Z. Sustainability and Innovation in Hospitality Management: Green Practices in Northeastern Hungary. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136185

AMA Style

Misik T, Nagy Z. Sustainability and Innovation in Hospitality Management: Green Practices in Northeastern Hungary. Sustainability. 2025; 17(13):6185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136185

Chicago/Turabian Style

Misik, Tamás, and Zoltán Nagy. 2025. "Sustainability and Innovation in Hospitality Management: Green Practices in Northeastern Hungary" Sustainability 17, no. 13: 6185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136185

APA Style

Misik, T., & Nagy, Z. (2025). Sustainability and Innovation in Hospitality Management: Green Practices in Northeastern Hungary. Sustainability, 17(13), 6185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136185

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop