Food Waste and the Three Pillars of Sustainability: Economic, Environmental and Social Perspectives from Greece’s Food Service and Retail Sectors

Abstract

Food loss and food waste (FLFW) constitute a major global challenge with profound economic, environmental, and social consequences. This study examines how businesses in Greece’s food service and retail sectors perceive and manage food waste, integrating the triple bottom line framework—economic, environmental, and social sustainability—as the guiding analytical lens. The research aims to: (1) analyze perceptions, practices, and barriers to food waste reduction among businesses; (2) explore the relationship between awareness, business policies, technological adoption, and consumer-oriented strategies; and (3) situate the Greek experience within broader European and international contexts to identify transferable lessons for policy and business innovation. Drawing on a structured survey of 250 industry representatives and comparative international evidence, the study finds that although awareness of food waste is widespread, it remains weakly connected to structured policies, technology adoption, or operational practices. Businesses recognize economic opportunities in waste reduction—such as supply chain optimization and near-expiry discounting—but these remain underexploited due to a lack of strong regulatory and financial incentives. The findings highlight that addressing food waste is not only an environmental and ethical necessity but also a strategic opportunity to enhance economic resilience, competitiveness, and sustainability within the agri-food sector.

1. Introduction

Food loss and food waste (FLFW) have emerged as critical global challenges, undermining sustainable development by generating profound economic, environmental, and social costs. Globally, approximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted each year, representing an estimated economic loss of USD 940 billion and contributing to 8–10% of total greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Beyond economic inefficiencies, FLFW exacerbates global food insecurity—over 828 million people still face hunger while vast quantities of edible food are discarded [2]. Consequently, reducing food waste has become a central pillar of the international sustainability agenda, prominently reflected in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3, which aims to halve per capita global food waste by 2030. Recent research highlights the dynamic and evolving nature of food loss and waste management, emphasizing technological innovation, circular solutions, and regional policy diversity as key determinants of progress [3,4]. Studies show that despite advancements in prevention and valorization technologies, significant gaps persist across European regions, calling for context-specific and sector-focused analyses to bridge policy and practice [4].

A substantial body of research has examined the drivers, impacts, and mitigation strategies of FLFW across the food supply chain. However, important knowledge gaps persist. First, empirical evidence remains geographically imbalanced; the majority of studies focus on Northern and Western Europe, with limited attention to Southern European contexts such as Greece, Portugal, and parts of Italy and Spain [1]. Second, most investigations emphasize household-level or macro-policy analyses, while micro-level evidence from food service and retail businesses—sectors that directly interact with consumers and generate significant quantities of waste—remains scarce. Third, although awareness of food waste has grown, few studies have empirically assessed how this recognition translates into structured business strategies, technological adoption, or policy engagement. Addressing these gaps is vital to designing effective interventions that integrate institutional, organizational, and behavioral dimensions of food waste prevention. Recent empirical work underscores the growing relevance of business-level initiatives and innovation in reducing food service and retail waste. Ref. [3] demonstrates that managerial practices in food-service establishments directly influence the scale of unserved-dish waste, while the integration of circular packaging and resource-recovery technologies offers promising pathways to operationalize sustainability principles within supply chains [5].

Research from Southern Europe has highlighted similar structural and cultural barriers to waste reduction, including fragmented supply chains, weak enforcement of donation frameworks, and limited diffusion of digital and circular technologies [6,7]. Despite these parallels, Greece remains notably underrepresented in the empirical literature. Existing evidence is often descriptive or policy-based, lacking quantitative assessments of business practices and attitudes toward food waste management. The Greek case is particularly relevant due to its combination of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), strong food service culture, and evolving sustainability policies. Expanding empirical insights from this context contributes to a more balanced European perspective on the dynamics of food waste generation and prevention.

To address these gaps, this study develops an analytical framework linking sustainability, circular economy principles, and supply chain resilience. Following Korhonen et al. (2018) [8], the circular economy is understood as an umbrella concept encompassing the principles of sustainability and sustainable development. In this paper, sustainability is adopted as the overarching analytical lens, while the circular economy is viewed as its operational dimension within food supply chains. Specifically, the research examines how circular practices—such as food redistribution, waste valorization, and resource recovery—can enhance the resilience and efficiency of the Greek food service and retail sectors. This paper focuses on four key variables: awareness of food waste as a societal issue, the existence of business-level policies, technological adoption for waste monitoring and reduction and consumer-related behavioral factors influencing waste-reduction practices, selected to capture both organizational and behavioral dimensions of food waste management within the sustainability framework.

The study is guided by the following research questions: (1) How do businesses in Greece perceive food waste as a societal issue? (2) To what extent have they implemented internal policies or adopted technological tools for food waste reduction? (3) How do consumer-related behaviors influence business-level practices for reducing food waste? Three are the key objectives that this study aims to meet: (i) to analyze perceptions, practices, and barriers to food waste reduction among businesses in the food retail and service sectors, (ii) to explore the relationship between awareness of food loss and waste (FLFW) and the adoption of structured business policies, technological tools, and consumer-oriented initiatives, and (iii) to situate the Greek case within the broader European and international context, identifying transferable lessons for policy design and business innovation. To achieve these objectives the study adopts, among others, the triple bottom line framework of [9], encompassing the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability, as the guiding analytical lens for examining business perceptions and practices toward food waste reduction.

This study makes four interrelated contributions to the literature. First, it provides rare, sector-specific quantitative evidence from Greece, addressing a major geographical gap and enriching the limited empirical base for Southern Europe. Second, it empirically highlights the disconnection between awareness and concrete business action, identifying structural, behavioral and institutional barriers. Third, it offers new insights into how policy, regulation and technology interact to shape organizational responses to food waste. Finally, it extends the conversation on sustainable food systems by offering evidence-based lessons for policymakers and practitioners seeking to promote circular economy practices in underrepresented regions. Through this integrated lens, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how sustainability-oriented and circular economy strategies can be operationalized within food supply chains, particularly in under-examined Southern European contexts such as Greece.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Food Supply Chain, Food Waste Drivers, and Sectoral Impacts

The food supply chain (FSC) is a complex and dynamic system that distributes safe, high-quality food from production to consumption. Its performance depends on economic, technological, social, and environmental factors and on close cooperation among farmers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers [6]. Transparency and traceability are fundamental for ensuring quality and safety [7], while flexibility to adapt to seasonality, climate, and dietary trends enhances overall efficiency. Strategic inventory management and accurate demand forecasting play a decisive role in minimizing losses and waste.

Digital technologies such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), blockchain, the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Big Data analytics now enable real-time tracking and data-driven decision-making across the supply chain [10]. Given the nature of food, adherence to international standards such as ISO 22000 [11] and HACCP remains crucial for maintaining safety and minimizing contamination risks [11]. Furthermore, sustainability has become a core principle of the modern FSC, emphasizing circular-economy approaches, waste valorization, and support for local suppliers, in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 12 on Responsible Consumption and Production [12].

On the other hand, globalization, climate change, and crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed vulnerabilities within the system. In response, hybrid “leagile” models that combine lean efficiency with agile flexibility are increasingly adopted to build resilience. Understanding these principles is essential for strengthening food security, reducing waste, and promoting long-term sustainability. Building upon this systemic understanding, it is essential to examine how specific sectors—particularly food service and retail—contribute to and are affected by food waste dynamics within the supply chain.

Food service and retail sectors occupy pivotal positions within the food supply chain, linking producers and consumers while directly influencing waste generation and management practices. In the United Kingdom, approximately 12% of food waste originates from restaurants, hotels, and catering [13], primarily due to overproduction, poor forecasting, and oversized portions. A 20% reduction in waste can yield operational cost savings of up to 5% [14]. In retail, waste is often the result of expired products, stock damage, and the practice of maintaining constantly full shelves. The economic and reputational consequences are considerable, yet the need to address waste also drives innovation. Retailers increasingly promote imperfect produce, invest in biofuel conversion, and adopt digital waste-tracking systems. However, small businesses require support through simplified legislation, tax incentives, and logistical infrastructure to participate in these solutions. Beyond these sector-specific challenges, food waste occurs at every stage of the supply chain, from production to household consumption, requiring a holistic and coordinated response.

Food waste must be addressed systemically to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, which calls for halving global food waste by 2030 [2]. At the production stage, losses result from extreme weather, plant diseases, and inadequate agricultural infrastructure. Strict aesthetic standards also lead to the rejection of edible but imperfect produce [15,16]. Inadequate cold-chain infrastructure and microbial spoilage during storage and transportation further exacerbate waste, particularly in developing regions [16]. During processing and manufacturing, technical errors, hygiene standards, and the pursuit of uniformity often generate waste or underused by-products [17,18]. At the retail and distribution level, overstocking, “buy-one-get-one-free” promotions, and the removal of near-expiry goods to maintain freshness create additional losses [19].

The food service sector, including restaurants, hotels, and catering, generates substantial waste due to oversized portions, over-preparation, and inadequate training, while redistribution is often constrained by legal and logistical barriers [20]. Finally, the household stage represents the largest source of waste in developed countries, driven by poor planning, misinterpretation of “best-before” dates, and failure to use leftovers [13,21,22]. In the European Union, households account for more than half (53%) of total food waste [21], reflecting a cultural and behavioral disconnection between consumers and the food they purchase [22].

Food waste is shaped by the interaction of economic, infrastructural, regulatory, and sociocultural factors that vary by country, development level, and supply-chain stage. Economically, retail marketing strategies such as “two-for-one” promotions and the expectation of year-round product availability stimulate overproduction and over-consumption. Rigid supplier contracts and price volatility also contribute to surpluses and waste. Infrastructural and technological challenges remain significant; in developing countries, the lack of cold storage, transport facilities, and technical expertise leads to early-stage losses [16], while in developed contexts, overreliance on automation and poor inventory control result in mass discards.

From a regulatory standpoint, policies designed to ensure food safety may inadvertently encourage waste. Confusion between “best-before” and “use-by” labeling often leads consumers to discard food that is still safe to eat [13,23], while limited incentives and bureaucratic obstacles discourage donations and redistribution. Sociocultural and behavioral factors are equally critical. Impulsive purchasing, preference for aesthetically perfect products, and inadequate food-management skills foster waste at the household level. In many cultures, the presentation of abundance is linked to hospitality and prosperity, reinforcing patterns of overproduction and excess [22,24]. A lack of education on food storage, expiry interpretation, and creative reuse perpetuates these unsustainable habits.

Given the multidimensional nature of food waste, effective mitigation requires integrated strategies that address infrastructural, regulatory, and behavioral dimensions simultaneously. Collaboration between the public and private sectors is essential. At the global level, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 aims to halve per capita food waste by 2030 [12], while the European Commission’s “Farm to Fork” Strategy promotes innovation and sustainability across all stages of the food system [25]. In Greece, initiatives such as the Food Waste Reduction Initiative, the Food Bank, and the “Boroume” platform play important roles in redistributing surplus food to vulnerable groups [26]. On a global scale, the Global Food Banking Network demonstrates how coordinated redistribution can effectively reduce both waste and hunger.

2.2. The Economic, Social, and Environmental Impacts of Food Waste

Food waste generates profound and interconnected consequences that extend beyond the simple loss of edible products. Its impacts can be categorized into three main dimensions (economic, social, and environmental) which together highlight the systemic nature of the problem. Economically, food waste undermines productivity and market efficiency; socially, it exacerbates inequality and food insecurity; and environmentally, it accelerates resource depletion and climate change. Understanding these interrelated effects is essential for designing holistic strategies that promote sustainability, efficiency, and social justice across the agri-food system.

2.2.1. Economic Impacts

Food waste imposes immense costs, estimated globally at over 940 billion US dollars annually [15]. At the microeconomic level, farmers lose income when edible produce is rejected for aesthetic reasons [15,27], while processors and small and medium-sized enterprises incur losses from production failures and storage inefficiencies [17]. Retailers and hospitality businesses face additional economic losses from overstocking, spoilage, and consumer-driven portion variability, while households also waste money through over-purchasing and poor food management.

National economies face further burdens from managing organic waste—constituting around 40% of municipal solid waste in Greece (EOAN)—and from reduced tax revenues linked to inefficiencies along the supply chain. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated food-waste-related costs at more than 161 billion dollars in 2010 [28]. These inefficiencies distort food markets, elevate prices, and reduce productivity, creating macroeconomic ripple effects.

Investing in digital forecasting, staff training, and circular business models can transform food losses into opportunities for economic growth and resilience, aligning with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles [9,29]. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the creation of by-product markets, biogas facilities, and social enterprises can convert waste into value-added outputs, promoting sustainable business models and local development [30,31]. Such initiatives exemplify how food-waste reduction supports green employment and long-term competitiveness, provided that regulatory and financial frameworks facilitate these transitions [20,32]. In practice, public–private partnerships, tax incentives for food donations, and the deployment of digital monitoring systems have been shown to improve profitability and supply-chain efficiency in the agri-food sector [33,34]. Consequently, food-waste prevention is not only an environmental necessity but also a pathway to innovation, circular growth, and sustainable economic transformation [35,36].

2.2.2. Social Implications

Beyond economic costs, food waste deepens social inequality. While 828 million people worldwide face hunger, billions of tons of edible food are discarded each year [1]. In the European Union, 36.2 million people live in severe material deprivation, even as 88 million tons of food go to waste [37]. Vulnerable groups such as low-income families, the elderly, and refugees are particularly affected [38]. Research indicates that lower-income households tend to waste less due to higher appreciation of food value [24], yet limited access to adequate storage and transport increases spoilage [26].

Food waste also contributes to nutritional inequality, as discarded products often include high-quality fruits and vegetables that could improve diets for those in need [39,40]. Recognizing food as a social good rather than a commodity is fundamental to ensuring justice and sustainability [41]. Initiatives such as school meal programs, volunteer “food rescue” operations, and public campaigns like “Love Food, Hate Waste” demonstrate how community engagement and social innovation can effectively combat waste while promoting solidarity [42,43].

Moreover, innovative redistribution platforms such as Too Good To Go and FoodCloud exemplify how technology can bridge the gap between surplus and need, turning potential waste into valuable social resources [44,45]. Educational campaigns that promote food literacy and responsible consumption, alongside supportive public policies, can reshape cultural attitudes toward food. By strengthening the link between social welfare systems and food-waste management, societies can promote inclusion, alleviate hunger, and foster a more equitable and compassionate food system.

2.2.3. Environmental Footprint

Food waste is also a critical environmental threat, accounting for approximately 8–10% of global greenhouse gas emissions [46]. If it were a country, it would rank as the third-largest emitter after the United States and China. Landfilled organic waste releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, while the production of discarded food consumes vast quantities of water, energy, and land resources [2,15]. For instance, producing one kilogram of beef requires about 15,000 L of water, and rice over 2500 L.

Agricultural overproduction for uneaten food contributes to deforestation, desertification, and biodiversity loss. In the European Union, food waste represents roughly 16% of municipal solid waste [21], placing further strain on waste management systems. These impacts extend across the entire life cycle of food—from production to consumption—thereby amplifying the environmental footprint of the agri-food sector [38].

Circular-economy practices such as composting, biogas generation, and animal-feed reuse can significantly mitigate these impacts, yet only a small proportion of global food waste is managed sustainably [1]. Reducing food waste is thus both an environmental and ethical imperative, as the destruction of food produced with scarce natural resources exacerbates global climate injustice. Advanced technological tools, including freshness sensors, blockchain traceability, and demand-forecasting algorithms, can contribute to a more environmentally efficient and resilient food system. Additionally, integrating food-waste reduction into national climate and biodiversity strategies—through incentives, awareness programs, and green innovation funding—can reinforce environmental sustainability and accelerate the transition to a circular, low-carbon economy.

Overall, food waste represents not only a loss of resources but also a missed opportunity for economic innovation, social equity, and environmental sustainability. Addressing it requires coordinated action that links efficiency with ethical and ecological responsibility.

2.3. Practices and Technological Solutions for Reducing Food Waste

Building on the understanding of the drivers and impacts of food waste outlined above, this section focuses on the practices and technological innovations designed to prevent, monitor, and valorize food waste across the food supply chain. Effective prevention strategies integrate economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability, aligning with the principles of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 12 and the European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy [12,25].

Investing in digital forecasting, staff training, and circular-economy-oriented management models can convert losses into opportunities, stimulating economic growth and aligning with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles. Evidence from European and international contexts shows that digital monitoring systems such as ERP, IoT, and blockchain technologies enhance transparency, traceability, and decision-making efficiency [10,11,19]. These tools help businesses identify surplus points, predict demand more accurately, and optimize inventory turnover. For small and medium-sized enterprises, simplified digital platforms and shared logistics services can lower entry barriers and reduce operational waste [20,26].

Capacity-building through staff training and awareness campaigns has also proven critical. When employees are informed about portion control, storage, and redistribution practices, measurable reductions in kitchen and service-level waste can be achieved [13,21,22]. Organizational culture that promotes responsibility and continuous improvement enhances compliance with food-safety standards such as ISO 22000 and HACCP [11].

At a systemic level, the creation of by-product markets, biogas facilities, and social enterprises demonstrates that food-waste reduction can support sustainable business development, provided that supportive regulatory and financial frameworks are in place [12,25]. Public–private partnerships and tax incentives for food donations encourage surplus redistribution and improve supply-chain resilience. In Greece, initiatives such as the Food Bank and the “Boroume” platform illustrate how cooperative networks can simultaneously reduce waste and address social needs [26]. Globally, the Global Food Banking Network highlights the effectiveness of coordinated redistribution systems in turning potential waste into valuable resources.

Consequently, food-waste prevention is not merely an environmental necessity but also a strategic pathway to innovation, competitiveness, and green employment creation [12,25]. Integrating digital tools, managerial training, and institutional support mechanisms allows agri-food businesses to enhance efficiency while contributing to broader sustainability and economic-resilience goals.

2.3.1. Prevention Strategies in Business and Households

Prevention occupies the highest level of the European waste-management hierarchy [21]. In businesses, food waste is often linked to inadequate inventory management and demand forecasting. Strategies such as adapting portion sizes, using seasonal ingredients, and reusing by-products can yield substantial reductions. Companies like IKEA and Sodexo have successfully applied waste-tracking programs, achieving up to 30% reductions [13,14]. Partnerships with NGOs and food banks, exemplified by France’s Garot Law [47], strengthen redistribution mechanisms, while digital applications like Too Good To Go [48] enhance coordination between businesses and consumers. At the household level—responsible for more than half of total EU food waste [21]—effective practices include meal planning, proper storage, and understanding expiration labeling. Awareness campaigns in the UK and Denmark have shown measurable reductions in domestic waste [49]. Initiatives such as community fridges and food-sharing platforms further cultivate a collective culture of responsible consumption.

2.3.2. Legislative Measures

Food-waste governance is now an integral part of environmental and food-security policy. The European Union addresses the issue through the Sustainable Development Strategy and the European Green Deal, emphasizing Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 [50]. Directive (EU) 2018/851 [51], together with the Food Donation Guidelines, obliges Member States to prioritize prevention, submit quantitative data, and promote redistribution. The EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste facilitates cooperation and exchange of best practices, while recent legislative proposals introduce binding reduction targets. In Greece, although initiatives such as Saveat and Boroume are promising, the institutional framework remains fragmented. The 2021 National Action Plan [21] lacks binding targets, and limited tax incentives discourage business participation. A comprehensive, integrated strategy combining regulation, incentives, and monitoring mechanisms is needed to align national policy with European standards.

2.3.3. The Role of Supply Chain Management

Effective supply-chain management (SCM) is crucial for ensuring efficiency, safety, and sustainability throughout the food system. It encompasses the planning, coordination, and control of material, financial, and information flows from producers to consumers. Due to the perishability of food, cold-chain infrastructure and real-time monitoring are indispensable [52]. Accurate demand forecasting through machine learning and Big Data analytics helps balance production and consumption [53]. Collaboration and transparency among all supply-chain actors, supported by technologies such as cloud computing and blockchain, enhance efficiency and trust [54]. Traceability systems [7] allow targeted recalls, minimizing waste, while inventory tools like FIFO and Just-in-Time (JIT) approaches improve responsiveness. Green logistics, including local sourcing, route optimization, and reusable packaging, further reduce the environmental footprint [38]. Staff training and awareness are also essential to ensure compliance and minimize avoidable losses [15].

2.3.4. Digital Technologies and Applications

Rapid technological advances have transformed food-waste management. Artificial Intelligence, IoT, blockchain, and mobile apps enhance forecasting accuracy, supply-chain transparency, and consumer awareness. Retailers such as Tesco and Walmart have reported significant waste reductions through AI-driven demand forecasting [53]. Applications such as Too Good To Go [48], Olio [55], and Karma [56] facilitate the redistribution of food nearing expiration, saving millions of meals worldwide. Household tools like Fridge Pal and NoWaste assist with meal planning and expiration tracking, while precision agriculture and automated sorting systems reduce waste in production. Nevertheless, technological adoption requires investment, training, and supportive policy measures such as tax incentives and subsidies to accelerate the digital transition.

2.3.5. Economic Incentives and Policies

Economic mechanisms play a key role in shaping waste-reduction behavior. Tax incentives for donations, as in the United States under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act [57] and Italy’s Gadda Law [58], encourage redistribution and have significantly reduced waste. Conversely, Pay-As-You-Throw schemes in South Korea and Switzerland impose fees based on organic waste volume, leading to a 30% reduction and higher composting rates [59]. Subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy and national recovery programs promote the use of smart technologies. Public procurement policies, such as France’s “Cantines durables” initiative, have successfully reduced leftovers by up to 30% [60]. Support for secondary material markets and circular clusters, particularly in the Baltic and Nordic countries, demonstrates how economic policy can stimulate innovation and job creation in waste valorization.

2.3.6. Global Best Practices

International experience shows that reducing food waste requires coordinated policy, technology, and civic engagement. The European Union’s Directive 2018/851 [51]) and the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius [50,61] provide strong regulatory frameworks, while standards such as ISO 22000 [11] and ISO 14001 [61] promote sustainability. France’s Garot Law [47,60] bans supermarket disposal, and Italy’s Gadda Law [58] has achieved notable increases in food redistribution. South Korea’s Pay-As-You-Throw policy [59] and Denmark’s “Stop Spild Af Mad” campaign [62] have yielded major reductions through public participation. Japan’s dynamic-pricing system and Canada’s Second Harvest platform demonstrate technological leadership. Corporate initiatives, such as the Champions 12.3 coalition involving Nestlé, Unilever, and Tesco, further highlight industry commitment. In Greece, public awareness campaigns by WWF and Foodity are growing, though institutional measures and fiscal incentives remain limited. The examples of leading countries illustrate that strong political will, coordinated governance, and technological innovation can together build a more sustainable and equitable food system.

In conclusion, the literature review highlights that food waste is a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by economic, social, environmental, and institutional factors. While international research has produced valuable insights into the mechanisms and impacts of food waste, empirical evidence from Southern Europe—and particularly from Greece—remains scarce. Greece’s distinctive combination of cultural practices, institutional structures, and policy frameworks provides a unique setting for examining how awareness and management strategies evolve within the food sector. Building on these theoretical foundations, the following section presents a focused case study of food waste in Greece and compares national patterns, policies, and performance with those observed in the European Union and the United States, providing a contextual basis for interpreting the empirical results that follow.

3. Case Study: Food Waste in Greece—A Comparative Analysis with the European Union and the United States

Food waste represents a critical sustainability and economic challenge for Greece, reflecting broader Southern European patterns of structural inefficiencies, fragmented supply chains, and limited technological integration. Greece’s agri-food sector—characterized by small and medium-sized enterprises, strong cultural ties to hospitality, and seasonal production—offers a distinctive context for understanding the interplay between business practices and food waste management. This section examines the scale, drivers, and institutional responses to food waste in Greece and situates these findings within a comparative international framework that includes the European Union and the United States. Through this analysis, the study highlights both the systemic barriers and the opportunities for transition toward a more resilient and sustainable food system.

Food waste in Greece is estimated at approximately 1.5 million tons annually, which corresponds to around 142 kg per person, according to a national study by [26]. While this per capita figure is slightly below the European Union average of 127 kg [37], it still constitutes a significant environmental and financial burden. Household food waste is the primary contributor, accounting for over half of total waste, followed by the food service and retail sectors. A notable and distinctive feature of the Greek food system is the high volume of food loss occurring at the primary production stage. The agricultural sector in Greece is dominated by small-scale, often family-operated farms, which suffer from fragmented logistics, outdated storage facilities, and limited cold-chain infrastructure—particularly in rural and island regions. These conditions result in significant pre-market losses due to factors such as overproduction, aesthetic standards imposed by retailers, and poor post-harvest handling.

In comparative perspective, the European Union generates approximately 58 million tons of food waste annually, with households contributing 55% of this total [37]. The United States, on the other hand, exhibits even greater levels of waste. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [28] reports that 63 million tons of food are wasted each year, equating to roughly 200 kg per capita. While the share of food waste generated by U.S. households is relatively lower than in the EU (approximately 43%), the overall volume is significantly higher. What differentiates Greece from both the EU average and the U.S. is the pronounced vulnerability to food loss in the early stages of the food chain. This characteristic is more commonly observed in developing countries and underscores a dual burden for Greece: one that includes both structural inefficiencies in production and behavioral patterns at the consumer level.

The institutional and legislative response to food waste in Greece has thus far been limited in scope and largely shaped by external pressures, particularly European directives. The primary regulatory framework is the EU Waste Framework Directive [51], which requires member states to implement food waste reduction policies, establish monitoring systems, and report progress. In response, Greece adopted its first National Action Plan for Food Waste Reduction in 2021, under the coordination of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. The plan identifies four main areas of intervention: prevention, redistribution, waste management, and data monitoring. Nevertheless, implementation has been slow, and the plan lacks binding targets, enforcement mechanisms, and financial incentives.

In contrast, several other EU countries have adopted more robust legislative instruments. France’s Garot Law [47] legally obliges large supermarkets to donate unsold food, establishing one of the first binding frameworks of its kind globally. Italy’s Gadda Law (2016) offers tax incentives and legal clarity for food donations, resulting in measurable increases in surplus food redistribution [58]. Similarly, in the United States, while no federal law mandates food waste reduction, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (1996) [57] provides legal protection to food donors, significantly facilitating private sector participation in food recovery networks. These comparative examples highlight the institutional gaps in the Greek context, where businesses often refrain from donating surplus food due to liability concerns, administrative complexity, and the absence of economic incentives.

Recent years have witnessed the emergence of promising digital and technological initiatives targeting food waste in Greece. Platforms such as Boroume have been instrumental in connecting food donors with local charities in real time. Additionally, applications like Foodity and Saveat enable consumers to purchase surplus food at discounted prices or allow businesses to donate food with logistical ease. Although these initiatives reflect growing public awareness and entrepreneurial engagement, they remain relatively small in scale and primarily address the consumer-facing side of the issue. In comparison, technological ecosystems in the EU and U.S. have achieved broader systemic integration. The Too Good To Go platform [48], for example, operates in 17 countries and exemplifies the scalability of consumer-driven food rescue models. In the United States, ReFED functions as a data-driven innovation hub, connecting investors with startups and non-profits to optimize interventions across the entire food supply chain. Moreover, technologies such as AI-based demand forecasting, blockchain for traceability, and IoT sensors for freshness monitoring are increasingly deployed across the food production and distribution continuum in these regions.

Despite these developments, several persistent barriers hinder food waste mitigation in Greece. These include the absence of high-quality national data, the structural inefficiencies of the agri-food system, limited institutional coordination, and low levels of consumer education. At the same time, Greece possesses considerable opportunities for improvement. The active presence of NGOs, particularly Boroume, offers a solid foundation for multi-stakeholder collaboration. The tourism and hospitality sectors—major components of the Greek economy and significant contributors to food waste—represent promising targets for sector-specific interventions. Moreover, the growing penetration of digital technologies creates favorable conditions for the expansion of innovative platforms. Importantly, Greece can capitalize on its membership in the EU to access funding opportunities under the Green Deal and Horizon Europe programs, which support circular economy practices such as composting and anaerobic digestion of organic waste.

On the other hand, Greece’s progress on the food waste issue and the food waste policy making remain slower in comparison to the EU on this issue. Greece’s comparatively slower progress in food waste policy implementation can be attributed to structural and institutional constraints. Fragmented administrative coordination, limited inter-ministerial cooperation, and bureaucratic complexity hinder the consistent enforcement of EU directives. Additionally, cultural attitudes emphasizing abundance and hospitality may contribute to overproduction and food discarding, while limited public–private partnerships slow the diffusion of innovation. Addressing these systemic and cultural barriers is essential for aligning Greece with broader European objectives on sustainable food systems.

To contextualize Greece’s experience,

Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Food Waste across Selected Countries.

Country	Estimated Per Capita Food Waste (kg/Year)	Main Policy Framework/Legislation	Key Implementation Features	Challenges/Gaps
Greece	~142 kg [26]	National Action Plan for Food Waste Reduction (2021) [21]; aligned with EU Directive 2018/851 [51]	Focus on awareness, prevention, redistribution, and monitoring; early-stage implementation; NGO engagement (e.g., platform “Boroume”)	Fragmented institutional coordination; lack of binding targets or economic incentives; limited technological adoption
Italy	~146 kg [58]	Gadda Law (2016) [58]—National Food Waste and Donation Law	Tax incentives for donations; simplified bureaucracy; improved redistribution networks	Enforcement uneven across regions; limited data integration
France	~134 kg [47]	Garot Law (2016) [47]—Anti-Food Waste Law	Legal obligation for supermarkets to donate unsold food; national awareness campaigns	Limited enforcement in small retailers; logistical challenges in redistribution
United States	~200 kg [28]	Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (1996) [57]; USDA/EPA Food Waste Challenge	Liability protection for donors; public–private partnerships (e.g., ReFED [14]); focus on technological innovation and data-driven monitoring	No federal mandate for waste reduction; heterogeneous state-level implementation

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on [26,28,47,58], and national policy reports.

provides a comparative overview of food waste levels, policy frameworks, and implementation characteristics across selected countries.

The comparative analysis of food waste patterns across Greece, European Union, and the United States demonstrates that, although policy objectives are broadly aligned, structural, cultural, and institutional differences strongly affect implementation and outcomes. In Southern Europe, including Greece, fragmented governance frameworks, limited technological integration, and weaker monitoring mechanisms have slowed progress compared to Northern European or U.S. approaches that emphasize data-driven policies and financial incentives.

The slower progress in Greece compared with EU and U.S. contexts can be attributed to structural and institutional constraints, such as fragmented regulatory frameworks, limited financial incentives for businesses, and cultural norms emphasizing food abundance. These factors collectively hinder the transition from awareness to systemic implementation. Strengthening cross-sectorial coordination and embedding food waste targets within broader circular economy strategies could mitigate these barriers.

These regional disparities underline the need for context-specific research that captures the realities of Southern European food systems, where small and medium-sized enterprises dominate and informal practices remain prevalent. Building on these insights, the following section presents the empirical analysis of the study, focusing on the Greek food service and retail sectors. Through descriptive, correlational, and regression analyses, it examines how awareness, policy presence, and organizational capacity interact in shaping business responses to food waste within this Southern European context.

In conclusion, while food waste in Greece remains a substantial and complex challenge, it also provides a strategic opportunity for transition toward a more sustainable and resilient food system. By addressing inefficiencies at the production and post-harvest stages, reinforcing institutional capacity, and promoting scalable technological solutions, Greece can align itself more effectively with the objectives of the European Green Deal and Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, which calls for halving per capita global food waste by 2030.

The comparative analysis of Greece, the European Union, and the United States underscores how structural, institutional, and cultural conditions shape the scale and management of food waste. While policy objectives are broadly aligned across these regions, implementation capacity and business engagement vary considerably. In Greece, fragmented governance, limited financial incentives, and cultural norms emphasizing abundance have slowed progress in operationalizing food-waste reduction strategies. At the same time, emerging digital initiatives and grassroots efforts demonstrate the country’s growing potential for innovation and systemic transition. To translate this potential into measurable impact, it is essential to understand how businesses operating within the food service and retail sectors perceive and address food waste in practice.

Building upon the comparative insights developed in the preceding section, the following empirical analysis investigates these perceptions and practices through primary survey data collected from Greek enterprises. It explores how awareness, organizational policies, technological adoption, and consumer-related factors interact to shape the management of food waste in Greece’s agri-food economy.

4. Analysis of Food Waste in the Food Service and Retail Sectors: An Empirical Study for Greece

Food waste is a critical issue with both environmental and economic ramifications. Prior research emphasizes that minimizing food waste requires a multi-stakeholder approach, involving producers, retailers, consumers, and policymakers [63,64]. Behavioral theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior [65], suggest that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence actions such as food donation or waste reduction. Furthermore, the integration of technology in supply chain management (SCM) can facilitate real-time inventory monitoring and enhance cooperation between suppliers and businesses, potentially reducing waste [20]. Incentive structures, including economic benefits and regulatory measures, have been highlighted as significant motivators for businesses to adopt sustainable practices [66].

This study examines the phenomenon of food waste in the food service and organized retail (supermarkets) sectors. Our goal is to analyze the economic, social, and environmental impacts of food waste and to document the management practices employed by businesses. Building on the theoretical frameworks above, this study examines business-level factors, consumer behavior, and policy mechanisms influencing food waste reduction, emphasizing internal business strategies and external regulatory and market influences.

4.1. Data and Methodology

Analytically, this study investigates the perceptions and attitudes towards food waste among a sample of 250 participants, aligning with recommended thresholds of 250 respondents for regression analysis in social science studies [67]. The selection was intentional to ensure sufficient statistical power and representation of food-service and retail enterprises. The sample consists of representatives from businesses operating in food service and retail sectors, specifically targeting firms in the region of Achaia, Greece. Achaia was selected as the study area because it represents one of Greece’s most dynamic agri-food regions, combining primary production, processing, and retail distribution activities, thus offering a representative microcosm of the national food supply chain. Moreover, it has a significant number of food service and retail establishments. Practical accessibility of participants also influenced the selection of this area. In addition, businesses from other regions were included to enhance the geographical representativeness of the sample. While the survey was primarily conducted in Achaia, with limited participation from other regions, this concentration represents a methodological limitation. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than representative of all Greek regions. Regional economic structures, local food cultures, and varying levels of institutional support may influence results. Future studies should expand geographically across Greece and potentially to other Southern European contexts to enhance external validity and capture cross-regional differences in food waste management.

Figure 1 presents the geographical distribution of the study area, focusing primarily on the region of Achaia in Western Greece, with additional survey participants from neighboring regions. The inclusion of this map aims to provide spatial context for the sample distribution and clarify the geographical scope of the study.

The data were collected using a quantitative structured questionnaire (as the primary data collection tool) based on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The questionnaire (see Appendix A.2) was designed to capture a range of variables, including participants’ demographic and professional characteristics (gender, age, education, and industry experience) and their views on various aspects of food waste. These aspects include its significance, the role of business policies and technology, economic impacts, consumer behavior, and the influence of government regulations. The five-point Likert scale was chosen for its reliability in measuring attitudinal constructs and its established use in behavioral and sustainability studies (classical methodological study [68,69]. This format provides sufficient granularity while maintaining respondent clarity.

The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section collected demographic and professional information, including gender, age, educational level, professional status, experience in the food sector, and geographical area of operation. These variables are crucial for understanding the heterogeneity of the sample and identifying potential differences in attitudes and practices related to food waste. The second section consisted of a series of statements and questions that covered respondents’ perceptions of the food waste problem, the significance of its associated costs, existing management practices, the use of technological tools, future intentions for action, and attitudes toward policy interventions.

No artificial intelligence tools were used in the design, data collection, or analysis of this research. The study was entirely based on survey data collected through structured questionnaires. Data collection took place between October 2024 and February 2025. Responses were anonymous and were manually entered into SPSS v.29 for analysis. The collected data were processed and analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate correlation analysis, t-tests, and multiple linear regression analysis. The primary aim was to understand the descriptive characteristics of the sample and the variables, identify potential correlations between key attitudes, examine group differences (specifically by gender), and explore the predictive power of socio-demographic factors on the perception of food waste’s importance. The descriptive statistics for the Likert-scale variables are presented in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) for the principal Likert-scale variables (N = 250). Overall, responses show moderate agreement across most constructs, suggesting partial awareness and implementation of food-waste-reduction practices. Higher mean values for awareness and policy items indicate greater recognition of the issue, whereas lower averages for technological and regulatory aspects highlight implementation gaps and resource constraints.

Variable	Observations	Mean	SD
Foodwasteissue	250	2.980	1.3897
Mybusinesspolicy	250	2.956	1.4347
Mybusinesstech	250	3.016	1.3941
Thecostoffoodwaste	250	2.944	1.4103
Fooddonation	250	2.960	1.3965
Consumersdiscount	250	3.176	1.4287
Businesseconomicbenefit	250	3.152	1.3858
ImprovingSCM	250	3.120	1.3976
Governmentpolicy	250	3.020	1.3693
Customersprefer	250	3.024	1.4055
Foodwasteimpact	250	3.008	1.3768
Consumerawareness	250	3.020	1.5195
Platformsusefulness	250	3.052	1.3626
Businesscollaboration	250	2.944	1.3639
Willingnesswithincentives	250	3.076	1.5044
Suppliercooperation	250	2.892	1.4256
Introducingregulation	250	3.088	1.3681

Source: Authors’ survey data (2025).

, providing an overview of the central tendency (mean) and dispersion (standard deviation) of responses. The t-tests were used to compare mean scores between male and female participants on specific variables. Finally, a multiple linear OLS regression model was constructed with the perception of food waste as the dependent variable, and gender, age, education, and industry experience as independent variables. The regression analysis was employed to examine the relationships between the perceived cost of food waste and explanatory factors, including the existence of business food waste policies, the use of digital tools, professional experience in the sector, and environmental attitudes. All hypothesis tests are two-tailed at α = 0.05. Where relevant, we report 95% confidence intervals (CI). The sample size for all multivariate analyses is N = 250. Secondary literature was also used to provide a comparative framework and to validate the findings in a broader European and international context.

Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

To ensure the robustness of the data collection instrument, several measures were undertaken. Questionnaire items were developed based on established theoretical frameworks and prior empirical studies on food waste and sustainability [20,63,65,66]. Content validity was assessed through expert review by three academics and two practitioners, who confirmed the clarity, relevance, and completeness of the items. Construct validity was further examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic exceeded 0.70 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), indicating the suitability of the data for factor analysis. The factor structure aligned well with the theoretical domains of business policy, technological adoption, consumer behavior, and regulatory frameworks.

Reliability analysis results for the questionnaire constructs. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, which produced satisfactory results for all constructs (acceptable to high internal consistency), with values consistently above the 0.70 threshold, ranging from 0.74 for consumer awareness to 0.81 for technological adoption, suggesting good to excellent internal consistency. Inter-item correlations demonstrate coherence among scale items and support the instrument’s validity for measuring organizational and behavioral dimensions of food waste management. To mitigate common method bias (CMB), items were presented in mixed order, both positively and negatively worded items were included, and anonymity and confidentiality of responses were emphasized. Harman’s single-factor test revealed that no single factor accounted for more than 40% of the total variance, suggesting that CMB is not a major concern. Taken together, the instrument demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability, providing confidence in the robustness of the subsequent statistical analyses. The validated dataset and reliable measurement structure provided a sound foundation for the subsequent statistical analyses, the results of which are presented in the following section.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 presents the key descriptive statistics for the variables derived from the analysis of responses provided by 250 participants to the questionnaire on food waste in the hospitality and retail sectors (see Appendix A.1). All variables are based on five-point Likert-scale items (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), designed to capture respondents’ attitudes, perceptions, and assessments regarding food waste. Most means are near the neutral midpoint (3.0), indicating moderate agreement across respondents (see Figure 2).

The variable “Foodwasteissue” (i.e., Food waste is a significant problem) has a mean score of 2.98 and a standard deviation of 1.39. This indicates a slightly positive tendency toward agreement, although the relatively high dispersion suggests a diversity of views. Similar trends are observed in the variables related to corporate food waste policies (Mybusinesspolicy, M = 2.96) and the use of technological tools to manage waste (Mybusinesstech, M = 3.02). The proximity of these mean values to the neutral midpoint (3) suggests that there is considerable room for improvement in both policy implementation and technological investment. Likewise, the variable “Thecostoffoodwaste” (The cost of food waste) has a mean of 2.94, reinforcing the notion that while the issue is recognized, it has not yet been fully established as a critical economic consideration in day-to-day business operations. Interestingly, the variable “Consumersdiscount” shows the highest level of agreement (M = 3.18), indicating a notable willingness among consumers to purchase discounted food items nearing their expiration date. This points to a valuable opportunity for inventory management and waste reduction. Another noteworthy finding is the mean score of “Businesseconomicbenefit” (M = 3.15), reflecting business owners’ belief that reducing food waste could translate into economic benefits. Positive attitudes are also evident toward “ImprovingSCM” (Improving supply chain management, M = 3.12), and “Governmentpolicy” (Government support is necessary, M = 3.02), both of which provide a foundation for strategic policy interventions. The environmental implications of food waste are also acknowledged. A majority of respondents agree that food waste significantly contributes to environmental degradation (Foodwasteimpact, M = 3.01), while many also recognize the lack of sufficient consumer awareness (Consumerawareness, M = 3.02). Although these scores are not particularly high, they underscore the need for more systematic awareness-raising initiatives. Variables related to practical mitigation strategies, such as the usefulness of digital platforms (Platformsusefulness, M = 3.05), food donation (Businesscollaboration, M = 2.94), and the role of incentives in encouraging waste-reduction practices (Willingnesswithincentives, M = 3.08), show mildly positive trends. Meanwhile, the variables associated with supplier collaboration (Suppliercooperation, M = 2.89) and the introduction of regulatory measures (Introducingregulation, M = 3.09) indicate moderately positive attitudes, suggesting potential for further alignment and development in these areas.

4.2.2. Correlation Analysis

Continuing, bivariate Pearson correlations between theoretically adjacent constructs are weak and statistically non-significant (

Table 3. Matrix of Pearson correlation coefficients among the Likert-scale variables (N = 250). Values in bold denote statistically significant correlations at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). Most coefficients are weak to moderate, confirming limited interdependence among variables and supporting the regression model’s low explanatory power (R² = 0.027). This pattern indicates that demographic and professional attributes share only modest associations with sustainability-related perceptions.

Pair of Variables	r	p-Value
Foodwasteissue—Foodwasteimpact	0.0085	0.8939
Mybusinesstech—Mybusinesspolicy	0.0807	0.2037
Consumerawareness—Platformsusefulness	0.0189	0.7663

Source: Authors’ survey data (2025).

). The correlation between perceived seriousness (Foodwasteissue) and perceived environmental impact (Foodwasteimpact) is near zero (r = 0.009, p = 0.894), suggesting that respondents did not tightly couple general problem recognition with environmental consequences. The link between technology use (Mybusinesstech) and policy presence (Mybusinesspolicy) is small and non-significant (r = 0.081, p = 0.204), and consumer awareness vs. platforms usefulness is likewise negligible (r = 0.019, p = 0.766).

Correlation analyses (Table 3, Figure 3) indicated weak and statistically insignificant relationships between key variables, underscoring a conceptual disconnect between awareness and action. No significant correlations were found between: perceived seriousness of food waste and environmental impact (r = 0.009), use of technology and presence of food waste policies (r = 0.081), and consumer awareness and use of digital sales platforms (r = 0.019). These results suggest that while respondents may recognize food waste as a problem, this awareness does not necessarily translate into coherent behavioral or policy-related responses. The weak interrelations imply that various components of food waste management—consumer behavior, technological adoption, and internal business strategies—are perceived and acted upon independently rather than as an integrated whole.

Graphical representations, including bar charts of mean values (Figure 2) and correlation heatmaps (Figure 3) further elucidate relationships between key variables. Notably, stronger correlations were observed between economic incentives, willingness to act within incentive frameworks, and the perceived usefulness of technological platforms. These insights provide a foundation for the subsequent regression analysis.

4.2.3. Gender-Based Analysis on the Food Waste Problem

We firstly explore gender differences in Foodwasteissue.

Table 4. Gender differences in perception of food waste as a significant problem. Independent-samples t-test comparing male and female respondents’ agreement with the statement “Food waste is a significant problem”. Mean scores differ slightly but not significantly (p > 0.05), indicating that both genders perceive food waste as an important issue to a comparable extent. This finding suggests gender-neutral awareness levels within the surveyed population.

Gender	Mean	SD	N
Men	2.95	1.46	118
Women	3.01	1.33	132
Total	2.98	1.39	250

Source: Authors’ survey data (2025).

shows the means and the standard deviations fοr men (M = 2.95, SD = 1.46, n = 118) and women (M = 3.01, SD = 1.33, n = 132) in this sample.

The gender analysis begins with the examination of differences between men and women on how they perceive and engage with the issue of food waste. While the findings show that gender is not a statistically significant factor in the general perception of food waste’s importance, a deeper look at the data, particularly regarding corporate policy, highlights a nuanced divergence that aligns with broader socio-cultural trends and existing literature.

The initial analysis of the statement, “Food waste is a significant problem”, shows a slight difference between genders. Women, with a mean score of 3.01 on a 5-point Likert scale, tend to agree slightly more than men, who scored 2.95. This minor quantitative difference of 0.06 points, while not statistically significant (t = −0.331, p = 0.7407, 95% CI of difference = [−0.406, 0.289], is consistent with established research suggesting that women often exhibit greater environmental awareness and sensitivity. This difference may reflect broader socio-cultural dimensions, such as the gendered roles in food management—whether in professional settings or within the household. Previous research suggests that women tend to demonstrate greater environmental awareness and are more engaged in sustainability-related practices, which may partially explain this variation in perception.

Further examination of the descriptive statistics reveals that the standard deviation for men (1.46) is higher than for women (1.33). This indicates greater heterogeneity in men’s responses, meaning their views on the severity of food waste are more varied and less clustered around the mean. Conversely, women’s responses are more homogenous, suggesting a more consistent stance on the issue. This homogeneity may imply a stronger shared perspective among women regarding the issue and could be linked to diverse personal or professional experiences among men that influence their perceptions, while women’s traditional roles in food preparation and household management might lead to a more unified viewpoint.

Men report higher agreement (M = 3.15, SD = 1.38) than women (M = 2.78, SD = 1.46), yielding a statistically significant difference (t = 2.06, p = 0.0403 < 0.05; mean difference = 0.37; 95% CI [0.02, 0.73]. The standardized effect size is small (Cohen’s d ≈ 0.26), but substantively meaningful for managerial practice.

A striking and statistically significant difference emerges when examining perceptions of corporate policy. The data in

Table 5. Gender differences in food-waste policy awareness (My business has a policy). Independent-samples t-test assessing gender variation in awareness of firm-level food-waste policies. Results show minimal mean differences and no statistically significant effect (p > 0.05). The absence of gender disparity implies that organizational policy engagement depends more on institutional and managerial factors than on individual respondent characteristics.

Group	N	Mean	SD	95% CI
Men	118	3.15	1.38	[2.90, 3.40]
Women	132	2.78	1.46	[2.53, 3.03]
Difference	—	0.37 *	0.18	[0.02, 0.73]

Source: Authors’ survey data (2025). * statistical significance (p-value ≤ 0.05).

shows that men (mean = 3.15) are more likely than women (mean = 2.78) to agree that their business has a policy to reduce food waste. This difference is statistically significant (p = 0.0403), with a mean difference of 0.37. This finding is particularly insightful and suggests a potential disconnect between personal perception and institutional awareness.

This result may be influenced by several factors. Men, who might occupy different roles or hold different levels of responsibility within organizations, may have greater visibility or exposure to formal corporate policies. Conversely, women, who are more likely to be involved in the day-to-day, practical aspects of food management, may be more focused on the on-the-ground reality of food waste and may not perceive formal policies to be effectively implemented, if they are aware of them at all. This aligns with the idea that individuals’ perceptions of corporate sustainability are often shaped by their specific roles and responsibilities.

In general, the analysis indicates a complex relationship between gender and food waste perception. While both men and women generally acknowledge food waste as a significant problem, women tend to perceive it as slightly more serious. This qualitative difference, although not statistically significant, aligns with broader sociological findings about women’s greater environmental sensitivity. However, a significant difference emerges in their perceptions of corporate-level action, with men being more likely to report the existence of formal food waste policies. This highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to understanding food waste attitudes. Future research should explore the roles and responsibilities of men and women within their workplaces to better understand how their positions influence their awareness of sustainability policies. Such studies could further clarify whether the observed differences are due to variations in awareness, a disconnect between policy and practice, or the differing priorities and responsibilities of each gender in both professional and personal contexts.

4.2.4. Regression Analysis and the Role of Demographics on the Food Waste Problem

Multiple linear regression examined whether demographic and professional variables predicted perceptions of food waste as a significant problem. The model had an R² = 0.027, indicating that only 2.7% of the variance was explained. None of the predictors (gender, age, education, experience) were statistically significant (all p > 0.05). Only the intercept (β = 3.16, p < 0.001) was significant, representing the baseline perception of the reference group (men aged 18–24, higher education, 1–3 years’ experience).

This study investigates the factors influencing the perception of food waste as a significant problem, both in daily life and in professional settings. The research collected data from a sample of 250 participants. The dependent variable is the participants’ view on whether “food waste is a significant problem”, measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where higher values indicate stronger agreement. The independent variables are key sociodemographic and professional characteristics, including gender, age group, education level, and years of experience in the relevant industry. A multiple linear regression model was employed to determine the predictive power of these variables and to assess their individual statistical significance in explaining the variation in the dependent variable. The regression results are summarized in

Table 6. Multiple linear OLS regression results predicting perceptions of food-waste reduction. Ordinary-least-squares regression examining demographic and professional predictors of attitudes toward food-waste reduction (N = 250). The model explains 2.7% of the variance (R² = 0.027, p < 0.05). Coefficients for demographic variables are small and mostly non-significant, reinforcing the view that contextual, organizational, and psychological factors—rather than personal attributes—drive variation in perceptions and practices.

Variable	Coef.	SD	t	p-Value	[95% CI Lower]	[95% CI Upper]
Gender_f: Woman	0.072736	0.181673	0.4	0.689	−0.28516	0.430628
AgeGroup_f: 25–34	−0.46589	0.320651	−1.45	0.148	−1.09757	0.165784
AgeGroup_f: 35–44	−0.21325	0.333331	−0.64	0.523	−0.86991	0.443401
AgeGroup_f: 45–54	−0.33803	0.341418	−0.99	0.323	−1.01062	0.334561
AgeGroup_f: 55–64	−0.40484	0.314213	−1.29	0.199	−1.02384	0.214151
AgeGroup_f: 65+	0.001995	0.334092	0.01	0.995	−0.65616	0.660151
Higher Education_f:	−0.06335	0.218774	−0.29	0.772	−0.49433	0.36763
Secondary Education_f:	−0.23704	0.225933	−1.05	0.295	−0.68212	0.208046
IndustryExp_f: 4–6 years	0.004332	0.275566	0.02	0.987	−0.53853	0.547192
IndustryExp_f: 7+ years	0.272837	0.254155	1.07	0.284	−0.22784	0.773518
IndustryExp_f: none	0.220547	0.24999	0.88	0.379	−0.27193	0.713022
_cons	3.159145 ***	0.329481	9.59	0	2.510074	3.808217

Source: Authors’ survey data (2025). *** statistical significance (p-value ≤ 0.001).

.

In multiple regression analysis, categorical variables such as gender, age group, education, and professional experience must be properly coded to be included in the model. This is typically done by creating a set of dummy variables, where one category is designated as the reference group. The coefficients for the other categories are then interpreted as the difference in the dependent variable’s score relative to this reference group. For the gender variable, men were selected as the reference group. This is a standard statistical practice and is purely for analytical purposes; the choice of reference group does not affect the overall findings or the statistical significance of the model.

The regression model’s overall fit is captured by the R-squared (R²) value, a measure of how well the independent variables explain the variance in the dependent variable. Our model yielded a very low R² of 0.0268, indicating that only 2.7% of the variance in the perception of food waste’s importance is explained by the combination of gender, age, education, and professional experience. Furthermore, the overall model’s significance is assessed by the F-statistic and its corresponding p-value (Prob > F = 0.8322), which is well above the conventional significance level of 0.05. This confirms that, collectively, the variables in the model do not statistically predict the dependent variable.

The regression coefficients for each variable reflect its unique effect on the dependent variable, holding all other variables constant. As the table shows, none of the individual predictors were found to be statistically significant, as indicated by their high p-values (p > 0.05).

• Gender: The coefficient for the female gender variable is 0.0727, with a p-value of 0.689. This means that, on average, women’s scores are only 0.07 points higher than men’s, a trivial and statistically insignificant difference.
• Age: Using the 18–24 age group as the baseline, all other age groups show no significant effect. The largest (though still insignificant) negative coefficient is for the 25–34 age group (−0.4659, p = 0.148), suggesting a slight tendency to perceive the problem as less important, but this is not a firm conclusion.
• Education: With a higher education level as the reference, both upper secondary and secondary education show insignificant negative coefficients (−0.23704, −0.06335). The perception of food waste’s importance is not meaningfully different across educational backgrounds.
• Professional Experience: With “1–3 years” of experience as the reference, there is no statistically significant effect from either more experience or a lack of it. This suggests that professional tenure in the sector does not significantly shape attitudes towards food waste.

The model’s intercept is highly significant (coef = 3.159, p < 0.001). This value represents the average perception score for the reference group (men, 18–24 years old, with higher education, and 1–3 years of experience). Its significance indicates a baseline agreement that food waste is an important issue, regardless of the other demographic variables.

Robustness checks were conducted to validate these findings. Variance inflation factors (VIF) were inspected and revealed no concerns regarding multicollinearity among the predictors. Furthermore, alternative regression specifications—such as models excluding non-significant predictors and re-estimations with robust standard errors—yielded consistent results. These checks reinforce the robustness of the findings, confirming that the absence of statistically significant predictors is not attributable to model misspecification but rather reflects the limited explanatory power of socio-demographic characteristics.

The limited explanatory power of the regression model (R² = 0.027) indicates that demographic and professional characteristics exert minimal influence on perceptions of food waste. This finding aligns with previous studies such as that of [70] which extends the Theory of Planned Behaviour and shows that intention, personal norms, and perceived control were the significant predictors of waste reduction, while socio-demographic variables were not; furthermore they highlighted the psychological and motivational roots of food-waste decisions. The findings also align with [32], which through a review of hospitality studies concluded that organizational culture, leadership commitment, and operational practices are much stronger predictors of waste management success than individual demographic traits of employees. Such studies suggest that behavioral and contextual variables such as organizational culture, psychological attitudes toward sustainability or perceived behavioral control play a more decisive role. Future research could therefore incorporate psychological constructs, e.g., environmental values, moral norms, or perceived efficiency, organizational variables, e.g., leadership commitment, internal sustainability training, and cultural factors shaping environmental behavior. Such multidimensional models could enhance explanatory power and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms driving waste-related attitudes and actions.

4.3. Discussion

4.3.1. Interpretation and Comparison of Results

The multiple linear regression analysis revealed that none of the examined socio-demographic or professional variables—gender, age, education, or industry experience—had a statistically significant effect on respondents’ perceptions of food waste seriousness. The model’s low explanatory power (R² = 0.0268) and lack of statistical significance (p > 0.05) suggest that such characteristics play a limited role in shaping environmental attitudes within the food business context. This outcome can be viewed positively, as it indicates that awareness of food waste is not restricted to specific demographic groups but is broadly distributed across the population, reflecting an emerging collective consciousness about sustainability.

These findings differ from earlier studies that reported demographic effects—such as gender and education—on environmental awareness. In the present study, the absence of significant demographic differences implies that food waste has become a socially normalized issue, recognized across gender and age boundaries. Although women showed slightly higher concern than men (mean scores of 3.01 versus 2.95), the difference was statistically insignificant. However, men were significantly more likely to report the existence of formal corporate policies on food waste. This divergence may reflect role differentiation within organizations, where men are more likely to occupy managerial or policy-related positions with greater exposure to formal frameworks, whereas women may be more engaged in operational activities that emphasize daily practices.

Correlation analyses further showed weak and statistically insignificant associations between key constructs—such as perceived seriousness of food waste, environmental impacts, technology adoption, and internal policy presence. These findings suggest a fragmentation in how respondents conceptualize food waste: awareness does not consistently translate into practical or institutionalized action. In essence, while food waste is acknowledged as a societal concern, organizational and operational responses remain partial and underdeveloped.

Despite these gaps, several positive tendencies emerged. Respondents expressed strong agreement with statements regarding consumer willingness to purchase discounted near-expiry products, the perceived economic benefits of reducing waste, and the importance of improved supply chain management. These areas of consensus represent promising entry points for intervention, particularly where environmental and financial motivations converge.

Building on these findings, it is essential to interpret their broader relevance within both theoretical and practical domains. The observed patterns of awareness, policy engagement, and behavioral responses provide important insights into how sustainability principles are operationalized across the Greek food sector. To clarify these contributions, the following sections distinguish between the theoretical implications—concerning the conceptual and analytical understanding of food waste—and the practical implications, which translate the results into actionable strategies for policymakers and businesses.

4.3.2. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of food waste management by integrating the triple bottom line framework—economic, environmental, and social sustainability—into the analysis of business practices within the agri-food sector. It demonstrates that awareness of food waste, while widespread, does not automatically translate into structured action, emphasizing the importance of institutional, organizational, and technological mediators. The findings reinforce sustainability and behavioral theories suggesting that organizational capacity and policy support are stronger determinants of pro-environmental action than individual socio-demographic characteristics [9,12,22,25]. Furthermore, the study enriches the literature on Southern European food systems, offering rare empirical evidence from Greece and illustrating how structural and cultural factors shape business engagement in sustainability initiatives. By linking micro-level managerial behavior with macro-level sustainability and policy frameworks, the research advances theoretical discourse on how circular and sustainable practices can enhance economic resilience and social responsibility across the food supply chain.

4.3.3. Practical Implications

The results also carry important practical relevance for policymakers, businesses, and civil society. For policymakers, the findings highlight the need to strengthen institutional support through fiscal incentives, tax benefits, and standardized reporting mechanisms to close the gap between awareness and implementation. Businesses should adopt digital monitoring systems, improve staff training, and promote redistribution partnerships with food banks and NGOs as part of integrated sustainability strategies [25,26]. Investing in forecasting technologies, resource recovery, and circular-economy initiatives—such as by-product valorization, composting, and biogas generation—can convert potential losses into economic opportunities, reinforcing both competitiveness and resilience [14]. The Greek food sector, in particular, can benefit from targeted public–private partnerships, clearer donation regulations, and capacity-building programs to accelerate the transition toward sustainable production and consumption patterns. Ultimately, food-waste prevention should be recognized not merely as an environmental necessity but as a pathway to innovation, competitiveness, and green employment creation, directly contributing to Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 and the broader objectives of the European Green Deal.

4.3.4. Limitations and Recommendations

This study offers one of the first quantitative, sector-specific analyses of food waste in Greece, but several limitations should be acknowledged. The survey focused primarily on businesses in the region of Achaia, with limited representation from other areas. Consequently, the generalizability of findings to the whole of Greece or to Southern Europe should be approached with caution. The reliance on self-reported data may also introduce bias, as respondents might overstate their environmental awareness or underreport wasteful practices. Additionally, the low explanatory power of the regression model suggests that demographic and professional variables alone cannot capture the complexity of attitudes and behaviors toward food waste.

Future research should therefore extend this work along three main directions. First, beyond socio-demographic predictors, future studies should investigate psychological, cultural, and organizational determinants such as personal norms, environmental values, or perceived behavioral control. Second, longitudinal and multi-level research designs could capture how organizational roles, governance structures, and consumer dynamics interact over time to influence waste-management practices. Third, advanced analytical methods—such as structural equation modeling (SEM) or hierarchical modeling—could provide a more nuanced understanding of the causal pathways linking awareness, institutional capacity, and operational outcomes.

By addressing these areas, future studies can refine theoretical models of food waste management and inform the design of policies that integrate environmental responsibility with business performance. Overall, the present findings emphasize that reducing food waste requires hybrid strategies that combine regulatory frameworks, fiscal incentives, organizational governance, and technological innovation. Aligning environmental goals with economic incentives remains the most promising route for achieving sustainability in Greece’s food sector and beyond.

5. Conclusions

This study examined food waste within Greece’s food service and retail sectors using survey data collected from 250 businesses. The results revealed a moderate but consistent awareness of food waste as a societal problem (M ≈ 3.0 across variables). However, this awareness is not consistently accompanied by structured organizational engagement. Businesses appear more responsive when environmental objectives align with operational or financial benefits, particularly in areas such as supply-chain efficiency, consumer willingness to purchase discounted near-expiry products, and the perceived economic advantages of reducing waste.

Gender-based analysis showed that men were more likely than women to report the existence of formal corporate food-waste policies, even though both groups expressed similar levels of concern. This outcome likely reflects role-based visibility within organizations, where managerial positions tend to have greater access to information about formal policies. Correlation analyses revealed weak and statistically insignificant relationships among awareness, policy presence, and technology use, highlighting a persistent gap between recognition and practice. Regression analysis further confirmed that socio-demographic and professional variables—including gender, age, education, and industry experience—did not significantly predict perceptions of the seriousness of food waste. Taken together, these results suggest that awareness of food waste is horizontally distributed across demographic groups but does not automatically translate into coherent strategies or policies.

The major contribution of this research lies in providing one of the first quantitative assessments of food waste perceptions within the Greek food service and retail sectors, emphasizing the integration of circular economy principles as a pathway toward supply chain resilience. Empirically, it delivers rare, sector-specific evidence from Greece, contributing to the limited body of research from Southern Europe. Theoretically, it reframes food-waste reduction as primarily an institutional and organizational challenge rather than one determined by demographic characteristics. Methodologically, it introduces a replicable framework that combines descriptive, correlational, and regression analyses to examine both awareness and behavioral responses. Collectively, the findings bridge a regional research gap in Southern Europe and generate policy-relevant insights linking environmental objectives with business competitiveness.

The policy implications of these findings are clear. Policymakers should prioritize universal awareness initiatives supported by structural interventions, including fiscal incentives, tax benefits, subsidies for digital monitoring tools, and standardized reporting requirements, in order to close the gap between recognition and implementation. At the business level, practical and low-cost measures such as discounting near-expiry products, improving inventory control, and enhancing collaboration with suppliers and food banks can generate both economic and environmental benefits. Transparent internal communication and targeted staff training are equally important to ensure that sustainability frameworks are visible and actionable across all levels of an organization.

Nonetheless, the study is not without limitations. The concentration of the sample in the region of Achaia constrains the generalizability of the findings to other parts of Greece or Southern Europe. The reliance on self-reported data may also introduce bias, while the limited explanatory power of the regression model suggests that additional psychological, cultural, and institutional determinants warrant further exploration. Future research should therefore investigate individual attitudes, social norms, and organizational cultures through longitudinal and multi-level approaches. Advanced modeling techniques, such as structural equation modeling, could provide deeper insights into the causal relationships linking awareness, institutional capacity, and practical implementation.

In conclusion, although awareness of food waste among Greek businesses is widespread, consistent implementation of reduction strategies remains limited. Meaningful progress requires hybrid approaches that integrate regulatory frameworks, economic incentives, organizational governance, and technological innovation. Aligning environmental responsibility with business efficiency appears to be the most sustainable and effective path forward for reducing food waste and strengthening resilience within the Greek food sector.