Enhancing compliance assessment through regenerative transformations – A food waste perspective

Abstract

Addressing food waste is a growing priority for hotel groups. However, aligning corporate sustainability goals with the practicalities of individual hotels is challenging. While hotels increasingly adopt certification programs to enable transparency on sustainability performance, there is a risk that compliance-based assessment systems may not fully capture the nuances of each hotel’s local context. The notion of regeneration, emphasizing reinvestment in people, place and the natural world, offers the potential to bridge the gap between corporate waste targets, hotel operations and local outcomes. Food waste, recoverable through a biological cycle, aligns with the principles of regeneration. This study explores the perspectives of practitioners involved in certification and benchmarking and those advocating for regeneration in the tourism sector. This study explores whether compliance assessment systems are sufficient to account for the challenges associated with hotel food waste and whether regenerative enhancements could be conceptualised. Through in-depth interviews, the research reveals a divide between compliance assessment and regeneration across key areas. A conceptual framework is introduced, highlighting areas of convergence that could enhance existing certification programs – with the ultimate aim of helping hotels reconsider their relationship with food waste and their local ecological system.

Keywords:

• regeneration
• food waste
• sustainability
• certification
• benchmarking
• hotels

Introduction

Food security, biodiversity loss and climate change are interconnected challenges that require immediate action (Pörtner et al., 2021). However, sustainability scholars and practitioners are grappling with how to consider complexity in a world of accelerating crises (Lenton et al., 2019). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are illustrative of the sheer number of issues, the risks of treating each issue separately (Nash et al., 2020) and the challenges of measuring impact and progress.

In tourism, there is growing pressure on destinations and individual operators to minimise environmental impacts and contribute to climate action, biodiversity protection and sustainable development (Calisto et al., 2021). For hotel groups, certification programs represent a key mechanism to provide transparency on their sustainability performance (Guix et al., 2018). Based on ISO quality management standards, certification programs typically involve establishing a system that companies commit to, followed by audits to confirm compliance (Font, 2002a; Toth, 2000). While the uptake of certification programs in tourism represents a positive trend, there is a risk that global hotel headquarters may fail to fully appreciate local context and destination-based opportunities. Recent experiences in agricultural and built environment research highlight both progress and challenges in the certification process for sustainability (Birkeland, 2014; Elevitch et al., 2018). Practitioners face the dilemma of balancing the need for standardised management systems with the necessity to be site-specific (Elevitch et al., 2018).

Hotel groups are seeking to address food waste and certification programs represent a pathway for doing so (Curtis & Slocum, 2016). Measuring food sustainability may take the form of “waste volume to landfill” (International Food Waste Coalition [IFWC], 2022a) accompanied by prevention measures and reduction targets by key dates. While this is a useful start, it does not fully account for the operational realities of food procurement and guest engagement in hotels (Okumus et al., 2020). In many ways, food waste is the “end of pipe” of a global processing and distribution system, that has the potential to release contaminants and greenhouse gases and require yet more land for safe storage. Minimising food waste and managing it in the least harmful way is therefore a priority. Reframing food waste as a cyclical resource is superior. Emerging thinking around enhancing the socio-ecological system within which a hotel operates, provides a key avenue to reconsider existing approaches to sustainability.

Thinking beyond singular metrics has gained traction in tourism, with the regenerative paradigm representing a shift in perspective on sustainability (Gibbons, 2020; Zaman, 2023). In tourism, the regenerative shift is based on ensuring that tourism reinvests in people, places and the natural world (Dredge, 2022). For example, reframing food waste as a material that can be transformed through a biological cycle, to add value to the local region of a tourism development. Applying a regenerative lens to hotel food waste issues would necessitate working with the hotel and wider community to identify symbiotic elements within the locality. This could involve linking a fine dining experience with a revival in traditional planting methods or utilising bioremediation techniques to remediate a neighbouring polluted site.

This study explores whether tourism certification programs are sufficient to account for the unique challenges posed by food waste in hotels and whether regenerative enhancements could be conceptualised. The rationale for focusing on food waste as a singular issue is to illuminate how regenerative thinking could be applied to enhance current systems and practices. Several studies have explored tourism certification programs from a quality management standpoint (Lesar et al., 2020; Weaver, 2006). However, there remains limited research that examines how a regenerative perspective might inform existing programs, from the viewpoint of practitioners.

This study is driven by two research objectives:

1. To understand the parameters for food waste action in hotels within the prevailing sustainability framework of compliance assessment.

2. To explore differences and potential areas of convergence between compliance assessment and regeneration, in the context of food waste.

Literature review

Food waste management and hotels

Any discussion on addressing hotel food waste must recognise the array of direct and indirect effects associated with food production and consumption. Food production requires a multitude of inputs, in addition to processing and distribution across a global chain of logistics (Halpern et al., 2022). The UN Food Waste Index (FWI) articulates food waste as “any substance—whether processed, semi-processed or raw—that is intended for human consumption and its associated inedible parts removed from the human food supply chain.” (FAO, 2022). While national data inventories are limited, hotel estimates report that one-third of all food produced globally is wasted annually, with some 18% generated by consumption in the hospitality and food service industry (IHG., 2021).

The UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 12.3 aims to halve global food waste across retail and consumer levels by 2025. As part of global efforts to meet the UN target, hotel sustainability leadership is advocating for collective action on food waste, whereby “everyone is part of the (food waste) solution—from the salesperson to the customer, the purchasing team to the culinary team, finance and engineering, vendors and non-profit partners” (Klatell, 2018). Food waste reportedly comprises 40% of the total solid waste generated in hotels (Curtis & Slocum, 2016). Contributing factors to food waste in hotels include purchasing errors, overproduction and waste generated during food preparation (Berardo et al., 2020). Several tourism-specific food waste management frameworks have been developed in recent years (see Pacific Asia Travel Association, Switch Asia, & Tour Link 2021, WRAP., 2023), to assist the industry meet SDG target 12.3. Consistent with the waste management hierarchy, the frameworks outline waste prevention as the priority, followed by redistribution and recycling measures, with the overall aim of reducing waste to landfill (Filimonau & Sulyok, 2021).

While a useful start, the general waste management hierarchy doesn’t readily engage with the competing priorities and local nuances of individual hotels (Chawla et al., 2021; Dolnicar et al., 2020). For one, establishing a food waste baseline can be difficult. Industry surveys identify segregation and sorting of food waste as an ongoing challenge for hospitality and food service operators (International Food Waste Coalition [IFWC], 2022b). In the area of food redistribution, initiatives for unavoidable surplus food are growing in popularity, particularly with hotels in urban centres (Camilleri, 2021). While a positive trend, initiatives must navigate complex health and safety requirements, that are not always feasible in remote destinations (International Food Waste Coalition [IFWC], 2022a).

Corporate brand values can also restrict food waste management efforts across the hospitality service cycle (Chawla et al., 2021). Specifically, corporate policies prioritise guest safety and satisfaction, considering food waste as a separate waste management activity (Charlebois et al., 2015). The implications of these restrictions are apparent with hotel recycling efforts and in particular composting initiatives. For food no longer fit for human consumption, common recycling measures include animal feed conversion, bioenergy and composting (Kasavan et al., 2022). While energy initiatives often require substantial investment, composting measures are considered an achievable on-site hotel initiative in many locations (Sealey & Smith, 2014). However, despite corporate sustainability efforts to align soil improvements and healthy foods with guest experience (Accor, 2019), composting is often operationalised as a burdensome waste management issue, in need of wider regulatory support (Sealey & Smith, 2014).

Sustainability, compliance assessment and hotels

Implementing a waste management framework requires new processes (Pirani & Arafat, 2014) that hotels may not have established. Subscribing to a certification program may help a hotel focus their efforts. Efforts to create an international umbrella for sustainable tourism certification led to the establishment of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) in 2011. Despite agreement on common criteria, there continues to be a range of tools and labels used in tourism (Lesar et al., 2020).

Meeting food waste targets and subscribing to a certification program are requisite activities for an increasing number of hotel groups. For example, Marriott International has set their target at 100 per cent of hotels certified to a recognised sustainability standard along with a 50 per cent reduction in food waste by 2025 (Marriott International, 2022). To help meet food waste targets, hotels have collaborated on the development of the Hotel Waste Measurement Methodology (HWMM) (Ricaurte et al., 2021). The general waste methodology provides a common industry approach to collecting data (IHG., 2021), helping hotels track and compare their performance against peers. In its infancy, preliminary food waste data sets from hotels utilising the HWMM remain limited (International Food Waste Coalition [IFWC], 2022a).

Functionally, certification programs form part of a conformity or compliance-based assessment system. The process involves a commitment by a company to a particular sustainability standard, and auditing to verify compliance (Font, 2002b). Certification programs favoured by hotel groups normally apply a combination of performance criteria and process-based management systems (Chen, 2019). While specific performance criteria vary, management categories generally cover independent social, cultural and environmental management categories (Mycoo, 2006). Food waste is commonly addressed under an environmental management category, grouped with reducing single-use items and plastics (see Supplementary Table A). With an emphasis on minimising negative impact, performance criteria align with the waste management hierarchy principles of prevention first, followed by reduction and recycling measures.

Based on ISO quality management standards, certification and auditing are closely linked. As a specialised area, auditing requires ongoing efficiency-based expertise and training (Mic, 2021). As sustainability tools have evolved, questions on the impact of auditing functions have been raised (Birkeland, 2014; Boiral & Gendron, 2011). Birkeland argues that the net result of an audit-based approach is a numbers game…where some “green” buildings offset poor energy performance by “adding” things like bicycle racks…or using certified timbers that are surplus to need (2014, p.11). In addition, companies limit their efforts to implementing processes that minimally meet the audit requirements (Boiral & Gendron, 2011).

In short, certification programs are a proxy for the compliance assessment approach. A certification program provides a framework for hotels seeking to minimise food waste and report their actions. However, debate continues as to whether the minimising negative impact is sufficient, and whether more can be done to support hotels reconceptualise food waste.

Sustainability, the regenerative shift and tourism

In tourism, arguments to reimagine how sustainability is understood and practised are not new (Dredge & Jamal, 2011; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Pollock, 2019). Compliance assessment frameworks are seen as inherently reactive, responding primarily to the risks posed by tourism development on the local environment (Dredge & Jamal, 2011). Building on an extensive body of socio-ecological systems research, regeneration reflects a societal recognition of the need to reconnect with the natural world (Mcdonough & Braungart, 2002). The regenerative movement emerged initially in response to conventional farming (Francis et al., 1986) architecture and design (Mcdonough & Braungart, 2002; Mang & Reed, 2015), and more recently, tourism (Becken & Kaur, 2021; Bellato et al., 2022; Duxbury et al., 2020). Regenerative tourism is commonly understood as ensuring that tourism reinvests in the health and vitality of people, places and the natural world (Cheer, 2020; Dredge, 2022).

Understanding how socio-ecological systems work at the local level (Reed, 2007) is integral to the regenerative shift (Gibbons, 2020). Further, regeneration emphasises interdependency between social and ecological aspects, as core to the health of the wider living system (Fullerton, 2015). Underpinning this emphasis is an understanding that all species form part of the web of life (Capra, 1996). For hotels, a regenerative approach to food waste would engage with the biophysical uniqueness and community values of a region (Birkeland, 2022; Wahl, 2019). For example, this would involve understanding the soil and terrain characteristics of the catchment, traditional and contemporary farming practices, informal dumping practices and existing food-waste value chains.

In practice, a regenerative approach recognises diverse thinking (Bellato et al., 2022), and encourages new ideas to emerge across the “edges” of disciplines (Mang & Reed, 2015). Specialised silos of expertise, while necessary, also serve as barriers to conceptualising interdependency with the natural world (Fullerton, 2015). For large hotels, a regenerative approach to hotel food waste requires engaging beyond the food and beverage (F&B) and purchasing teams. The approach necessitates including engineering, landscaping, events and housekeeping teams, as well as local environment and community stakeholders to consider socio-ecological relationships across the wider destination.

Regeneration emphasises mutually beneficial relationships with the local ecological system (McDonough & Braungart, 2002), rather than focusing on minimising impact. By extension, the regenerative approach considers food waste as a biological resource (Braungart, 2007). Drawing from industrial design influences (McDonough & Braungart, 2002), the emphasis is on transforming material flows within a technical service cycle or a biological cycle. Consequently, food waste represents a specific subset of material flows in a hotel, aligned with landscape organics (eg pruning material, grass clippings) but distinct from single-use plastics or plastic-lined (PET) paper cups that are not suitable for biological processing methods. For food and landscape organics, a relational response would consider dependencies and relationships in the local socio-ecological system. Engaging across hotel operational teams and local environment and community stakeholders, possibilities would be locally determined and could include on-site soil amendments, enhancing community planting schemes or supporting bioremediation of organic contaminants, where a pollution issue is identified in the catchment.

While interest in measuring successful regenerative outcomes is growing, it is not well understood (Robinson & Cole, 2015). The most difficult aspect to measure is the relationship between social and ecological aspects (Mang & Reed, 2015). Recent studies on regenerative tourism indicators (Hussain & Haley, 2022) continue to refer to minimising environmental impact. Initiatives that aim to measure positive impact like the B Corp movement, certify businesses committed to positive impacts across governance, workforce, communities, and the environment (Honeyman & Jana, 2019). However, tourism studies indicate that certified companies with high initial assessment scores, often lack subsequent improvement plans (Zebryte & Jorquera, 2017). Outside of tourism, tools that consider relationality, such as “warm data,” are being explored (Solomonian et al., 2020). Coined by Nora Bateson, warm data refers to information about the interrelationships between elements in a complex system (Bateson, 2015). Functioning primarily as a workshop tool, the International Bateson Institute (IBI) coordinate working labs for groups to explore systemic patterns in their local region.

In summary, addressing food waste and subscribing to certification programs are simultaneous priorities for hotel groups. However, aligning corporate objectives with the practicalities at individual hotels poses a challenge. There is also a pressing need for hotels to not only reduce food waste but also engage with the changing dynamics of the broader socio-ecological system upon which tourism relies. This study explores whether the current sustainability paradigm of compliance assessment inherent in certification programs is sufficient to support hotels tackle food waste and whether regenerative enhancements could be conceptualised.

Table 1 provides a synthesis of the literature on compliance assessment and regeneration for approaching hotel food waste.

Table 1. Summary of literature on compliance assessment systems and regenerative systems for approaching hotel food waste.

Compliance assessment	Regeneration
Global and standardised Standards create efficiencies, establishing a management system which a company adheres to. Common industry approaches to collecting waste data such as the Hotel Waste and Measurement Methodology (HWMM) help hotels track and compare their performance against peers.	Local and adaptive Emphasis on understanding how socio-ecological systems work at the local level (eg food waste-value chains, energy, soil health, informal dumping practice). Emphasis on tourism being part of a dynamic system; as external conditions change (eg weather events, fuel and fertiliser price hikes), the ability to adapt and respond is essential.
Independent criteria Independent performance criteria, segmented across quality management categories. In tourism, social, cultural and environmental management categories are typically used; waste is categorised under environmental management.	Interdependency Emphasis on interdependency, as integral to the health of the wider living system. Tourism’s material flows are considered in the context of the health and vitality of the wider destination.
Minimise negative impact – Linear systems Emphasis on reducing negative impact. For hotel food waste streams, this typically involves a focus on reducing waste to landfill, by as much as is practical.	Relationality - Material cycles Emphasis on creating a mutually beneficial relationship with local ecological systems. For hotel food waste streams, this would involve assessing how organic materials can be processed biologically to contribute to the wider locality of a hotel.
AUDIT-Based assessment and verification ISO-based; periodic audits are required to maintain certification; the audits are undertaken to verify continuing compliance to the specific standard. Auditing requires ongoing specialised efficiency training. Certification levels can be upgraded, the longer they are maintained.	Diversity and emergence Emphasis on diverse ways of knowing and cross-fertilisation of ideas at the “edges” of disciplines. Specialised silos of expertise are considered barriers to conceptualising interdependency between social and natural systems.

Materials and methods

A social constructivist approach was adopted for this study, whereby meaning and understanding are explored from the viewpoint of respondents (Grbich, 2010). Semi-structured and exploratory interviews were undertaken to gain an understanding of individual experiences and the varied perspectives of respondents.

Data collection

To garner a baseline understanding of tourism certification and benchmarking programs broadly and with respect to food waste, a desktop review of 15 sustainable tourism documents was undertaken (refer Appendix 3). Documents included destination, accommodation and tour-company standards that employed an ISO audit-based method, industry-partnership initiatives and food-waste-specific measurement methodologies. In addition, a hotel sustainable food charter (D14) and net-positive design tool (D15) were included in the review. D14 was included to capture insights from a hotel group while D15 was included to capture a research tool that functions as a design aid to the building and site design process.

Based on the desktop review, purposive sampling was used to recruit participants globally and data collection was conducted in two consecutive stages. Stage one included certification and benchmarking professionals and followed a semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix 1). Stage two interviews with regenerative practitioners followed an exploratory interview protocol (Appendix 2).

Stage 1. Semi-structured interviews with certification and benchmarking professionals

On the basis that certification programs are a proxy for the compliance assessment approach, the purpose of the stage one interviews was to understand (a) the parameters for hotel food waste action within existing programs and (b) how regeneration was perceived by certification and benchmarking professionals. Following a semi-structured format, the initial three questions were used to prompt a deeper discussion. Further probing questions were asked to interrogate participants’ professional practice, as well as the wider industry. Stage one interviews addressed research question one and contributed to research question two. Specifically, by providing perspectives on the distinctions and potential commonalities between compliance assessment and regenerative frameworks, that could support progress on the food waste challenge.

Introductory emails were sent to 18 organisations to identify a suitable interviewee. Two organisations were not available to be interviewed. Interviews were undertaken with 17 respondents from July—September 2022. Interviewees comprised sustainability professionals, representing the organisations for the documents assessed in the desktop review, including certification bodies and the GSTC Assurance Panel. With respondents located globally, interviews were undertaken virtually, via Zoom, for 45–60 min duration. Interviews were semi-structured, to provide a common set of questions (refer Appendix 1), while allowing respondents to explore specific areas of interest (Table 2).

Table 2. Stage one participants – tourism certification and sustainability professionals.

Participant (C1-C17)	Sector		Entity Type
	Tourism & Hospitality	Environment
C1	X		Accreditation – Assurance Panel
C2	X		Certification Body
C3	X		Certification Body
C4	X		Certification Body
C5	X		Certification Body
C6	X		Member Organisation
C7	X		Certification Body
C8	X		Certification Body
C9	X		Hotel – Corporate Sustainability
C10	X		Member Organisation
C11	X		Member Organisation
C12	X		Benchmarking
C13	X		Member Organisation
C14	X		Certification Advisory
C15	X		Member Organisation
C16	X	x	Certification Body
C17	X	x	Certification Body

The broad narratives of the stage one interviews were reviewed through NVivo software and initial themes were developed. From this, the interview protocol was adjusted to follow an exploratory approach for the stage two interviews.

Stage 2. Exploratory interviews with regenerative practitioners

The purpose of the stage two interviews was to gain further insights into the differences and potential areas of convergence between compliance assessment and regeneration, in the context of food waste.

Seven (7) exploratory interviews were conducted with a cross-section of practitioners advocating for regeneration, from tourism, food-systems and built environment (architecture, landscape architecture and planning) backgrounds. Five (5) participants had experience with tourism certification programs; three (3) through direct engagement with standards (R3, R4, R7), and two (2) indirectly, by working with communities engaging with GSTC-certified accommodation and tour operators (R1, R2) (refer Table 3). Participants were recruited from the authors’ professional network and through snowballing. All participants had over 10 years of working experience in tourism, hospitality and/or the built environment sector.

Table 3. Stage two participants – practitioners advocating for regeneration.

Participant (R1-R7)	Sector	Entity type
R1	Tourism & Built Environment- Landscape Architecture	Training & Advisory
R2	Tourism	Training & Advisory
R3	Built Environment - Architecture	Academic - Advisory
R4	Built Environment – Architecture and Landscape Architecture	Design and Master Planning
R5	Tourism & Hospitality	Training & Advisory
R6	Tourism & Hospitality	Training & Advisory
R7	Viticulture & Food Systems	Member Organisation

Interviews were undertaken virtually via Zoom, from August—October 2022 and lasted between 50 and 60 min. Interviews comprised of framing questions (refer Appendix 2), enabling respondents to discuss their work practice and philosophical approach to the process of compliance assessment. The final sample across both stages consisted of 24 respondents. Pseudonyms were applied to maintain the confidentiality¹ of respondents.

Data engagement coding and theme development

An iterative process for data engagement, coding and theme development was employed for this study (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Sketch diagrams and a reflexive journal were utilised throughout the coding process (Nowell et al., 2017) to document emerging impressions and facilitate debriefing sessions with the authorship team. Interviews were transcribed through Otter AI software, followed by a transcript review against the audio recordings. Transcripts and recordings were then filed in a central secure repository and dated.

A coding framework based on ISO quality management and regeneration literature was developed for documenting the analysis (refer Table 1). The framework was revised with the authorship team and served as a provisional template for reviewing the full data set.

Interviews were reviewed and coded using NVivo software, against the high-level categories of the coding framework. Following the initial coding exercise, codes and sub-codes were refined and repeated patterns were documented, with reference to the research questions. An initial thematic map was prepared to visualise the relationship between codes and potential themes and reviewed with the authorship team. Potential themes were further vetted through a combination of reviewing specific coded data extracts and returning to the audio recordings to ensure referential accuracy and coherence with the research questions. Drawing from earlier studies (Baker & Edwards, 2012) theoretical saturation was achieved at 15 interviews for certification professionals and five interviews for regenerative professionals, where there was close coherence in responses.

Results

Interview narratives were structured according to the research objectives of this study. Relevant objectives for each sub-section are summarised below.

Perspectives on current practice

For research objective one, understanding the parameters for food waste action in hotels within the prevailing sustainability framework of compliance assessment, two themes were identified. Theme 1.1 highlights the disconnect between global ambition and the local operational requirements of individual hotels. Theme 1.2 presents the tension between minimising negative impacts and ways to consider regenerative benefits associated with food waste.

Respondents reflected on their respective documents (refer Appendix 3), as well as wider practice.

Theme 1.1. Disconnect between global ambition and local operational requirements, resulting in limited motivation to collectively act on food waste

The motivation for action on food waste varied across respondents. At the corporate headquarters level, ESG and regulatory reporting requirements were identified as a strong driver. For individual hotels, financial savings were seen as the main motivation for action. Respondents discussed varying reasons for the disconnect between global ambition on food waste and local hotel operational priorities.

Respondents working with headquarter-based hotel sustainability teams identified food waste as part of a global shift in climate action. Food waste was described as a visible issue, particularly in large hotels where “… if you’ve got a buffet, and you’ve got people over piling their plates and chucking half of it away…you can see that.” [C12] Food waste was also seen as having environmental and social dimensions, that engaged guests more readily than other issues, like energy efficiency. For example, “if you start to talk about food waste, you’ve also got the social impacts of that…I think that makes it easier to engage both team members and guests.” [C10] Respondents also noted the influence of ESG and regulatory reporting requirements from corporate and government customers. Specifically, the growing demand for independent verification of sustainability performance, whereby “corporate and government customers are selecting venues to host events in facilities that can show additional credentials…this is definitely something that will be more and more important.” [C4]

At the individual hotel level, financial savings were seen as a key motivation for operators. Specifically, savings within purchasing and food and beverage teams, as well as waste disposal costs. Tour operator certifiers, on the other hand, saw food waste as outside their remit, noting “Yes, it’s (food waste) a big issue… but it’s really a problem mainly for the hotels—we can only follow their documents.” [C7]

Respondents highlighted a range of contributing factors to the disconnect between global and local priorities. Certification professionals noted the lack of support for individual hotels to implement targets. Specifically, that corporate sustainability policies “are never substantiated with adequate allocation of resources… there is a huge discrepancy between the official policies and what is actually happening (around food waste).” [C3] Others concurred, noting the competing requirements of individual hotels, whereby “they don’t really have time to do things that aren’t going to have some kind of immediate payback for them.” [C11]

Other respondents identified that the structure of certification programs served as a barrier to connecting food waste targets with individual hotel priorities. Built environment respondents acknowledged that the various management categories in a standard had a certain logic, coordinating technical inputs across various disciplines. However, the net result of discrete management categories is that “a lot of owners and clients struggle…and possibly even hotel operators to see the interconnectedness of issues—such as waste management, landscape, and guest experience.” [R4].

In summary, while the importance of addressing food waste was acknowledged, there appeared no common rationale or purpose for action among respondents.

Theme 1.2. Tension between minimising negative impacts and understanding regenerative benefits

Respondents highlighted that food waste was a relatively new sustainability issue, reinforced by the UN SDG process. The tension between minimising negative impacts and considering regenerative benefits was highlighted. Developing meaningful metrics was seen as a challenge, with the tourism sector perceived as a laggard.

Food waste was seen by respondents as a relatively new issue, that was “not on the agenda” a decade ago. [C2] With a food waste reduction target articulated in the UN SDGs, the GSTC now look for reference to food waste across all standards. Specifically, to “ensure that is being measured, that reduction strategies are being identified, and to minimise what is going to landfill.” [C1]

When asked to consider food waste in the context of regeneration, respondents expressed that the regenerative movement was not well understood in the tourism industry. The lack of a measurable definition or target was seen as a key barrier for hotel leadership. To quote,

when it comes to regenerative and net-positive…it’s kind of difficult for some (hotels)to grasp. It’s not as simple as science-based or net zero, where you’ve got afigure…you know, what you’re aiming for. [C10]

The regenerative movement was noted as being part of a global mindset shift, which tourism wasn’t leading. Respondents noted,

I think it’s probably part of a global move…I don’t think we’ve seen anything particularly outstanding in the tourism industry from my point of view…certainly nothing that’s coming through in the standards that we see. [C1]

Regenerative practitioners concurred with this critique, reflecting on some of the inherent challenges in tourism. Whereby,

There’s so much evolution of our thinking going on globally. Yet tourism keeps getting stuck…operating in a silo. It’s always been about growth…with little discussion around what is success in tourism and what is our future relationship to tourism. [R2]

Determining relevant metrics was a point of extensive discussion. While the harm minimisation focus was seen as insufficient, measuring regenerative benefits was noted as challenging. In particular,

How do you measure life? I don’t think anyone really has a clear answer to this. Some of the conversations we are having…with indigenous peoples in New Zealand, who do have ways of assessing the life force of a place, that’s inherent to Te Ao Māori… trying to bring that into a corporate setting is extremely challenging. [R5]

In summary, food waste was identified as a relatively new issue for certification programs in tourism to consider. Overall, the narratives reflected a knowledge gap in the industry of what constitutes regenerative practice in tourism.

Perspectives on future possibilities

For research objective two, distinctions and potential areas of convergence between compliance assessment and regeneration, the analysis identified two key themes. Theme 2.1 highlights limitations within current programs which are not conducive to local outcomes and Theme 2.2 summarises possibilities for considering mutually beneficial relationships.

Theme 2.1. Common waste approaches result in compromises and do not prioritise local outcomes

Discussions highlighted that the emphasis on common methodologies and indicators was not conducive to working closely with the locality of a hotel. Food waste-specific examples were discussed as well as broader limitations on the design process for new hotels and refurbishment projects.

The disconnect between common methods and local outcomes was emphasized by built environmental professionals who criticised the subjective nature of benchmarking. Specifically, where ‘the goal posts were consistently shifted according to what was easy and convenient to report’ [R3] over what was relevant to the local ecology and social context. The Hotel Waste and Measurement Methodology (HWMM) exemplified this tension. Initially aimed at food waste and SDG 12.3, the HWMM was redesigned as a general waste methodology, utilising an intensity metric² of waste generated per floor area. In effect, the common metric enables the integration of waste with existing metrics in the Cornell Hotel Sustainability Benchmarking Index (CHSB). However, respondents recognise that the approach is flawed when applied to food waste. To quote,

We know this is a compromise, we know using floor space is a compromise as an intensity metric. But it’s complicated when you look at where waste is generated within a hotel…and then you end up at the corporate level, like a Marriott or a Hilton, you need to have some way of rolling it up…we used floor area because that aligns with certain other things that we’re doing. Everybody has that data. [C12]

Further discussions revealed an acknowledgement that food waste should be considered separately from other waste streams. Specifically:

Perhaps the answer is to report inorganic waste and food waste. Maybe this notion of one waste metric is not realistic. Maybe it needs to have a food waste metric on its own, which would then allow for more flexibility, and you report separately. [C12]

Global definitions were also seen as incompatible with diverse ways of working and emergent thinking. Respondents emphasised that regenerative approaches work with potential, that is grounded in the locality, whereby ‘indicators have to be place-based and co-created with the community.’ [R5] Respondents noted that the push for common definitions was seen as unhelpful, in their work with food operators. In particular,

…there’s a real push for definition and something that can be audited. Because that’s how we prove that we’ve done something good. But if we apply a global definition of regenerative agriculture, there’s a good chance that we won’t do anything differently … it would be way more useful to decide what regenerative is in the context of ourselves, and to continue to be on a pathway to making things better. [R7]

For built environment respondents, the limitations of compliance-based assessment were prevalent in the early accreditation process for a new build, through to the audit process of existing properties. Specifically, the “shopping list of options” in a standard was not conducive to a design process that considered site context and material flows, like food and water [R3]. Others echoed this sentiment, expressing that compliance-based assessment did not inform their work. To quote, “We were already thinking about these issues, and in many ways, we tend to go beyond (the standard) …we just know that it’s a requirement that we have to meet.” [R4]

Theme 2.2. Potential to support understanding of interdependency with local socio-ecological systems

Built environment respondents were pragmatic about the potential to enhance current certification programs. Underpinning the discussions was a sense that certification programs could be enhanced to engage design teams, hotel owners and operators on local outcomes and interdependencies. Interesting possibilities were discussed, including the potential to link food waste and landscape system health through grading levels within a certification program.

The reinforcement of relationships and interdependence with local ecosystems were considered crucial for regeneration [R1]. However, respondents working with hotel operation teams noted a lack of understanding of what these concepts mean in practice. To quote,

I think what we are seeing is lots of latching on to the word (regenerative)…we’reseeing a lot of using the word without the reflection. [R6]

Guidance for tourism operators, through practical examples of regeneration, was highlighted. For instance, ‘the larger operators that I am connected to, they would see regenerative as a trend rather than a way of doing business and probably not having enough exposure to practical examples of things, or systems.’ [R1]

Respondents advocated for a certification process that underpinned the initial design phase for a new hotel or refurbishment project, rather than merely a “box-tick exercise” at the end [R3]. Respondents working with standards within certification programs noted:

it’s about instilling that purpose and culture right from the beginning. And that’swhere certification can really help…setting out ways of doing things. It really isabout engaging the owner, who’s typically locally based, and has that localunderstanding, rather than necessarily the international operator. [R4]

Respondents further reflected on how interconnected thinking could be facilitated through targeted enhancements of existing standards. A preamble approach was discussed, to connect systems-level objectives across the various categories of a standard. The benefits of a coordinated framework would be to outline interdependencies between performance criteria, and complementary outcomes for the hotel operator and owner. For food waste and soil health specifically, where “elements like construction, food waste and biodiversity enhancement can be linked together” [R4] in the standard and contribute to the guest experience.

Suggestions were made to draw inspiration from methodologies outside of tourism. Respondents emphasised the importance of integrating the measurement and reporting of benefits into the broader change process. For example,

(Tourism) could learn a lot from getting outside of its industry bubble and embracingthings from other industries - like B Corp and other tools…because unless you’vegot impact reporting and transparency around the net benefits that you’re creating…you’re just regurgitating the same system. [R1]

The importance of having a way of evaluating change, or “that we are moving in the right direction” [R5] was also noted. Respondents discussed the potential to link food waste and landscape system health with grading levels within a certification program. To quote,

…one thing that would be interesting with certification is, if that ecosystem is evolvingand getting richer, how can resorts benefit? How can they up their accreditation level?How can they then step up a notch? [R4]

Discussion

This study explores whether compliance assessment systems are sufficient to account for the challenges and opportunities associated with food waste issues in tourism and whether regenerative enhancements could be conceptualised.

Figure 1 summarises key aspects across the existing scope of assessment on the left, regeneration on the right and potential areas of convergence. The areas of convergence summarise how certification programs can be enhanced to support relationality, or connectedness, through food waste action. More specifically, a relationship between a hotel and the health and vitality of its local socio-ecological system.

Figure 1. Compliance assessment systems and regenerative systems – areas of convergence that support a relational response to food waste.

Existing scope

Several aspects of compliance assessment systems reinforce the notion that food waste is an environmental problem that needs to be managed and minimised. For one, while food waste is recognised as a pressing issue, accrediting bodies like the GSTC outline the bare minimum, merely that food waste “is measured, that reduction strategies are being identified, and to minimise what is going to landfill.” [C1] In addition, food waste is listed under an environmental management pillar, and not referenced in the cultural and socio-economic pillars of GSTC-certified and accredited accommodation and destination standards (see Supplementary Table A). As a result, hotel owners and operators subscribing to a certification program often fail to see the potential linkages between “waste management, landscape, and guest experience.” [R4] These findings align with previous studies, where sustainable tourism standards are seen as inflexible and incompatible with local requirements (Jarvis et al., 2010).

The tendency for benchmarking programs to prioritize what is convenient to report, over outcomes for individual hotels was also highlighted. For example, general waste metrics adopted under the HWMM were chosen to align with existing energy and carbon metrics utilised in the Cornell Hotel Sustainability Benchmarking Index, primarily because “everybody has that data” [C12]. This approach has resulted in an intensity metric that is not based on how food waste is generated and that has not been widely adopted by industry (International Food Waste Coalition [IFWC], 2022a). Wider studies on standardised indicators for measuring waste reduction highlight similar challenges (Veleva et al., 2017).

Findings identified that a simple audit to verify compliance to a given standard was not conducive to a regenerative approach. Respondents with working experience of certification programs noted that the net effect of auditing functions was a focus on documentation and reporting over local outcomes, as “we are already thinking about these issues.” [R4] These observations are also echoed in studies on building rating schemes (Birkeland, 2014; Du Plessis, 2012).

Areas beyond compliance assessment

Understanding how socio-ecological systems work at the local level is identified as integral to regeneration (Reed, 2007). Findings highlight that working with the potential of a local socio-ecological system and adapting to change, are not well supported by compliance-based approaches. Practitioners expressed that the process of complying with a standard can have the effect of “not doing anything differently” [R7] for entities already doing well, relative to their peers. These findings align with the literature critiquing B Corp certification, specifically where companies achieving initial high assessment scores did not tend to develop plans for improvements (Villela et al., 2021). Recent studies also highlight the limitations of standardised approaches and the plethora of tools to enable more sustainable and resilient practice in tourism (Lesar et al., 2020).

By extension, recognising diverse ways of knowing was seen as incompatible with a compliance-based approach. This was evident in discussions about indicators and conceptualising the “life force of a place” [R5] from a Te Ao Māori perspective. Previous studies, arguing for a reorientation of certification towards equitable and meaningful relationships with the biophysical world, highlight similar challenges (Jamal et al., 2006).

Future possibilities – areas of common ground

Key areas of common ground between compliance-based assessment and regeneration were highlighted. Meadows (1999) argues that one of the most effective levers for changing a system is to change its purpose. Applying Meadows (1999) hierarchy of leverage points, the regenerative paradigm represents one such deep shift in sustainability thinking. Compliance assessment systems, while a shallow lever, have the potential to expand beyond quality management and provide a pathway for hotels to reconceptualise their relationship with food waste.

Findings show that the notion of interdependency with local ecological systems was not well understood. A lack of practical examples and useful metrics were seen as key barriers. Findings highlighted interesting possibilities that could be achieved through existing programs. One avenue is linking biological processing and landscape system health to certification upgrades [R4]. Rather than basing upgrades solely on how long a standard has been maintained, an accreditation upgrade could include indicators for soil health improvements or increased species diversity.

Findings also point to the benefits of a separate Hotel Food Organics Garden Organics Waste Measurement Methodology (HFOGOMM), as “this notion of one waste metric is not realistic” [C12]. Complementing the existing HWMM, the new methodology would recognise food and garden organics as a specific subset of waste, suitable for biological processing and reuse in the wider destination of a hotel. In addition, the HFOGOMM could serve as a learning resource for the Cornell Hotel Sustainability Benchmarking Index, corporate sustainability and hotel operational teams. This would allow for the co-development of alternative metrics, in addition to intensity metrics. For example, metrics that also consider the beneficial local impacts of organic waste diversion and reuse. These findings align with previous studies on systems-based approaches to sustainability indicators (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004).

Within existing certification programs, the linking of performance criteria across management categories was identified as a key area of convergence (refer Figure 1). A preamble to existing standards was suggested, outlining how various environmental, social and cultural management categories and technical criteria interrelate and contribute to the guest experience [R4]. Findings highlight that the benefits of a preamble to existing standards would be most clearly realised in the design phase for a new or refurbished property. For food waste, the preamble could facilitate interconnected thinking at the “edges” of disciplines (Fullerton, 2015). Specifically, where consulting teams that typically work on discrete components are required to consider symbiotic elements between ecosystem health, cultural revival and guest experience in the design process (eg composting facilities co-located with rooftop gardens that also serve a passive cooling function for buildings, and/or community-based “farm to table” guest experiences). These findings align with recent work in the built environment literature, namely resources like the STARfish design tool (refer Supplementary Table A), which applies whole-system analysis beyond the property line of a building (Birkeland, 2022).

In effect, the proposed enhancements extend beyond food waste, necessitating a shift in both systems and mindset within existing compliance-based assessment structures (Dredge, 2022). As a starting point, identifying how various management categories interrelate could be articulated in the GSTC-accommodation criteria, introducing high-level guidance for certification bodies seeking to adopt regenerative enhancements. Upskilling for certification and benchmarking professionals would also be beneficial, to foster an understanding of regeneration in practice. This aligns with the literature advocating for a reimagined approach to sustainability education (Brown, 2015; Sonetti et al., 2019).

As an exploratory study, this research had several limitations. Interviews were conducted with a small cohort of respondents, which may not be reflective of wider industry perspectives. While this was mitigated by the experience and diversity of respondents, interviews with hotel owners, communities, policymakers and destination marketing organisations could add depth to future research. Exploring whether interconnected thinking could be embedded in the auditing process for existing hotels could also be a key area of follow-up research. Additionally, understanding the implications of emerging regenerative tourism policy on certification programs would be an important area of future study.

Conclusion

This study delves into the adequacy of compliance assessment systems, inherent to certification, in dealing with the issue of hotel food waste and explores the potential for regenerative enhancements to existing systems and practice.

This research is one of the first studies to explore how emerging shifts in sustainability thinking are reflected in tourism certification programs, from the perspective of practitioners. This is important as certifying for sustainability is considered a key element of measuring progress in sustainable tourism practice and rapidly becoming a requirement of hotel groups. An increasing number of hotels are also committing to food waste reduction targets and advocating for collective action.

Findings reveal a divergence between compliance assessment and regenerative practice across various crucial aspects, alongside notable points of convergence that can improve how food waste is conceptualised by hotel groups. Key areas of common ground relate to elements of existing practice that could be enhanced. These include (i) supporting beneficial material cycles; (ii) the development of a standalone HFOGO measurement methodology and (iii) linking performance criteria across management categories, through a preamble to existing standards. In practice, a preamble to existing standards would be most beneficial in the early design phase for a new or refurbished property.

This study contributes to the growing body of literature on measuring progress in sustainable tourism practice, by including perspectives on regeneration to existing stakeholder inclusiveness and quality control studies (Guix et al., 2018; Lesar et al., 2020; Weaver, 2006). The study identifies the opportunity for certification programs to support a relational response to place and the natural world, through the lens of food waste. More specifically, the relationality between a hotel and its local socio-ecological system, which is distinct from previous quality management-focused studies (Lesar et al., 2020). Accordingly, the study contributes to the discourse on the purpose of certification programs and notions of measuring impact and progress. In addition, the study also extends the emerging literature on regenerative hospitality and tourism futures (Bellato et al., 2022; Legrand et al., 2024), by identifying a framework to consider symbiotic elements between food waste, ecosystem health, cultural revival and guest experience.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to all the interviewees that were so generous with their time and insights. This paper has also benefited from the contributions of the following people: Steve Noakes, Silvano Dressino, Dr. Dick Watling and the late Dr. Andrew McGregor, for their early guidance on conceptual frameworks. More broadly, to the team and community of Momi that inspired this study - vinaka vakalevu.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Government.

Notes

1 Research was undertaken in accordance with Griffith University research ethics protocols and guided by the Australian Council for International Development & Research for Development Impact Network 2017 ‘Principles and Guidelines for Ethical Research and Evaluation in Development’ 7).

2 Intensity metrics are used to enable comparison of performance across different types of hotels. For energy, the commonly used denominator to derive intensity is floor area (Ricaurte et al., 2021).

Appendix 1:

Stage 1 interview form

Appendix 2:

Stage 2 interview form

Appendix 3.

Baseline review – key documents

Table

Document (D)	Author/Entity	GSTC-Recognised	GSTC-Accredited
Industry Criteria 2016 – performance indicators for hotels & accommodation [D1]	GSTC
Destination Criteria Version 2.0 2019 - with Performance indicators and SDGs [D2]	GSTC
ECO Certification standard, 2021 [D3]	Ecotourism Australia	x
ECO Destination Certification 2021 [D4]	Ecotourism Australia	x
Company standard 2022 [D5]	EarthCheck		x
Destination standard 2022 [D6]	EarthCheck		x
Certified standard for travel companies 2021 [D7]	TravelLife		x
Hotel Sustainability Basics 2022 [D8]	World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC)
Pathway to Net Positive Hospitality for the Planet 2022 [D9]	Sustainable Hospitality Alliance
Hotel Waste and Measurement Methodology 2021 [D10]	Greenview and World Wildlife Fund for Sustainable Hospitality Alliance
Food and Plastic Waste Reduction – Standards for Tourism Businesses 2022 [D11]	Pacific Asia Travel Association
The Pledge on Food Waste – summary [D13]	The PLEDGE™ on Food Waste
Healthy and Sustainable Food Charter 2019 [D14]	Accor Group
STARfish – Net Positive Design and Planning Tool 2019 [D15]	Dr. Janis Birkeland, Honorary Professorial Fellow, Faculty of Architecture, University of Melbourne